Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-04-03

Iurrler no bill by D.)........... 1901 81 1901 81
Carpe-cers work. ...--.......... 1881 OIL 27sl IS
Jojsers work.................... 5,TlT 80 1855 81
Wrought iron do 80. 1920 % 1890 %
Galvanized iron. .............. asa 10 5S79 "a
Speaking tubes. SIS 90 $50 90
Plasrering and cement work mo bid
for cement by D. SIG As sic As
Painting. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. 2OSS 90 1882 90
Glass and Glazing. ............... 500 90 O57 so
Plumbing 5000 90 2,649 so
Plugging (nO bill by Dunlap. 43l 90 43I 90
Total. sss, SO4 65sl47, sl4 So
Difference in favor of Dunlap's bid s24. 1855 SO,
instead of S56,093 80, as given by the commit
tee. Figures never le," is an old adage, but
in those days figures never passed through the ma
nipulations of this erudite and conscientious com
mittee.
THE TWO BIDS COMPARED.
The committee next assure us that before the
bids were awarded, cat least part of the Direc-
tors, and the Governor, combined, and went to
work to induce Dunlap's bid to be withdrawn,
vacated; the Cove nor visiting the parties, and
seemingly doing all in his power to bring about
such result Finally, after several DAYS nego-
tiation between the parties, the Governor, Direc-
tors, Talbot & Co.. and Mr.. Bagot, twas agreed
that Talbot should pay Bagot 81 000," etc. In
justice to the dead, who sleeps in his cold and
silent grave, beyond the reach of Islander and
defamation, we brand the statement as basely
meanly, grossly false and infamous. There is not
one cord Of Evidence to sustain the atrocous and
diabOlical calumny. 1t has no foundation except
in the unsigned memorandum or letter of
drunken l0afer. The testimony of the witnesses
on both sides shows that Bagot, one of Dunlap's
partners, and DIR. Mullen were great friends, and
that Mullen was anxious for Bagot's success
According to Bagot, Mullen told him that it was
impossible for him to get the contract, and adj
visei him to withdraw and make the best bargain
with TalhAft & 20 that ha noplI ot.
ing to Mullen, when the first award was made
Bagot told him that he would have nothing to do
with the contract-that he understood him then as
virtually withdrawing at that time-that after
ward he approached him and said he would sell
out to Talbot for a sufficient to paw his ex-
penses-tbat he did so and rendered a letter to
the Board withdrawng-tha inasmuch as Bagot
lived in his county, Mr.. Talbot, after the letting,
placed sum of money in his hands to be conveyed
to him, etc. Now, where is the evidence that
Gov. Willard or the other Directors knew any
thing about this transaction, that they combined
and went to work to induce Dunlap's bid to be
withdrawn? Where is the evidence that the Gov
ernor visited the parties, and interested himsefto
bring about this result? We defy the committee
to point out the testimony that would give the
least plausible ground for such calumny Let
them do so, or, before the public, bear the odium
of having quoted as evidence that which can no
where's be found in it, for the unworthy purpose
of not only maligning the living, but defaming
and blackening the memory of the dead That
great statesman and natures own unrivaled orator
now 'sleeps the sleep that knows no waking, but
his memory is yet dear to every true hearted In
dianian. His spirit has fled to another land, but
his services to Indiana are yet remembered in the
hearts of grateful people, the echo of his clarion
voice is yet ringing in their ears and his manly
form and lofty bearing vet loom up before their
minds eyes. Ashbel p. Willard will live in the
hearts of the people, and on the undying pages OF
history, when his petty maligners will have sunk
from mortal vision, and been buried in oblivion's
deep waters, and the base ISLANDERS spread upon the
pages of this report will lie smothered in their
own atrocious infamy.
The committee next inform us that they have
good reason to believe that Dr. Mullen was the
"secret" partner in the Dunlap Did, - instead of his
brother Alexander Mullen; and in another place
we are told that one of the Directors "was Mt least
Indirectly if not dire city deeply interested in the
Dunlap bid" The committee must be gifted with
exceedly short memories indeed Only a few line:
before they represent this very Director, Dr. Null
len, as combining with the Governor, and going to
work to induce Dunlap's bid to be withdrawn, the
very bid in which he was ''secret partner" anC
in which he was "deeplyinterested"i Most astute
paradoricot committed Either one of your state
ments must be untrue, for the one knocks tht
foundation from the otherl You can take which
ever horn of the dilemma you please.
