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

that $4,000 would be saved By locating the
prison at LOganspOrt, rests upon the unsupported
and unsustained evidence of one man, and is re-
butted by the plain facts of the case. We will
show at the appropriate place that the other fg1D
are alike unsupported by the evidence.
ELIGIBILITY OF MICHIGAN cDp1:
As to the eligibility of Michig9pcty as the site
for the new prison, we will mO~ely quote from two
witnesses whose TESTIMONY are amply corrobera-
. ted and are not deDied by any witness in refer
ence 10 this pozC Mr. Hendricks, the Repre-
sentative fro1fSt. Joseph county. and one of the
prosecutias witnesses, being also one of the re-
iected bidders, swears: Il regard the location at
Michigan City as healthy and eligible as any
place in the northern part of the State, and from
its peculiar location the work could be done
cheaper there than any other place in the northern
part of the State Mr.. May. whose duty it was
to inform himself of the prices of material at
every place visited not from the enthusiastic
statements of interested and irresponsible persons,
but from the amount paid by mechanics in build
ings being erected as he did, swears 81 think
Michigan City better location for prison (than
the other places) from the fact that we found we
could procure stone cheaper there than at any of
the other places In rubal stone do not think
we could have procured so good article that
which we secured at Michigan City, but the Wa
| bash ruba stone could be obtained at about the
same price as at Michigan City. The dimension
stone procured at Michigan City is about 80 per
cent cheaper than the stone of same character
could be procured at the other points. The rubal
stone work of the prison will cost about 81 ,OOO
and the dimension stone work about S6O,OOO
The cost of furnishing brick was found to be less
at Michigan City than other places. - Pine
lumber was much cheaper at Michigan City than
at any other point The cost of the prison
grounds at Michigan City was 81 500. All other
points asked the full price, to wit 900 for the
L ,oI IN ~, ox-t
dence that according to the arrangement entered
into by the Directors and the railroad company a
heavy saving, at least 600 in transportation,
was saved to the State Mr. Hendricks swears:
| al think stone could be obtained at the Jol-
| lett quarries (where they are obtained)
cheaper than any other place in the West.
! | have paid higher price to transport
stone three miles on good roads than it will
| cost to carry it to Michigan City under the con
tract with the railroad" Yet this sage commit
tee concludes, from what data the report does not
say, that the excess of cost of shipment, &C., Oh
account of the location, is $4,000. Talk about
your clarvoyants and your spiritual mediums.
They pretend at least to have some basis for their
optical delusions but this committee, with optics
keener far, "can what is not to be seem" A
mill stone is no impedment to their visions.
1t is also in evidence clear and undisputable,
even in that of the chief witness, Mr.. Dunlap,
that convict labor is worth ten cents per person
more at Michigan City than the other points. So
that when the prison is full according to the plan,
containing $50 convicts, the gin to the STATE in
Michigan City over any other place would be SI5
per day. or S27 ,675 year.
In addition to all this, Michigan City is only
fifty six miles distant from Chicago, one of the
best markets in the Union. 1t is on a direct line
to Cincinnati, Detroit and Buffalo, with railroad
accommodations of very superior character,
much better in this respect than any other point
in the northern portion of the State. With har-
Dor that could by small appropriation be rem
dered one of the best on the lakes, 1.-The great ad
vantages of lake navigation would be added to
its railroad facilities. Everything combines to
render it the point at which the prison should
have been located. But it is useless to multiply
proofs on this head The Representative from Fort
Wayne on the committee, Mr. Jenkinson, himself
sculked from comparison of the advantages OF
the two places as site for prison. He vel
knew that such comparison would be fatal to the
claim of Fort Wayne.
TALBOT cosrIGAN's BID IN TIME.
This brings us to the consideration Of the con
tract but before going into its merits we propose
to first brush away the rubbish the committee has
so dexterously thrown in our path.
