Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-02-26
Ma1,dan,us Proceedings.

The taking of evidence for the supreme
court in the prison contract case, was re-
sumed yesterday morning by continuing the
examination of Inspector DeLaittre, who tes-
titled that the inspectors resolution awarding
the contract to Seymour, Sabin & Co., men
toned only the term and rates of payment. 1t
was expected the attorney general would
draw the form of contract. On cross-exam-
nation, witness identified the contract of Sey-
mour, Sabin q Co., as having been prepared
by Seymour, Sabin & Co., or their attorney,
and as being the original copy, with amend
ments regarding new buildings, and the pro-
portion of convict labor which may be taken
for building another prison. The prohibition
Of removal OF machinery was not considered
necessary in the contract. Nothing was pro-
vided as to the number of freemen to be en-
of the warden and inspectors. He
would have preferred the attorney
general should have drawn the contract but
thought it best to sign this, to avoid trouble
His motive was that if the affair went into the
courts the legislative session would be over
before it was settled; when they would have
no contract and be compelled TO continue un-
der the old one. He understood officers were
trying to serve an injunction; Tarbox told
him Saturday morning; and he desired to pre-
vent the service of the papers. Sabin
brought him the contract from Saltwater and
gave it to him in st. Paul. Before signing it,
in absence of the attorney general, on sugges-
ton of the governor he consulted Mr..
Clough and with his aid examined the contract
carefully. Witness was positive he asked
Thompson January Goth if he would execute
the contract; his reply was he would, &C.
cording to his understanding of the legitimate
use of money. Witness impression was de-
cidedly that Thompson was trying to evade
the. contract; thought so because he wouldn't
on the Goth tell the business for which he
wanted the contract. On the 31st l
understood Thompson's bid was passed and
gone; but he was trying tosget the contract
about as we first proposed it to him.
The dissemination of Inspector Butts
was then continued by Mr.. Otis The in
spectors, he testified, gave the attorney gen.
eral date for drawing the Thompson contract;
did not give anybody points for drawing the
Seymour, Sabin d Co. contract The latter
is in the handwriting of Mr.. Marsh, attorney
for Seymour, Sabin & Co., and excepting the
corrections, is as originally drawn by Marsh.
Witness thought both contracts before then
on the 4th inst, were fair. The provision
limiting the number of civilians is not in the
Sabin contract; they have large number
there; at times nearly as many as there are
prisoners. On the day OF his signing, Marsh
told him SaOin wanted it closed and signed; he
suspected Thompson was going to serve an
Injunction to prevent our signing.
To Mr.. Clough-The Seymour, Sabin
& Co. contract is the same as
the Thompson form, as to subletting
labor. Seymour, Sabin & Co. did not
ask right to remove the machinery. It was
not pretended the Limitation of free labor
would affect the discretion of the board to
allow larger number. We have and exercise
the right to turn out any and every civilian
employe.
Warden Reed was next examined, the most
of his evidence being as to details and corrob-
orative of the evidence of Inspectors Butts and
De Laittre. In addition he testified that at
their first meeting on Thompson being asked
if he was ready to execute contract he said
he would have to look up bondsmen. l was
anxious to guard against bringing more than
a few at time of strange freemen into the
prison shops to work. All of us were willing
to modify the contract SO Thompson could
store the machinery in one of the shops. 1
understood it was the end of his bid when he