Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-02-22

| avail. s
Mr.. Marsh asked if the lawyers would hays
| chance to examine the witnesses after the
committee were through. He was answered
in the affirmative. Mr. Marsh said he hoped
Mr.. Thompson would not leave the room, as
he wanted to enquire, when the time came,
If there had not been private party at his res.
| 1dence, to which Inspector Reed and Tarbox
had been invited. Z
Mr.. L. E. Reed jumped to his feet and ad-
dressing the chair said: This question is very
| startling; I should like to have the inquiry
put; can safely say that ] have never been
at Mr.. Thompson's house, and that / have no.
spoken to him until the other day for seven
years.
Mr.. Dunn stated that the committee wef.
not together to enquire into private matters.
The matter then dropped and the testimony
began.
WARDEN REED.
| The first witness was Warden Reed. he
testified to three bids having been received for
the prison labor, Seymour, Sabin 6 Co., being
40 cents per day, Forepaugh & Tarbox 42K
cents, and c. j. Thompson 47h. Mr.. Thomp-
sons bid was accepted, but he declined to exe-
offered to raise their bid to IS cents, and Fore
paugh & Tarbox offered to take MIR.
| ThOmpson's bid. The witness thought
| 1t best. to give the contract
| to Seymour, Sabin d Co., because their work
did not come in competition with the public
and was healthier than shoemaking. On these
accounts he favored giving the contract to
Seymour, Sabin e. Co. at 45c. Inspector l.. s.
Reed was present, but did not agree with the
other inspectors, and would not sign the COLI
tract The witness testified to the execution
of the contract in Saltwater instead of St. Paul
owing to the snow blockade. The
parties were notified to appear at
the attorney generals office, in
St. Paul on Tuesday, but owing to the snow
blockade 1t was executed in Saltwater on Mon
day. The prison committee of the legislature
had seen the contract and approved its execu-
ton. Wrote to Thompson that his deposit
would be forfeited, but did not forfeit it.
Mr.. Dunn here read the official records of
the inspectors, showing what had been done
at their meeting.
| INSPECTOR DE LAITTRE.
Witness said Thompson's great objection,
was because he could not he allowed to remove
the machinery. He was notified no could store
what machinery he did not want. Had told
| Inspector Butts that if. Seymour, Sabin u Co.
woiulId bid 45c POI day and 81 800 for machin-
| ery he wuuld vote them the contract. At that
| time 421sc was the highest bid, but two days
| later Forepaugh & TarboX claimed Thompsons
| bid of 47Hc as theirs. Witness went
| into long statement in justification of his
action. Inspector Reed thought the highest bid
der should have the award but he (witness) and
Butts thought other things should be consid-
cred. He signed the contract at the Metro
polltan hotel in st. Paul, having been sum-
moned by telephone to 90 so after Inspector
| Butts and Warden Reed had signed at Saltwater.
His strongest reason for signing was that
| Seymour, Sabin g. Co. employ four or five
hundred men at Saltwater, and their manu-
factory would probably be removed from the
! State if they lost the contract. He thought
! the shoe business would como in competition
| with other labor. Knew nothing about the
| offer of money to Forepaugh & Tar5OX.
INSPECTOR BUTTS.
Witness corroberated Inspector De Laittre.
He considered that Thompson refused to exc
cute the contract, and. was out of the way
they accepted Sabin's offer of 45 cents. Had
no expectation then that Forepaugh &
Tarbox would assume Thompson's
bid of 47k cents as their own.
They had consulted the Legislative committee,
and they also regarded the health of the pris-
oners as in favor of the Sabin contract.
Did not telephone to De Laittre to keep out of
sight
| INSPECTOR DE LAITTRE RECALLED.
Don't know who telephoned me; supposed
it was from the warden's Office. They said
there were papers out for serving an injunc,
ton; 1t came indistinct, but
gathered that much. Was not told
to keep out of the way. The telephone
serve an injunction; that the warden and In-
spector Butts had signed it and asking if
would; told me to come to st. Paul on the
O'Clock tram; I came on the 8 o'clock train.
| Mr.. Clough examined the contract at length.
| INSPECTOR L. E. REED.
| To Mr.. Dunn-The testimony given is in
the main correct. But when we came to the
attorney generals Office I understood that
Mr. Thompson declined to sign the contract,
that he would prefer to have the State sell the
| machinery it was to by the first Of April, as he
had no use for it, unless he could re-
move it. At least, he said, l
will sign contract with the Objectionable
features removed As understand the mat
been constantly before us and was not declared
rejected. Thompson, on the day of meet.
| ing of the inspectors and legislative commit
tees delivered contract and bond for $50, 600
to Judge Butts. did not see It until in the
committee room; saw it before Senator
Wedge, signed by Mr. Thompson and with the
bonds. Witness related his expression of
opinion that they were not authorized to let
the contract to lower bidder; and his
declaration that he would not sign the
Seymour-Sabin contract unless the
record was made complete, to show how the
legislative committees voted, by ayes and
II noes. The record of the committees on the
subject was not made complete; does not show
the ayes and noes Finally he vas advised
that if as inspector he signed the lower con.
tract he would be liable to indictment under
the statute and for damages. Witness did not
know Mr.. Thompson; had not spoken to him
for seven or eight years until after he put in
his bid; did not know of his bid coming or of
that of Forepaugh & Tarbox; considered the
bids were before the legislative committees
when they met; they had not been rejected by
the board; understood Seymour, Sabin s. Co.'S.
new proposition; Thompson was there with
his contract; did not read it..
As felt that day if the
committees of the legislature had backed up
with their votes on record i would have signed
| the Seymour -Sabin contract.
Fl To Senator j. B. Gilfllan-There is no doubt
, in my mind the bid of Forepaugh & Tarbox is
best for the State, because we shall not have
/ to build more shops; those there are enough to
work thousand men at the shoe business. The
allowai of withdrawal of deposits was before
the inspectors had closed on any proposition;
, it was the opinion of the attorney general We
could not hold the money. As first drawn up
the resolution included rejection of the bids;
witness refused to vote for it and it was torn
| up Then it was agreed to refer all the bids
to the Legislative COMMITTEES.
To Mr.. Dunn--Do not think any facts were
: concealed from the legislative committees.
! Did not know Thompson was going
there. Have no knowledge about the
$4,000 offer: but think 1t referred to allowing
i. the deposits of $1,000 each, made by Fore
paugh & Tarbox and Thompson to be returned
Mr.. De Laittre here said Mr.. Tarbox told
him on the train that the return of the depos
its was guaranteed to him besides the $40.
600.
Mr.. Reed, resuming, said he did not know
beforehand of Thompson's or Forepaneh &