The Evansville journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 1866-1870, 1870-09-02
From the Indianapolis Journal
hIF. BuSkIFk Again.

Hon. Samuel II. Buskirk was a
witness in the case of the Vincennes
University VS.. Samuel Judah. o.
the trial it was charged that "a 800
had been used for improper and cor
rupt purposes in procuring the passage
of certain bill by the Legislature of
1855, of which Mr.. Buskirk was a
member. A witness swore on the
trial that a portion of this money was
paid, or given to Mr.. Buskirk and the
Democratic Senator from Monroe, to
be used In procuring the passage of
was taken, and being asked whether
he knew of the expenditure of any
for the purpose named, he said:
know that he Defendant ex-
pended cash funds for the purpose
named 10 the above question to per-
sons who were not residents of the
above named counties (Marion, Knox
and Gibson.) / cannot state with
certainty the amount. but the amount
was not less than 81 ,250, and not more
than 81 ,450."
Interrogatory 3. State whether
or not you took an active interest in
procuring the settlement referred to !;
and if so, whether that expenditure
by the defendant was necessary and
material2"
Answer-'I took very active in
terest in procuring the said adjust
ment. represented the interests of
the State University while the de-
PENDANT was representing the inter-
est of the Vincennes University. The
interest of these Universities did not
conflict, but in fact run together, con-
sequently we consulted together and
acted in concert. It required strong
and united effort of the friends of the
two institutions to pass the said bill,
and VIC were compelled, to secure the
passage of the same, to form combin-
atoms with other interests and to
bring to bear all the outside pressure
that was possible, and Tam well salts
fed that the said bill could not have
been passed without the expenditure
of the money by Mr.. Judah and the
friends of the State University. At
ter the said bill was passed and APPROX
ed by the Governor, a bill was intro
dueed to suspend the operation of
the same for two years, and it requir
ed the constant and united efforts of
the friends of the said bill to the
close of the session to prevent its sus
pension"
We published this some weeks ago,
and merely asked the Sentinel to ex-
plain it for Mr.. "Buskirk." It de-
iayed a response for some time, when
we called the SeatineFS attention to it
again. and finally it came to Mr.. Bus
kinks relief in a two column editorial,
- ~uLsaL kk~k H.,
money, If used at all, was used for le-
climate and honorable purposes. We
did not know how it was used, and
did not pretend to say, but inferred
from Mr.. Buskirk's deposition that
he was not disposed to tell how. Nor
does the Sentinel enlighten US on the
subject. But the jury trying the cause
In which Mr.. Buskirk was a witness,
believed, and on oath found. that it
was used for corrupt purposes. We
copy from the record of the case the
following question propounded to the
jury with their answer under oath:
"Question.-Did not the defendant
expend the money he claims to have
expended in Indianapolis during the
session of the Legislature of 1855 for
the purpose of procuring and exert
ing a corrupt influence on the men,
bers of that Legislature, and logroll-
ing, and lobbying, and of exerting on
said members an undue personal in
huence, and thereby to procure the
passage of the act authorizing the is
suing of the bonds in question:
"ARSUer.-Yes.
y. w. CANAAN, Foreman.
We are compelled to believe the
jury in preference to Mr.. Buskirk or
the Sentinel. The money was used
for corrupt purposes. At all events,
why cannot Mr.. Buskirk tell what was
lo1n r,kb sk0