Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1861-04-18
PLYMOUTH. INDIANA THURSDAY. April. 1s. 1861.

- - -. - - -,
in the price of materials, to the amount o
! $50. 600. The position of the Governor
on this point. is fully sustained by the cv.
idence Of DR.. Taylor, of Logansport, and
the contrast between the price of material.
at Logansport. and Michigan City. s -
DIR. Taylor testifies that a committee o
responsible citizens at Logansport Offered
to furnish and contract lumber on tn,
grounds at $40 to S12 per NJ. (l.000'
Ruble stone 80 cents per perch. aad bricl
on the grounds at 50 80 to S4 90 per. 1.
600. And it appears afterwards, when tht
Board, in presence of the Governor. wer,
canvassing the relative merits of Logans
port with other points. they the Board
had estimated these prices three or foul
times as high as really given by the Lc
gansport committee to the Governor. As
an instance, stone that had been given al
so cents per perch. they had estimated o.
80 per perch. Taking all the evidence to-
gether. it shows that there would hav,
been large saving to the State. especial.
~ in the price of materials, had the loca.
tion been at some point on the Wabash
river, instead of at Michigan City.
WHAT THE STATE COULD HAVE SAVED.
1t also appears that donations were of.
feriel, and could have been easily procured
to the State, By the citizens of both Fort
Wayne and Logansport; so that 100 acres
of ground would have been given to the
State without any cost whatever. and thus
made saving to the State of at lcas,
81, 500 paid for the land at Michigan
City. a-ie ta
1t is also apparent. that the $500 of.
fered to the Directors for the location at
Fl. Wayne could have been honorably
procured to the State. and would have
been saving Of that amount to the State
Treasury. if fair course had been pur.
sued
sa1 THE CONTRACT FOR BUILDING.
The first section Of the law provides for
the advertisement and letting the contract
for the building Of the prison. and that in
the contracts. provisions shall be made
for the working Of $50 convict laborers.
at not less than 20 cents rer day. to be al
lowed to the State out of the contract
price. 'Htts
And the fifth section declares, that said
prison shall not cost. exclusive of the con-
vict labor aforesaid. to ereeed the sum OF
fifty thousand dollars.
The committee find that the Directors
advertised letting of the work, and that
they would receive proposals until the 7th
day of May. 1860. at IL o'clock. ~. and
by that time there had beer nine bids sub
mtted to part OF the Bosrd. (Mr. Null
len being absent at Washington City
The Governor was also absent attending
the Charleston Convention;) includiuc
those of p. j. Moore. AMI George w
Dunlap. and bid of w. Y. Talbot &
Co.. composed of VIII. Talbot, a sill
versmith and jeweler of the city of Indi-
annapolis. and f, Costigan of the same
city, an architect and builder.
LATE BID.
The only bid that embraced the entire
work was that Of Talbot & Co.. and it
appears that their bill was not submitted
by the time allowed. nor until after the
Governor and Mr. Mullen had returned,
Wucu TIC hO0fus tOSctucE Will tue 0ON-
crnor. had their first meeting. on the =
day Of July. when for the first time. Tai
bott & Co.'s bid was produced by the
Governor. who took it from MS drawer,
stating that it had been left in his absence
They finally. after advising with the At
torney General. concluded to consider that
bid with the rest.
The plumbing was awarded to p. j.
Moore. ef Cincinnati. and all the work
was passed upon at their first meeting;
and the Board and Governor agreed to
award all before their separation. except
the brick work e'o y 3 q 8 at 80
George w. Dunlsp's bid was for heavy
portion Of the work. including foundation
work. stone. brick. iron. scarrenter' S
work. &c.. but did not include all the
work t g afnl a.I
The law. terms of letting. proposals
and all. allowed snd contemplated the
letting to be in parcels. to different per-
sons F W
WHAT SORT OF A CONTRACT WAS MADE.
It was found upon comparison of the
bids Of Talbot Il Co.. with that of Dun
lap. upon. . portion Of the items Of differ
ence in favor of Dunlap's bid was S3l. .S99
II. as shown By the report Of the architetc;
and as shown by other witnesses, was o
much larger amount. r.4f..
Mr.. Dunlap computes the amount that
the work would come to in his evidence,
and under oath states that under the bid
Of Talbot & Co.. the work