Daily globe., 1881-02-23
THE PRISON CONTRACT.

Taking Testimony for the Supreme Court
in the Mandamus Case---Clerk Nichols
Seance--.Material Points in the Evidence
Of Inspector L. e. Reed.
The investigation into the recent let
ting of the State prison contract, under
the mandamus proceedings in the State
supreme court, before Hon. Samuel 81.
Nichols, clerk of the court, as referee,
was commenced yesterday. Under the
order Of the court the parties, with their
counsel, met In the clerks room at the
capitol at 10 A. NJ, when, after deciding
to employ stenograph reporter to tran.
scribe the testimony, and agreeing upon
other points Of the investigation, an ad-
journment was had until 2 r. NJ. George
t. Otis appeared as counsel for the relator,
CT. Thompson, while Attorney Gen. Start
appeared for the State, assisted by
Fayette Marsh, of Saltwater, and VIM.
P. Clough, of st. Paul, as the special
counsel of Seymour, Sabin g. Co. and
the prison inspectors. The afternoon
session was held in the supreme court
room, and Immediately upon convening
the taking Of testimony was commenced,
the first witness being
L. E. REED,
Of st. Paul, the prison inspector who de-
clined to take any part in letting the con-
tract to Seymour, Sabin & Co.
The most of the matter of his evidence has
been repeatedly published, and to keep up the
record of 1t ls only necessary to give the mate.
rial points upon which the suit evidently rests.
Witness testffes in reference to the differences
between the inspectors and Thompson, that
they were Of impression Thompson
neg Tses desired e e get hold out him to hs i OF pf @ saa
his deposit of 5000. He did not at any time
understand Mr.. Thompson to refuse to make
contract according to his bid, but that he re-
fused to sign the contract proposed to him.
At the meeting Jan. 81st, the Inspectors and
Thompson were 80 nearly agreed thata con.
tract could have been made in three minutes
had not the new proposition from Seymour,
Sabin & Co. been received. There was no &C.
tion Of the inspectors as board declaring off
all bids. A resolution was proposed declaring
the bids rejected and directing the return Of
deposits to the bidders but at witness re-
quest the declaration was struck out. But
witness thought, though he was not sure, that
Inspector Butts told Thompson all bids were
of, and any proposition he had
to make would be considered
detached from the advertisement for propo.
sails. When the Legislative committees met
with the warden and inspectors February 4th,
they had the two proposed contracts before
them--that of Thompson, accompanied by his
bond, and that of Seymour, Sabin & Co.
Witness understood this contract of Thomp.
sons was drawn to meet the views of the
inspectors, after most of the points of differ
ence between Thompson and the inspectors
had been waived. At the last there
were three points of difference, one of which
Thompson waived. When the meeting of
Jan. 3lst was adjourned it was subject to call.
Witness had no official notice of the Still
water meeting of February 4th; but was
notified by Mr.. Sabin that the legislative CON-
mittees were going over. When that meet
ing was adjourned 1t was to meet (the warden
and inspectors) the sth at the
attorney generals office to perfect
and execute the contract with Seymour,
Sabin & Co. Witness had no knowledge of
the meeting of the 7th, at which that contract
was executed. He had notisigned the contract;
had not been asked to sign it. He had not
acted in..the matter since the legislative com.
mittee refused to 60 on record, by yeas and
nays, on their Recommendation to the in
spectors to give Seymour, Sabin & Co. the
contract.
At conclusion of Mr.. Reeds examination
an adjournment was had to ten o'clock A. N.
TO- O-day