The committee state that the ''only bid that en-
braced the entire work was that of Talbot & Cos
tigan, and it appears that their bid was not sub
mitted by the time allowed, until after the
Governor and Mr. Mullen had returned, when the
Board, together with the Governor, had their first
meeting the = day of July" The admis-
sion of the committee that the comfy bid that en-
braced the entire work was that of Talbot &
Costigan," is from their own mouths, the
strongest evidence that the contract ought have
been awarded to them. Any person who has the
least acquaintance with lettings of any character
knows that it is "trick of the trade' for bidders
| low cla md 1aa,
cations untouched to make up for their loss in
other matters by charging exorbitant prices upon
them. The bid of Talbot & Costigan covered
! everything, leaving no room for fraud or ex-
| horbitant charges. Upon its face it was
an honest bid, and thus presented the
strongest claim for its consideration and
acceptance. The other portion of the com
mittee's statement is not only wholly I'M
supported by the evidence, but is rebutted by it.
Mr.. Dunlap himself, the chief prosecuting wit
ness, swears that Mr.. Mullen returned the latter
part of May, not July, and the Governor some
time before him. Mr.. Blake, whose evidence is
clear, explicit and undenied OH this point, swears
that latter Gov. Willard got back, (and before
DR.. Mullen had returned, we held meeting al
the Governors room to take into consideration
the question whether should open the bids be
fore Dr. Mullen returned, there being three out OF
the four members present that day. when / first
entered the room the Governor handed me Tai
bolt & Co.'S bid, and told me it had been placed
in his drawer, and placed it with the other bids
After Mullen's return they met, and % first took
up the regularity and legality of Talbot x Co. Z
bid. DR. NJ. and Dunn both objected to the reg
ularity of the bid, on the ground that it had not
been received by Major ID. and myself on the day
we received the other bids. We had some dis
cusson over the question. Gov W. stated that
it had been deposited in his Office in time but that
he not beng there, it not handed over to us
Il IL.
eral for his opinion. He decided that it was
regular and legal proposal 1t NAV be neces
sary to add that the bids were all sealed up and
| opened at the same time. The public can now
judge of the truth falsity of the committee.
statement.
THE CONTRACT.
Ii may be well before noticing the other mis-
statements of the committee, to give here plair
and succnct statement of the matters connected
with the contract. After the bids were all in
it was found that Talbot & Co.'S bill was til,
only formal one that covered all tie pOnts-tha
Dunlap had failed to put in any bid for IL ,5l4 SUI
perficial feet of pointed work, lis, SOS feet o
lumber, 5000 lineal feet of cement finish, anC
for ,724 yards of plugging, and that he after
wards withdrew his bid for 30, I65 pounds of cas-
IRON, and ,634 pounds of wrought iron-tha
Dunlap's bid was lowest for foundation of rubl,
stone, for cut stone and for galvanized iron, anc
ildJ 1dlDOtb a w. Dlu WIS lONeSb OH DTiCh
work, on carpenters work, on joiner's work. on
speaking tubes, on painting, glass and glazing
and on plumbing, and that both bids were tn,
same for plaStering-that on the aggregate, cal
culating that for the work upon which Dunlap
had made no bid, he would accept the prices il
Talbot & Co.'S bid Dunlap's bid was Lower
than Talbot & Co.'S bid by S2i,7s5 3e-anC
that Moores bid for plumbing was lower than Ell
ther of them. After ascertaining these facts, the
question arose with the Directors, what would bt
the interest of the Staten making a division o.
the work, instead of letting out the entire work tc
one party or company. The Directors at las
concluded thas it would be best to make tn,
award on each item to the lowest responsible bid
der, which was done. The award of the plumbing
was made to Mr.. Moore the iron to Talbot a
Co., and the wood and stone work to Dunlap
leaving the brick question unsettled Mr. Blake
notified the parties, and was informed by Reed &
Baggott, Dunlap's partners, that 1t would be
impossible for them to take partial award with
out getting the whole bid" Mr.. Moore was not
present and had nobody to represent him. Tai
bolt & Co acquiesced in the award for the iron.
Mr. Dunlan said no thouoht thar the award a