The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1869-03-23
VOL. XXXIX.t
THE SOUTHERN STATE PRISON.
TIE Southern Committees Report and the
Southern State Prison Directors.

Southern State Prison Directors.
From the Terre Haute Express.
We published last week the report of the sub com
mittee on the condition of the State Prison South AMI
the card of Mr. Meredith of the Directors, but
Trained from expressing any opinion upon the merits
OF the case until should examine the evidence ia
ken by the Committee. The evidence has been pub
lshed in the Cincinnati Gazette. 1t is too lengthy for
insertion in columns, but we have carefully read
IT, and it fully vindicates the conduct of the Direc.
tors Messrs Ghee and Meredith, and fails, in
opinon sustain the report of the Committee. The
report says: Two of the Directors, Meredith and
Ghee, have Systematically farmed out their appoint
ments, the Warden and many of tile employees being
required to pay a bonus for the privilege of holding
their appointments The evidence shows that when
Meredith and Ghee elected, the Offices were all
filled, and that but change made by them.
namely, removing Col. Meriwether, the Warden, and
appointing COL Laurence S. Schuer in his stead; and
the Committee concede in their report, that this
a proper change, and was not done in the farming
way Col. Meriwether, who is the witness to the
Directors receiving money, asked this question:
q. State whether you know of any of the Direc-
of the prison South having dem anded received
my moneys for the purpose of influencing their Off
cia action in the appointment of any officer of said
prisonP
A. Il do not.
So it would seem that the farming operations of
the Directors not a success s. and at loss
to discover the reason why the Committee should
use such language There is proof whatever, that
the Directors levied black mail any subordinate
officer, although the Warden did. Yet the Committee
SO word the report as to leave the impression that
the Directors did it.
The Warden, Chaplain and Physicians are ihe only
tbo ba
Warden appoints and removes all others, and they
are responsible to him alone. There is pretense
that either the Chaplain physician paid any
thing, and in fact, the whole charge the ev
dence Of Col. Meriwsther that he paid Meredith and
Ghee $3.50 year to retain his place This state
ment is denied explicitly under oath by the Directors.
There nu dispute but that Meredith and Ghec
had several occasions, got money of Meriwether,
but while he said it was in the way of black mail the
Directors swear that they borrowed The money I'D
repaid all of it but loan with interest. If the
character of the Warden and Directors was upon a
level, wo uld have hesitation in believing the
latter, because of the improbabilty of the Wardens
story. But when look at the evidence of Col.
Nc wether, we find him akng admissions of cor
ruption, brutality and ndecency that would render
his testimony rthess in any court of JUSTICE and
we are surprised that the Committee would even call
AOA
on his evidence.
The whole evidence shows that tie present board
Of Directors have looked sharply after the interests
Of the State and under their admnstra ton the prs-
On has become self-sustaining; think thereto
that they deserve praise for their financial manage
ment.
The Committee further ort that Mr. Meredith took
'bribe to obtain the pardon of convict, that he
made false representations to the Governor, to pro-
cure the pardon, and that the Governor discovered
the fraud in time to prevent the mischief
We have examined the published evidence on this
point, and also the correspondence between the Gov
ernor and Mr.. Meredith, and have no hestancy il
saying that this portion of the report a baseless
fabric, wholly unsupported by the facts.
The Committee have published card in the lndi-
anapolis Journal with portion of the testimony
bearing on the action of Mr.. Meredith in asking for
The pardon OF Mr.. Mathews, and although only the
of Mr.. Meredith is given while his
explanation OF Mathews statements is published,
ret careful perusal of Governor Bakers testimony
n our opinion, fully sustains Mr.. Meredith's card,
md does all justify the report of the Committee
Gov ernor Baker says: Il told Meredith 1 would con-
slider his application and the fact of his being Di-
rector should have no inhue nee my action. He
lid not use any improper influence to induce me to
grant the pardon, except his representation to
lis relations to Mathews family. This and the dis
'espectu u character of his reply to my refu al to
grant the pardon, the only grounds of complaint
had t axe, as his conduct in relation to the
natter. In his letter refusing the pardon, Gov. Ba-
says to Meredith: Your obligations to the moth
# of Mathews might be thrown in tho scale in
doubtful case, but have nluenc in this case.'
So it seems that after all, as Mr. Meredith alleges,
he whole affair matter of etiquette between
C~l~
ad nothing to do, and the Comn,ite were evidently
ard pushed for when they dug up private
natter. The application made in TIE usual
manner, and refused because another CHI pc was
made against Mathew and fail sec any signs of
bribery in the case, anything worthy of censuIe
Of course, we should condemn the practice of Di-
ectors asking pardons, but this was the only ca Sc Of
he kind in the whole Official career of this Director
nd mu st be judged upon its own merits. We are
atised that the Legislature will never adopt the re.
ort of the Committee if the evidence is laid before
hem.
EAR " TO