The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-04-04
THE JEFFERSONVILLE LEVEE.
Mr. Shuler Proves Evasiye and Unsatisfactory
in His Answers to the Committee.
Special to the Indianapolis journal.

Special to the Indianapolis journal.
WASHINGTON, April 3.-Ex-Mayor John N.
Glass, and Albert o. Shuler, ex-councilman of
Jacksonville, testified to-day before the Civil
Service Reform Committee Of the House, in ref
erence to the charges against Warder and Stealey.
Mr.. Glass was cross examined at considerable
length by counsel for the defendants in an eff
fort to show that the action of the witness who
instituted this investigation. was an outgrowth
of political feeling engendered during his last
campaign for denomination for mayor, and in
which he was defeated by Albert o. Shuler.
Republican, who was defeated at the polls by
the present incumbent Democrat. Glass
stated that he voted for Shuler who was under
stood, up to few days of the election, to favor
reimbursement of the citizens who ad-
vanced the $3.50 to Warder. He
was then asked why ,.e-he did
not support the Democratic candidate, who was
known to be opposed to reimbursement of the
money out of the city treasury. The question
was intended to elicit an answer which would
show that Glasss political prejudices were
higher than his moral profession. he having
stated yesterday that he opposed payment of the
81. $50 by the city because he believed it was to
be used for corrupt purposes. Glass replied,
with some emphasis. that he did not favor Shu-
Ter till he came out in card, week prior to the
election, and declared his opposition to the re-
endorsement from the citys funds. Then he
was asked why he did not move to secure con-
gressional investigation of this matter before he
retired from the mayors Office and before
he was defeated for denomination, to
which he replied that it was
not until after he retired from Office
that the money was taken from the city treas
ury, and as long as it came only from private
citizens he did not feel called upon to move, in
his official personal capacity, to secure an in
vestigation. He had, however, some time before
the primary election, spoken to Senator Harri-
son about an investigation.
Mr.. Shuler testified to having sent the first
$3.50 to Warder, upon receiving letter from
him saying he had employed an attorney to work
for the levee appropriation, and that the attor-
ney was to receive retainer Of $3.50, and con-
tingent fee of 900. The $3.50 was advanced by
City Treasurer Prather. He then testified to
sending the $1,000 which Warder telegraphed
for.
''How did You transmit the 81 900; by check?"
inquired member of the committee.
''No; by telegraph replied the witness.
'Why did you send by telegraph Was there
any necessity for such haste9"
ssWeli," replied Shuler hesitatngly, "I
thought Warder wanted it as quick as he could
get it."
At which the committee laughed heartily.
ibid you think the appropriation would not
pass Congress if you did not telegraph the mon
cyl" was asked.
"I-I-didn't stop to think" came the answer
slowly.
what kind of services did you understand
were TO be rendered by the attorney Warder said
he had employedW
Illegal advice" said the witness evasively
s'Do you mean legal advice to Congressr
ssHardly, guess" replied the witness and the
committee and others present roared with laugh
ter at the delicacy of the situation, for it was
evident that legal services were not expected.
At the conclusion of Shuler's testimony, he
was asked to produce the note, or copy of it,
upon winch the ST. 900 was raised also the letter
Warder wrote him in which he said he had en-
ployed lawyer, and certain other papers he
was commanded by the duces tecum to bring
with him from Jeffersonville He replied that
he had not the papers; that he had made no eff
fort to procure them, but could have brought
them had he made an effort to do so. This
caused the members Of the committee to cast
suspicious chances at each other.
''Oh, never mind those papers," interjected
Mr. Ellis, counsel for the defendants 1--WE will
concede that Warder received the 1880, as has
been stated"
when did you arrive here" inquired the
chairman of the committee.
'Night before last replied the witness.
''Then why did you not appear here before the
committee yesterday to testify, as you were sum-
moned to dot"
The witness hung his head moment. It Is
said that he was suspected Of having been ''seenn
by the defendants, or some one acting for them.
When he replied he said: AZ was tired with
travel" The answer was not satisfactory, and
his failure to appear yesterday with the i'm
portant papers called for is yet mystery.
Glass and Shuler will be further examined.
So far, nothing has been proven to inculpate
Ssealey. The burden of proof has been against
Warder. Ex-senator Mcdonald was present as