The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-20


ITO table, where they played some
game"
What was the gane?"
Marbles, think
who introduced the subject of the
ccntract?''
Mr. Bambsrger, 1 Think
Can you remember what was said ~
f'Only what 1 said yesterday"
Can you repeat what you said yes
terday?"
Il think so Bamberger asked what
and 1 told him if they were
ready to let the contract / would
give them prices. He said they would
be ready to let it after awhile. and l
told him roughly the price would be
between $4,000 and $4,000
''Then he asked, what is there in it
for u.s."
Yes, and I told him nothing except
the goods / would furnish, and asked
him what he wanted He said they
must have 10 per cent of the contract
price, and I told him even if the firm
would do anything of that kind they
had figured SO close on this job that
they couldn't afford to give 10 per cent,
which would amount to about $1,000
yet you said awhile ago you had
not given a price on this work to any,
one. and you said 10 per cent on an
unknown sum would come to 81 $780,"
Il knew in my own mind what the
price would be-
Did you III this case state before the
grand jury that during the converse
ton with Bamberger at the Knutsford
there were present Messrs. Morris, Ca
noon. Wantland. Loofbourow, Mulloy
and Haynes, and that Bamberger had
introduced Haynes to you?"
mo, say positively that did not"
REDIRECT EXAMINATION.
Redirect examination by Mr. White
more
Did you find out from the archi-
tects who had the letting of the con-
tract?"
Yes; Mr.. Proudfoot told me-"
who did he tell you to see?"
"Bamberger, Morris and Cahoon."
Anyone else?'
He named the other members Of the
committee, but he said the three men
toned We're the ones for me to see. Mr..
Bird introduced me to Nh Bamberger.
and the latter said then that Bowman
was about to give up the contract and
that they would get round to letting
contracts for material, ETC., as soon as
they could
when did you see Mr.. Proudfoot?"
I had the conversation with Bamber-
ger and Morris at the hotel
Before you left Salt Lake City did
you tell an architect about the con-
versation with Bamberger?"
Question objected to and the objec-
ton sustained.
Whom did you first tell that you
had been asked for a bribe?''
Architect Kletting.''
Witness ayp1aipad fh at when Whitto-
more engaged him, Whittemore agreed
to pay him his expenses when out of
Chicago and for whatever time he was
employed. Witness was at that time
in the employ of the Standard Gas
company. Nothing was said by Mr..
Whittemore as to remuneration for tes-
tifying; the money received from
around to Cincinnati, Chicago, Salt
Lake and other places, and to buy
railroad tickets for witnesses.
CAS- each payment was made, did it
cover specified items of expense?"
asked Mr.. Whittemore.
NO
"On what did you base your calcu-
lation that 10 per cent of the contract
price would amount to 81 600?'
Il had an estimate which showed
that the work would come to a little
over $1,000
BY Mr.. Vartan.
You stated to Mr.. Rawlins that no
understanding had been come to be-
tween you and the defendants about
your writing to the, firm in reference
to the matter of the brfbe?"
Eyes"
What understanding. if any, was
had about your writing?"
Il wrote them, but told Bamberger
I didn't think it would do any good
and [ saw them personally and ex-
planned the matter to them.
A juror asked the witness: "While
you were in Salt Lake did you see any
of the members of the committee but
Bamberger or MOrriS?'
Witness-No.
WILLIAM j. GRANT.
William j. Grant. of Milwaukee. Wis
consin, was next called. In reply to
Mr. Whittemore he said he was in the
marble business
Did you do any marble work on the
joint building?"
This question was objected to for the
reason that the marble work had moth
ing to do with the case in point
Mr.. Varian stated that the prosecu-
ton wanted to show that the sDecifi-
cations were changed and that mar
BILE steps, treads and risers on the
stairs were substituted for iron where
by the expense was increased and this
change threw some light upon the al
legged statement Of Bamberger and Nor
ris to Davis in reference to the pro-
posed change, and also tended to prove
the truth of the Davis statements
This point was argued for over an
hour.
WAS IRRELEVANT.
J,,J1o JJ;Is,e, ,.,,1;,,... A.
said the question hinged on whether or
not the evidence offered was part of
the res gestae and relevant to the sub
ject matter of the Indictment The Of
fer is to prove a contract with other
parties not connected with Winslow 6,
Co, and is irrelevant to tbs
contract with them. The state
does not offer to prove any
other instances of tfe defendants
asking for a bride with reference to any
other contracts. The offered evidence
is not part of the res gestae and
is wholly irrelevant in kind. The OBJ
lection is sustained.
DAVIS RETRACTS.
Davis was recalled by Mr. White
more to make a correction in his pre-
vious testimony with reference to the
time he reached Salt Lake. He now
said he had left Denver for Salt Lake
about the first or second of July, but
was called back when he got as far as
Grand Junction and did not again
start for Salt Lake for week or more.
When he got here there was celebra-
ton at Saltair beach which witness
thought was on July but since testi-
tying he had thought it over and found
It was on July "a. He could not there
fore have had the conversation with