Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-02-01
A LITTLE TOO TALL.
Three Inches in his Stature Saves
Taubeneck Great Trouble.
CONVICT ROGERS WAS SHORTER
But the Two Men Resemble Each Other
Enough to Puzzle Witnesses.
PRISON OFFICIALS NOT SATISFIED

:ePEcIAL TKLKeRAN TO THE DIePArcHI
COLUMBUS, Jan. 31.-The special COM
mittee of the Illinois Legislature appointed
to investigate the charges against Member
Taubeneck, arrived in this city to-day and
at once proceeded to the State Prison, where
they inaugurated their work. The commit
tee was accompanied by Taubeneck.
1t was charged by certain parties whom it
is difficult to locate that he had served q
term in the Ohio Penitentiary under the
name of W. 81. Rogers, who was sent from
Wayne county in 1885 for forgery. and was
paroled in 1886. Taubeneck seemed anxious
to have thorough inquiry made, and lent all
the assistance he could. He was taken
to the Warden's office, where the official
records were examine ed as TO the description
of Rogers, when he arrived at the prison,
and these answered very we'll to the descrip-
tion of Taubeneck, with the exception that
Rogers measured feet 81 inches when he
arrived at the prison, and Taubeneck was
measured and found to be feet and inch
in his boots. He is full without foot wear.
This is the strongest point made in his favor
in the examination.
Very Close Resemblance.
A number of officials and employees who
were at the prison in 1886, when Rogers was
there, and who were engaged with him in
the same shop, were called for the purpose
OF Identification. Two were examined, who
stated positively that Taubeneck could not
be the man. R. M. Rownd, who was resi-
dent manager of the penitentiary in 1886,
and who was we'll acquainted with Rogers,
said on FIRST sight that there could be mo
mistake about Taubeneck and Rogers being
one and the same person. After close ex-
animation, however. he said that while the
two men possessed great many features in
common, he would not like to state positively
that Taubeneck was Rogers. In height,
complexion, color of the hair and some
other points, he thought the similarity ran
closely.
P. P. Donahue, who was foreman in the
shop where Rogers worked, explained that
there were a great many features of the two
men in common. At first he thought he
could not be mistaken, but he finally con-
cluded he would not like to state for GER
tainty that Taubeneck and Rogers were the
same person.
Convicts Were Not Heard.
The committee refused to accept the state
ments of. or Identification by, convIcts, two
or three of whom said they could identify
Rogers on sight, as they had worked and
been intimate with him. While they were
not averse to accepting the testimony of
convicts as a committee, and weighing it
for what it was worth, they thought it
hardly the proper information to put before
the public ut large through the press. No
convicts were called.
The committee took a copy of the records
and will make report to the Illinois Legis-
lature next Wednesday. An interview with
each member of the committee leaves no
doubt as to what their report will be. They
do not believe there has been any evidence
produced to indicate Taubeneck and Rogers
were the same person. The prison officials
hold to the theory that Taubeneck is the
man wanted in Ohio for violation of parole,
and it is altogether likely there will be
further proceedings in the case. A portion
of the committee returned this afternoon,
and Taubeneck will remain till tomorrow.
Taubeneck declared the whole trouble grew
out of a personal matter between himself
and the editor of the paper in his county.
Those present seemed unanimous in his
favor.