Ottumwa weekly courier. (Ottumwa, Wapello County, Iowa) 1872-1899, 1878-06-26

Bros. stripes for said institution Il
the amount of $537.25, and by misrep
reservations made TO their clerk, as te
his contract with said firm, induced
) him to bill them and sign a voucher
to the state for $643.5O, which sum he
charged up to the state, and obtained
credit therefor, thus unlawfully ap.
Ipropriating $l5l.25 of the funds Of
the state to his own use.
He kept at the expense of the state
for long time, the team of his broth.
erin law, Elmer Reed, and paid him
therefor three dollars per day, the
same as though driver had been
furnished. and at the same time paid
him $50 to $50 per month as q guard.
i We find that of the enormous guam.
tity of stripes represented to have
been purchased for the prison, nearly
all was procured of Brown & Moore
Of Bentonsport, and White, Munger
" Co., Winterset. The total sum
paid Brown Il Moore for stripes,
blankets, ETC., is $S,734, and White,
Munger Il Co.. $l5,22O.62.
The market value of stripes at the
time said purchases were made was
from % to 80 per cent. less than he
paid them for same. In looking over
the report of the officers of the Illi-
nois State peRitentiary, we find that
the price paid for winter stripes by
them for the years 1875 and 1876 was
662s cents, while the price paid by
the late warden for stripes of same
width and weight during those years
was 81 per yard to White Munger &
Co., and SO cents to Brown & Moore.
He connived with U. B. Brown, Of
the firm of Brown & Moore, to pre-
sent bill against the state for ITO
yards of winter stripes, which were
never furnished, and to execute q
a voucher for $1O5 GO. showing pay
ment therefor when no payment was
made, as appears from Moore's evil
dence and the books of Brown &
Moore. which sum was charged up to
the state and placed to Craig's credit.
The price paid this firm for stripes in
1872 was 20 cents yard more for
winter, and IL cents yard more for
summer stripes than his predecessor,
NJ. Kelsey, paid the same firm for the
same quality of goods the year pre-
vAouo, 0isAVuSh tuS pIiCc Vi luc Illdtc-
rails from which they were manufac-
tured remained the same. All the
business between said firm and DR..
Craig was attended to on the part of
said firm by said Brown, and we are
of the opinion that the loss to the
state on account of its transactions
with said firm, through said Craig,
exceeds the sum IF $1,000.
The evidence of T. j. White and T.
s mclaughlin, of the firm of White,
Munger Il Co., and the books of said
firm submitted to us, taken in connec-
ton with the bills rendered against
the state, and the vouchers signed by
said firm, show conclusively to our
minds that Munger and Craig, with
the knowledge of said White, entered
into an arrangement whereby the
state was defrauded out of more than
$6,659.O3 on stripes, blankets and yarn,
sold and pretended to be sold by said
firm to said Craig as warden. The
cash book has, very opportunely for
them, disappeared, and the only book
which would show the number of
yards of stripes manufactured, has
recently been destl Dyed.
A comparison of the entries on the
books of said firm of the quantity of
goods sold with the bills rendered for
same, and Of the account of said Craig
on the ledger, with the vouchers sign
ed by them, disclosed the fact that the
bills were in some instances rendered
for a much larger quantity than was
actually sold, and that in several in-
stances they receipted for hundreds
of dollars more than they actually re-
ceived. The evidence further proved
that they charged from 30 to SO per
cent. more than the market value for
goods sold to the state. To illustrate
we will cite one transaction: On
November 30, 1874, their books show
4 sale made to the state of 1926 pounds
Of blankets at 81. 20 per pound, which
were billed at 1854 pounds.
The evidence of McClaughan clear
ly and indisputably proves that said
firm, at the time this sale was made,
were selling at retail the same grade
and quality of blankets for 73 cents
per pound. The manner in which
the account with DR.. Craig was kept
by this firm, would satisfy most per.
sons that something was wrong. 1t
fails i'll many instances to show the
quantity Of material sold him, and in
others the price charged therefor is
wanting, and although it is claimed
that several full settlements was had
no entries were made to show the
same, and in short it is impossible to
tell from them alone anything about
the transactions, while all the other
accounts on their books are regular
and complete.
FRAUDULENT VOUCHERS.
The late warden looked after the
pence as well as the pounds. He paid
and charged to the state, for tele-
grams to aid from Farragut alone, in
thirty-one months the sum of $76.SS
and other considerable sums for ex-
press charges to the same place, which
should have been paid out of his pri-
vate funds. His personal bills for
flowers and boquets amounting in
one instance to $50, in another to $lS
and quite a number for less amounts
were paid fer out OF the funds Of the
state, and included in the same vouch-
ers that payments to the same persons
were made at the saue time for flow
ers and plants furnished the prison.
Although the law requires that each
guard when appointed, shall give
bond to the warden, with security to
be approved by him. yet the names
Of persons appear upon the pay roll
to whom money was paid for services
as guards from whom no bonds were
taken. We find from the pay rolls
and vouchers that the sum of $500 for
services alleged to have been render
ed as guard by C. T. Reynolds, wife
of the deputy warden during the
months of September, October, No
vember and December, 1875, and
January and February, 1876, was
charged to and paid by the state.-
That it was charged with and paid
81 ,O2O for seventeen months services
as guard in the years 1876 and 1877,
alleged to have been rendered by An
ME l. Reed (signed A. l. Reed on
pay rolls) niece of the late warden,
and then member of his family, and
thatit was also charged with and paid
the sum of $3.50 for six months SER
vice as guard, alleged to have been
rendered in the years 1876. 1877 and
1878, by Maggie Woods (M. Woods
on pay rolls) . servant in the family
OF the late warden during the time
aforesaid, and who actually received
but ten dollars per month. The ev-
ideuce is conclusive that neither of
the persons aforesaid were employed
or rendered services as guards during
the times for which their names ap-
pear upon the pay rolls or at any 9TH
er time during warden Craig's term
of Office.
While in our opinion the law con-
templates that the vouchers for mon
ey paid out by the warden or his
clerk shall be signed by the person re-
ceiving the same, yet we find that the
vouchers made since September, 1874,
now on file, moro than $50 (besides
the payroll vouchers) bear the sig
nature of the clerk, H. Clay Stuart,
and over 200 others are signed by him
with the ''msrk" of the persons whose
names purport to be signed to the
same, none of which are witnes
L.