, 1876-09-03
communication of Architect Egan to the Couu-
ty Board, recommending sandstone as the most
desirable aud durable building material
The Affidavit Of

The affidavit Of
JOHN ". HEAFIELp
relates that he is contractor and builder, aud
that he has been in the business In Chicago for
seventeen years, and Is fully acquainted With
the stone obtained from the Lemont ouarrics.
including those OF Edwin Walker; that
although said stone is thick enough to furnish
the columns and pilasters OF the Courthouse
quarrles, and is unfit for the purpose named.
That it is soft, and traversed by dry seams,
where it is liable to scale of and split That the
seams did not always appear till subjected to
pressure. That it also contains more iron aud
fossils than the thinner stone.
The affidavit Of Patrick Tanning, which was
also offered by R1r. Woodbridge, stated that he
entered into copartncrshfp with Hepnessy and
Mcneil, at the iustigation Of Hennessy, who
the County Ring, and that the members dared
not go back on him if be put In the lowest bid.
Mcneil afterwards told him that the contract
could not be got for less than $3O,O00
and that Walker had offered him {A1cN) that
pr;sed afterwards to sec Mcneil in close conyer
sation with Carroll, he lMcN.) having stigma
tizcd thht Commissioner and the majority Of
the Board as . set Of thieves.
4 number Of certificates Of prominent archi-
tects, showing the superior quality OF sand
stone, were also put in.
THE COUNTY BOARD.
Mr.. John NJ. Rountree followed with the an
swer OF the County Board. 1t set out at length
the duties Of the Commissioners in respect to
the building OF the Courthouse, and gives sun
dry reasons, which have often been promul-
gated by the members, why Cook County lime
stone was preferred. All intention of fraudu-
lent action was denied in the award OF
the contract to Mcneil & Son, whom
men. They considered the present lit
igation to have been instituted by
disappointed bidders and opponents Of tile ercc-
tion Of the Courthouse. In taking the steps
they have toward the erection Of the building,
defendants claimed they had acted with pra-
ests Of the county.
Judge Otis read tie answer OF
WILLIAM AND ". 3. M'NEn,
volnminous document, taking up each refer
ence to themselves in the original bill and de-
nying squarely each allegation, except those re-
ferring directly to their obtaining the contract by
devious means, and simply calling for the proofs
OF such charges They allcge that the partner
ship between themselves and Tanning was dis
solved in the latter part Of July ls76, and their
They claim to be skillful workmen, and that
William Mcneil is a practical stone-cutter,
having learned his trade in Glasgow,
Scotland. They deny that they arc insolyent.
tas ns or Ss 2ung i teE hcv e1er h that th
Of the First Baptist Church the work was
stopped because the church authorities did not
pay on architects certificates, according to con-
tract, and that said church has bacn sued for
$500 balance due the defendants.
MIR. JeWett read the answer Of
EDWIN WALKER,
one OF the defendants: FMS document vas
still more ponderous than the answer OF Nc
Nell, ana required an hour 1or the reading. 1t
recites th2t the defendant is totally ignorant OF
the reason which induced the Board Of County
commissioners tn award the contract for ht,i16-
or to reject the bid Of Tanning, or to reject any
other bid. The defendant is informed and
believes that the stone-guarry be-
longing to MN, near Lcmont,
the only quarry capable OF furnishing
limestone In quantity and quality sufficient to
complete the said Courthouse according to the
plans and specifications. He denies that McNel
is insolvent, and says that he has had dealings
with h1n, and the transactions had been salts
employs the worst Kind OF worsmen, Or that ne
1alls to pay them when empioseo; nc ADMITS
that some OF the members OF the alleged hrin OF
Wolf, Price & Co. are extensively engaged in
furnishing stone work in the city, but he denies
that any such firm is known in tue business, and
alleges that the said firm Was organized Tor the
purpose OF procuring the said stonework upon
the County Building: In regard to the durabi-
1ty OF tins limestone ne claims that It Is e9uai IN
all respects to sandstone, and that it will with
ShaA0 3A1 oCe']1 - go 4sAoo 49, ="
mainder OF the affidavit consists Of series Of
explicit denia1s as to there being any conspiracy
among the County Commissioners, or IS to his
having excrted any improper 1nnuence upon
them to secure their votes either for himself or
in behalf OF Mcneil d Son.
Mr.. Rountree offered the original spec1nca-
tions with T. view OF showing how the County
Board hau tried to protect the interests OF the
city and the public in this matter. The specif'-
cations required that the successful bidder
should contract to erect both sides OF the
building.
The affidavit OF
COMMISSIONER A'cAFFnET
in reply to tue statements OF Haley was then
submitted. Affant stated that be never was at
Lemont with Pcriolat or Haley, and that the
Of the latter were totally false.
The affidavit Of James j. Egan was also reaQ
he denied that any Commissioner had en-
dcayorcd to levy cont ntributions from him, and
that there VAS any scheme afoot to expel him
from Office and put in more plant man. Al
fiaut also disclaimcd any knowledge Of the ex-
istence OF any conspiracy to rob the Treasury
Of Cook County.
Mr.. Lands read an Affidavit OF William Nc
Neil controVertlng the .a11idaEts tlcu Win tne
bill and not denied III his answer, 1t consisted
If general denial OF al the charges:
The afdavits Of E. Burling, D: adler, and
other architects to the effect that Mcneil was
stone-cuttcr, were also put in.
Mr.. Baker read The joint affidavit q ComMls~
sioners johnson, McCaflrey, Tabor, Cleayy, Null
oy, Comfy, Carroll, Schmidt, and Holden II
Tas general excuse for their action on the
yrOunH that in awarding the contract to McNe Ne1l d