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

Investigating Committee, testifes: " When ar
rived at Michigan City, owing to the snow, /
could not examine the stone work as well as
desired but determined to prosecute the investi
CATION of the wood work, and in order to do so,
/ climbed through the scuttle hole to examine the
roof. / found the roof as complete a piece Of
work as | ever saw in my life of the kind; and
as proof of that, found there was not single
tremor of the roof in the sweeping gale that
then blowing. The stone and brick work, SO far
as | could examine, found to be very well done,
and the wood work throughout the building was
substantial and well calculated for the purposes
for which it was made" &c. Mr. Line is a car
penter by trade. and has followed the business for
twenty nine years His opinion is, therefore, en-
titled to great weight Even the committees
own architect, Smithmyer, swears; The work
done thus far is done WELL And Mr. Hoofer
whom he employed to assist HIM; testifies: " |
have examined and measured the wood work. and
find the work well done to all visible Appearances
And also the brick work, which has been done In
substantial manner. | pronounce it a good
job" Mr.. Lot Day, jr., testfes: % cut through
the wall for the purpose of putting sewer under
it. | had two or three hands helping me, and il
occupied nearly a day. We had to use crowbars
and sledge hammers to get through the wall.
The wall much stronger than thought il
we did the mortar" Yet in the face of such
facts, Mr.. Dunlap swears that it is not a good
JOB, and that " there was no more cement used in
the foundation of the wall than 1 would have
used in the foundation of two story dwelling"
This shows the prejudiced condition of this man 5
mind, and also how little his evidence is entitled
to consideration.
CONTRADICTORY TESTIMONY OF DUNLAP,
A short DEPRESSION here to show the contradic
tons in this mans testimony may not be out of
place. At the commencement of his evidence he
swears: 90 / heard no intimation from the Board
that my securities were insufficient. Toward
the close of the evidence he swears that DIR. Null
len told him that the Board did not consider my
bid responsible Here is direct contradiction
1t is very evident that had this man been sub
iected 10 cross examination by the defense, as
was their right, his gross falsehoods and mis-
statements would have been so apparent that no
one, not even the committee, would have had the
hardihood to quote him as authority for any
saatement.
Again, he swears: Before the bids were
opened, Mr.. Lord, whom | was informed was a
bidder for the iron work, made me a proposition,
and wished me to withdraw my bid for the iron
work. In order to compensate the
party who had bid for the iron work with me.
Lord agreed to pay $500 if he got the work. .
Whereupon he, Dunlap, withdrew his bid. Bag
got his silent partner and man Friday swears:
- know of Mr.. Dunlap withdrawing his bid for
the iron work. Mr.. Dunn got me to go and see
Dunlap, and get him to withdraw in favor of
Lord and BRYANT, and as inducement to us, he
Dunn told me that the balance of the contract
would be ours. saw Dunlap, and he agreed in
consideration of that promise to withdraw his bid
ON the iron work" Who is the liarg Dunlap or
his man friday Most likely BOTH And it is
upon such testimony, taken in the secret of
examination, that we are called upon to blacken
the characters of respectable and honorable men.
But this is not all. Dunlap further swears:
"Sometime after the bids were opened, Mr.. Bag
gott said to me that DIR. B. T. Mullen wanted his
brother, DR.. Alex. Mullen, to have an interest in
the work. After comforting with Reed, Baggott
and DIR. A. Mullen, it was agreed that he, DIR. A.
Mullen, should have one-fourth interest in the
work. Achey 5 per cent to lie paid in
proportion by all This was a written agreement
and witnessed by DIR. Lynch, and was written in
his Office" In his written statement, or memo
randum, which the committee or some other per
! son has altered TO suit the report of the commit
tee, and which we submit marked "a" Dunbar
says that DIR. b. f. Mullen returned sometime
in the latter part Of Nay" DR.. NJ. j. Lynch,
another of the prosecuting witnesses, swears
about the first thing Mr.. Dunlap brought to
my notice was that Dr. Alex. Mullen was, in
/ Dunlap bid" The written agreement" is
lying before US, and bears date the eleoenfh o
May, does not say one word about Mr. Achey
and is not witnessed by Dr. Lynch So in the
above short statement of Dunlap there are five
distinct falsehoods: LIST, that the contract Will
Alex. Mullen was made after the bids were
opened, they not being opened until after Dr. b
L. Mullen returned, while the contract bears date
some weeks before; ID that it was at the instance
1 Of Dr u Mill hat do,
made partner; Sd, that anything pro-
vided in the contract for Achey; 9TH, that the
written agreement was witnessed by Dr. Lynch
and 5th, that it was written in Lynch's office, il
having had an existence previous TO Lynch's
knowing anything about it. is it not asking toe
much of public credulity that upon the evidence
of such man, the fair name of not only the
living but the dead should be backened and
dishonored? We could show other material con.
Predictions in his evidence, but it is hardly ne
cessary.
This brings US to the consideration of the last
| point is reference to the contract. According to
the estimate of work done by the contractors
upon measurement of the work by Messrs Nc
Kim Hodgeson, architects, the amount is S47 !,
| 23S 20.
Not content with this estimate, the committe,
employed another architect, Mr.. J. L. Smith
myer, to make an estimate for them, and hs
brings in the amount at $40 ,262 90
Showing difference of $685. "a.
1t may be necessary here to ask who is thi:
Mr.. Smithmyerg We answer the question
He was employed by his party friends, the Com
missioners of st. Joseph county, to build a count,
Jail. And he afterwards dismissed by the
same men for incompetency and malfeasance il
Office. And this is the competent and honest arch;
tect, whose estimate is 10 overturn the estimate o.
competent men. Unable to do the work himself
he employed Mr. Hooper; milirrighf, to hell
him do the measurement and mako the estimate
! And for his most important services, he had tn,
modesty of putting in the following bill. which
We copy entire as evidence of Republican modest,
and Republican economy:
Expenses Of tie architectural Branch Of Investigation
Of TIE Northern Prison.
INDIANAPOLIS. Ind, February 81, 1861.
FOR drawing materials Sl4 y
| " travelling expenses 81 q
" TEAMS. -..--..---....- . q
| " help Is o
" travelling exp. assist. and1help.. s
| :" Professional charge for estimating and measur-
ing the work. amounting TO $40, 226f cent? 400