Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1861-04-18

4
George w. Dunlap" ssa .iei,DHsz.
At the time of the payment by B.
Mullen of the $500 to Bagot. he (Bagot.
signed a letter that had been prepared b,
Mullen for the purpose. by which Bago
withdrew from the Dunlap firm. as q
DUNN KICKS.
After the withdrawal of Bagot, il wa
then claimed by Mullen, Blake and tn
Governor. that the Dunlap 6rm was no
sufficiently safe. Major Dunn, however
contended otherwise. and to the last wa
for considering the Dunlap bid. aaifsal
The evidence abundantly shows tha
Dunlap was good-alwsys fulfilled hi
contracts. ard there was no objection
raised that he cord not give good bonds
men or security for his performance. On,
of his securities offered was Hon. Jame
Guthrie, Of Kentucky. ea asfaa-rerla
But Mullen. Blake and the Govcrno1
overruled Major Dunn. and refused tn,
further consideration Of Dunlap's bid, an,
awarded the whole of the letting, except
plambing. (which had bocn let to Mr.
Moore. to Talbot d Co., thereby losing
to the State the difference, as shown be-
tore. between these two bids. being as
much as the whole appropriation by the
Legislature. for doing the work.
FAITHFUL OFFICERS.
Il is expressly provided in the law. tha,
neither of the Directors of the then pres.
ent State Prison. nor any officer, agent
employee thereof or person connected
Herewith in anywise. nor any officer nam
ed in said act, should contract for any
portion of the work therein provided for
or have any interest, directly or indirectly.
therein. except to sec that the same was
faithfully executed; yet in the face of this
statute, one of the Directors, rs above
shown. was at least indirectly. if not d.
recfiy. deeply interested in the Dunlap bid.
and three Of them actively interested them
selves to procure the withdrawal of the
Dunlap bid, with view of favoring Tai
bott Il Co.. and the awarding of the whole
work. except the plumbing. to them. and
for which favor, so shown by the mem
bers of the Board, Talbot & Co, paid
over. through one of their number. 81 900
to buy Oft tue fair competition OF the low
er bid Of Dunlap. by which the State ac-
tually lost. as the preponderance of evil
dence shows, S56,093 SO.
The contract of Talbot & Co.. having
thus been obtained by fraudulent and un-
fair means, and at extraordinary high
prices. as the evidence shows, and much
higher than another responsible bidder;
and that too by the acts of Talbot Il Co..
preventing fair competition in the bidding.
legally is not binding on the State. and in
justice should be avoided.
1t is true that apart OF the Board:
whose duty it was to faithfully represent
the interest of the State. contributed to
the fraud. but the law clearly prescribes
their duty. which was known to Talbot
u Co.. and is no excuse to them to prac-
tico fraud upon the State. because her
agents had been uniaithful in the discharge
of their duty. 49,
1t may be further said. that tho Direct
ors, who were the mere agents of the State.
were only authorized to make contracts
for the erection OF q prison that would
not cost the State "to exceed the sum of
fifty thousand dollars" exclusive of the
convict labor to be provided for in the con-
tracts; hence. they had no authority to bind
the State in contract beyon1 that sum: it
was at their own peril. and not binding
upon the State. unless the State through
her legally constituted authority should
ratify and confirm the same. which it is
hoped will not be done.
LAYING 1T ON HEAVY
1t is disclosed by the evidence. that from
the time of the election by the Board.
| March 10Th. 1859. of the Architect. and
Superintendent of construction and ex-of
fcio Warden, the Board of Control az
iosced to the Superintendent and Warden,
as Superintendent SO per day for his SER
vices. and like sum for expenses. with
$500 as Warden, making $1,000 per an
mum for his services notwithstanding
there was nc location of the prison until
March ID. $780, and no conviots at the
place Of location until April 9th, 1860.
and no need whatever for his services pri-
or to the letting and commencing Of the
work ON the buildings.
II is hereafter shown how much Mr..
Seely has received personally for himself.
but that aay be very uncertain. as S46,-
5l3 0S is shown to have been paid to him
for salary and for contingent expenses at
the prison. 49, ~ isK no 80
SWELL FILLED POCKETS OF PARTY PETS"
The statute provided for the payment to
the Directors and Superintendent for the
time they should be necessarily and aefaal-
| " employed in their duties required by the
statute; each So per day for their services.
How much of their time has been nsees- :
sarily and actually employed. the Commit
tee haze no accurate data but suppose
that from the 16thsday Of March. 1850. to
the lst day of Jsnuary. 1861, Zone year.
nine and half mouths the Directors
were actually employed one year. i365 days,
each. then, would have been entitled to ro.
ceive by the statute. as members of the
Legislature receive theirs under q similar
statute. az 90 per day, Sl.095; but the
evidence shows they received saa
B. F. Mullen .hesa.g ssa il.a s4. 1913 SO
IJohn w. Blake s1- - 0oi ~ Ais AZ
j ohm r. Dunn .eaa siida 4. 100 "a
O. w. Seely. Superintendent 3.758 94
Edwin May, Architect ins1 4..245 SO
Making ssn:sassu y ole e2o.54286
Counting that each director was neces-
ssrily engaged as above. 365 days, (which
the Committee believe is larger than is