, 1876-09-06

made, was brought In and consp!racy, co.n-
b!natiotn, and af!Aud endes!orcd to bs shown.
I. "a, insts1iHl q, Ehetler The contract ; Tss s1
Tanning s. .Henncssy. Mcneil furnished the
security, and that was sufficient. Tho award Of
the contract and THO acceptance OF heNetls
slusiua that there was : fraudulent intention:
This circumstances. could 10 explained Without
the sshumntion Of fraud, and the Court Tas
l'ouud TO take notlce OF an hnncst construction
t'a,ion ic In In lie Charge tha. McNeli v1 ~ in
man; tlils amounted to the Charge |
that tho Are!.tcct, Who was admitted TO be a
competent and honest man, would be dcrcllct Ia |
tho unusual recommendations Of : particular !
kind Of stone, 1t would scctu that this prosecu-
tion was -. !
IN TIE INTEREST or Aux SABLE sANpsroHB..
Now, any rational man who had studied Rebuilt
Chtcngo would arrive at the conclusion that
that stone was the most unit and unsightlJ ma
terjal that could possibly bc conceived.
Mr.. Woodbridgo-Thero Is 10 evidence OF
tint.
Nj. Jewett-That may be, but Tho evidence Of
our senBcs Ia sometimes stronger than tho EVIL
lcnce Of at1llavits. Tho alJldavte Of capitalists
and architects wcro presented to show that
limestone tlnd not stood the tcat OF tho fire. 1t
was not true that any stone Ind stood the nro
with better results than another. II anything
could ba shown about tue firc-propf quality OF
building material 1t would hc that brick was tho
only uaatcrtal which would stand fire; and tho
complainant might hays aadea 'n tue bill tat
stone, and that therefore the Commissioners
wcre guilty Of fraud.
Mr. Woodbritlgc- Brick 4 made IN tls Ore.
Mr. Jewctt-Of course, that Is Just tho reason
The Indictment of the Commissioners was
also act forth by the bill. That had nothing To
do with this case. II could not bo taken as
foregone conclosion that man Indicted Tor one
MA ekenr{1v n11{ffv nj Snnf1tpF. If
Pc5ioiat was separated from Tia bill there would
ho nothing lcft Of It. But there was no nllega-
tton that Feriolat acted for Walker in the inter-
s, s' Of N e., sSn xoysna yst 81 II ,s Ss ts & + WIN r
er'R bid, which Was rejected. The bill was crit
tciFcd III detail, Mr. Jcwctt having plausible
explanation for each Of tho charges, and char
aSt:e1zlng It. a. miserable p'seo of Relt1oggaG
that the evidence was overwhelming that there
was no limestone quarry In the county, except
Walker h,whtch could supply stone Of the qaall'
y and ransty reqtcd -n for ,en Tue vnnsl vnaniid'n
though It might be In bad taste,to boast that he
controlled thebIdd!ng. Hendmitted that Walker
wasIntcrestct III the contract,whfch was awarded
McNoi, q Son because he offered 1 ;do sip ainpp.S
eatd that, had not Walker agreed to supply the
stone, Mcneil Il Son would not have occurred
the contrnct. But that was no proof OF tho
carrying out o. copspaey 4n 1s nH ~
given to the allegation that an attempt had
been male to levy contributions from sfr. Egan,
aud m attempt made to drag M hin Into schcme
S tbs II S sen aiay i a coay are
tect, who was conceded to be q competent and
upright man, had flied. The allegations wcrc
TuB wEAKssT III THEIR FouspATioN,
and in TUG character o. ne conclusions at tam
s|atcnt and improbable In their nature OF any
allegations in any bill which 1t llaa been hte
fortune to examine. Il nothing in conflict had
been presented to Tug Court, and tle @ Court s vs.
mcnts Of the bill alone, h. should say It was =
saiiisient iiSaiat for Fiia purpose Dat now that the
allegations were al rshn.Ie9 and IND asnlsd Saa When s
ttvoty, but by facts. and eircumstances which
made 1t appear that many Of tho allegations were
mere susplrions, and not based On reliable
facts It must appear that thS ease W. m ono thas
| ing the application and allowing the work to
proceed With regard to the financial phase of i
this question, there Eas no avcfn,ent 10 Tue pt!l
that the county haa Issued bonds to tue c1nssi. q
relief rfas sought III that direction, that tho
limit had or Would be exceeded by the proposed
Issue Of bonds.
IN REGARD TO Tnn CONTRACT
tn'Sp a III {, s IT, taS sa9s4 Ssqet eGs s aEb I ba
had no interest In It and could not ask to have It
enforced. It might be statett,~ however. that
thu county had frequently tried to ret the city
d sSegts a s s Rae o s auoen e ts ey
even il the matter were properly before the
Court, 1t would be q question. whether the
county would be compelled to delay tho com
fcsurrcction unl reeuperation Of tho flnau.cs Q!
the city. In ,coneiuston, he agnin re1crret %
Il ilousc, &c. aed"'' and declared that tic alleEa
intcrfero.ce of Tie Court. such interierenc.
woull simply arrest the execution Of thls con
tract. There was nothing to prevent the CoUn'
ty Board, exercising Its discretionary power, 70
consu1amating another contract at a lighe
price.
Mr.. Jcwcttts apeeel1 extended over. four hours
and was very elaborate.
Mr.. WOODBRIDGE
followed with an exhaustive Iepy TOR ths eom
the gentleman's remarka "a to tho dcsirabillt,'
OF having Z new Courthouse, 1t was general
ly admitted TINT the present etate Of things Wa
riEe aEta Il Desirable result By unlawfal Ind In
proper measures. It was not true ~ matte
Ut fact TINT we could hope for tue faithful! AM
rapid completion Of public works through ssgcn
ctes doubtful In ths!r sllarastct; fraud aa ne no
matters. II 1t was true, a. charged In the bill
that tllIs awar1 was made for other purpose
than: the public good, Te might walt !lctlm
for the completion Of tho building. II mas
matter Of public notorlcty thbt the contract
price for tho foundations lad been exceeded D.
bill Of SIC, ZOO fur cxtrax.
Mi. Rountree-That ig a mistake. /,
Mr.. Woodbridge-I was told 50 by the Count
Architect, and II was so stated IL tho papers
Tho first question which seemed 10 prescn
Itself was, whether AID. ballard was properly 7 I
. cussIop Of his friend III order to Indicate h,
yiews upon this subject. lie understood Nj
Jcwett TO u,ake dtstinction-that ta1'paye
, might f!o . bill In case where = public bod
uulrrtook.a work entirely outside Of It's powe,
but when 1t wa4 merely casetof abuss Of y
j mitted discretion the remedy must be proved b
the prosecuting officer. No case had becn cite
to establish that proposltion, aud mono could
found. 1t wns aYerrcll in the bill, and admttc
by sllenco tn all the answers, that t,.ere was n
unappropriatea money 70 The Treasury cl whel
House. With regard to taxation for tho ete'
ton of building 4 wa ,dle to say that "a y,
allow in Indebtedness to 6s Incurred While
would render tax imperatsyely necessary.