Now, we aver that the committee had the bes
of reasons to believe the very contrary of what
they say they believe in reference to this matter
| Their OVID witness, Dunlap, swears that Dr. Null
len did not return here, and knew nothing of Dun
lap until the latter part of May; the committee
themselves say he returned in July; vet the part
nershp agreement living before them shows that
it nj Nall
ner, as early as the 18th of May; so Dr. Mullen
could have had nothing to do with it.
DUxLAP's RESPONSIBILITY
We come now to the merits of the contract it.
self. The committee say that Dunlap was good
and that one of the securities he offered was the
Hon. James Guthrie, of Kentucky. The defense
asked that Col Samuel Casey, of the Joliet Prison
Illinois, should be examined on this point This
| gentleman had told Gov. Willard that, if Dunbar
got the contract, the work not only would never
be finished, but would never be begun. The com
mittee refused 10 haze him examined Why? Let
the public decide.
But who, except the committee. says that he is
a responsible man? Himself. The very witness
they summoned to sustain him gives the best OF
reasons why he should never have had the con
tract. He (Col. Runnion) swears: "He Dunlap
will take spree occasionally. have known him
| to stick to his work for three months at time.
1 haze seen him drinking freely ionr or fue times
per gear, tchen he came to tOicn." And this is the
responsible man, who actually had been known &c
stick to his work for three inh0le months at a time
Wonderful perseverance! Remarkable industry
Just to think that for three months he stuck tc
his work, and was not drunk oncel The commit
tee may regard, perhaps, his drinking capacities a.
a recommendation, and that spree occasionally
has the effect of making man good, but We
opine they willhave some difficulty in convincing
the people of Indiana that habitual or even al
occasional" drunkard is a fit person to Ike
charge of their public buildings, and to be en-
trusted with responsible duties, where the State
may become heavy loser.
DUNLAP's BIDS FRAUDULENT.
But we unhesitatingIy state that upon its yer,
| face the bid was fraudulent one. IL proposeC
to do portion of the work at price so low rs Il
raise the presumption at once that other portions
would be so exorbtantly high as to make up, j
not exceed, the loss. and for this very purpos'
there were omissions in the bid. The architec
swears: 1.-The State would have lost, in nv opin
ion. S25, 900 5000, if they had taken Dun
laps bid, because Dunlap propo ed to cut stone a
cents per superficial foot, which he could not af
! ford TO do, and other work which would have t.
have been completed before the cut-stone wal
furnished, was at a fair price under his bid, and
think there would have had to have been a relet
| ting OF the cut-StOne. In other words, the tricl
was this-either to go on and do the work tina
preceded the cutting of the stone, for which h,
would have been well paid, and after getting tn,
pay for this leave the State in the lurch bv aban
dOning the cut-stone work, which alone coul,
have induced the giving of the contract to him
and thus plunge the State in heavy expenses, o.
go on and do it, and then charge double o.
treble price upon the work not included in the hid
And Mr.. Dunlap had given himselfample space {,
DO the latter. The work omitted in his bic
Amounted in Talbot & Co.'S. bid to over S24 600
If Dunlap had got the contract and gone witt
the work as soon as he got to cutting stone HI
would either have abandoned it, or going on would
have charged $4,000 or 500, 900 for what Tai
bolt & Co. were only 10 get S23 900. These ar,
well known to be the "tricks of the trade" anC
experienced men, whenever they see such bid
write fraudulent" across its face. and pitch il
aside. Let us give an instance of this latter prac
tise. In Dunlap's bid the item of pointing ant
/ flushing is omitted. The architect swears: 1.-THE
pointing and flushing is "a trick ofthe trade You
will find generally that when bid is made with
out saying anything about flushing and pointing
after the wall is put up you will have to pay extra
for flushing" This is the way these things are
managed The Directors ought to have instantly
| rejected the Dunlan bid for fraud uDOn its face