The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-11-20

reason for the call TO a special meeting was that
lawyer Lyddy. who had got out an injunction
restraining the board from issuing franchise
to any one for a road on Broadway. had consent
ed TO raise the injunction for $l2, 500. They
feared that Lyddy would get out another ipjunc-
ton to bleed the railway company more. This
was the reason witness signed the call. Full
graft acknowledged that he had given a contra
dictory statement before the Senate committee.
the showing up of these discrepancies was
continued at length. Fullgraf acknowledged
every material point of his testimony before the
Senate committee to be false. He testified that
he never knew that 81 900, 900 bad been offered
the city for franchise for railroad on Broad
way, nor of any offer at all. A portion of the
testimony before the Senate committee, which
included a statement that Ful,graff knew moth
ing more about Doodle than they did at Albany
and Washington, was read Fullgraff explained
his evasive answer as meaning that Mr.. Niles.
the examiner. who had been a member Oh the
Legislature ar time when doodle was flying
there, according to rumor, knew what doodle
meant we'll enough. The witness defined doodle
as money dishonesty acquired"
Again and again lawyer Newcombe read Full
CRAFTS sworn denials of any knowledge of the
doodle transactions, asking IL they were true
or false. The witness each time acknowledged
that he swore falsely before the Senate commit
tee There DO bravado in the manner of the
witness He was downcast, but when asked If he
remembered calling Almighty God to witness
that he was truthful, he replied positively mo.
/ do not remember. It never happened" A
statement in his testimony before the commit
tee was that he was sorry he had been member
of the board of '84 only because of the stories
started by the newspapers; that he would stick
to the members of that board as long as they
lived; but that he considered there as hon
est and pure men in the board as ever sat on
Gods foot-stoo was read by Mr. Newcombe.
Il can say now" broke in Fullgraf that
am sorry / was member of that board"
''Did you refer to your own purity thenF
|
one actn
The witness said he had never "given away"
the doodle alderman until his arrest for his al
legged connection with the granting of franchise
to the Thirty fourth street road, in 1854 He
was then induced to make a general statement
regarding the Broadway franchise by promise
of protection from prosecution for his own trans
actions in connection with the granting of q fran
chise to that road Later the inducement of
protection from any of his acts as member of
the board of 1884 was made at Inspector Byrne's
office. The witness was urged to make an entire
statement at Mr. Nicolls house, and he made
the statement with Mr. Marines aid The wit
at first refused the proposition at Inspector
Byrnes Office. He wanted to consult with his
family, and he was allowed to 60 home. He con
suited with his family and his son-in-law, and
concluded to make the statement.
The witness was asked if he had returned his
doodle" on being stricken with remorse, and he
answered, II shall if God lets me live"
"But have youl" persisted the lawyer The
witness acknowledged that he had not He con-
fessed that he had received ST. 900 for his vote in
another railroad matter, and had not returned it
either, but declared that he would when he
could. He had been delayed in that act by
pressing family matters
Mr.. Newcombe read the names Of the
"beodlers' said to be at the meeting at Nc
Laughlin's and asked If the witness had not
named aldermen whom he knew to be either
dead or out of this jurisdiction. crazy or in
prison for crime, aside from his fellow "squeal-
ers," Duffy and Waite, and the defendant The
witness said he had. The witness gave the
other names of the thirteen not before mentioned
as Dempsey, Cleary, Charles Reilly and O'Neill
When the direct examination was resumed,
Fulgraff said that he was not asked to inculpate
any one IN his statement to the district attorney.
He made the statement because his conscience
troubled him, and 1t was the only restitution he
could make for what he had done. He said he
felt his disgrace keenly, more account of his
family than his own. He had received $19 900
from the two transactions for which he had been
indicted, and would restore it to the city rs
as he had chance. This ended his testimony,
and Fullgraff was taken back to the district at
torney's Office by detective.
ExAlderman Michael Duffy, another of the
"squealing boodlers." was next called to the
chair and began his testimony. He said that
after one of the meetings of the board eight or
nine of the members including McQuaide, held
"a little caucus to fix up for meeting at Full
CRAFTS Office. The witness went to the factory
about P NJ, ard found twelve other members
there, including McQuaide s"The meeting"
said Duffy, discussed scheme for making a
combination for controlling legislation on rail
road and some other matters The witness
named nine members who were present, from
memory, and by referring to list of the board
gave the three other members They CORE
, sponded to Fulgraffs list. He con-
tinued, eve talked about the combine
and about having more meetings, and we
decided to have one about one week later. at Nc
+ Ill ,~~f, A..
were present at that meeting At that meeting
we talked about railroad matters. I think |
made motion to make Mclaughlin chairman.
and he was put in the chair. There was a good
deal of talk about the Broadway surface rail
road and all other railroads. There was nothing
more than talk about the combine The com
bine was on railroad bills, to pass them or not.
We met one week later at McLaughlin's AT
the second meeting Aldermen Deacey and
Jaehne argued about the roads. There would be
$500, 900 in the Broadway road. and the cable
road would put up $750,000-but half
of it was to be in bonds, and
it was said that there were too many in the cable
company. They put it to vote the question
of which road they would side with, and voted to
pass and side In the Broadway surface railroad
Alderman Jahene said that the figures given,
$22O00 apiece, were too big. There would not
be as much as that to go around, because there
were some expenses to come out of the Doodle.
This was the first proposition, but one of the
aldermen thought we ought to have $50, 900
apiece. Aldermen Delacey and Cleary talked,
and they thought there was enough to 60 around
at 800. 900 apiece, and the caucus voted and the
proposition was carried. At the third meeting,
or the second one. at McLaughlin's. week after,
the talk was aboutwhere the money was going to
be put up-who was to hold it, Mr.. McCabe was
opposed to Moloney. He thought he could not
be trusted with so much money. He might walk
off'with it. proposed Mr.. Herman and he was
elected. The vote was unanimous. The de-
PENDANT voted for 1t. / think it was SAID that
each member would have to go himself and see
Mr.. Herman, or else he would not do it. There
was nothing said about how we would get the
votes of the aldermen, and think we then ad-
journed The bill was passed for the Broadway
railroad on Aug 6. 1t came back vetoed There
was another meeting of the caucus at McIaugh-
Inns house in the evening. McQuaide and the
rest were there. There was talk about Mr. Mo
loney getting other votes to pass it over the Veto
1t was said it would cost something to get those