The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-05-15

yes"
1T was paid for that purpose and
no other?"
That is true
You wouldn't have paid it if you
could have got the contract signed
Without
Perhaps net
Netter of April 81. 1894, from Hayken
to Andrews & Co. was read and put
IN evidence. 1t has already been pub
lished)
:, What do you mean by the word
It's telegraph code word. mean
ing answer al once"
The total amount you were to pay
Morris was 20 per cent on $SS.195, the
amount of the city and county's fur
niture bills?"
Yes"
What did that amount to-"
Seventeen thousand six hundred
and thirty-nine dollars"
ARCHITECTS PERCENTAGE WAS
DROPPED.
What about the architects per
cent?"
That was dropped. 1t never came
to anything
WAS an amount of 10 per cent extra
added on to the cost price for the firm
in addition TO the 20 per cent?"
NO; and 1 want TO say that the $685.
1876 included the marble and it was
afterwards agreed not to pay the 20
per cent on TIE marble, which amount
ed 10 S9,735, but only on the furni-
ture. which, after deducting the mar
BILE account. was $7S,459.
There was no Doodle about the
marble oeal?'
None whatever"
q nf
county's part of the furniture, which
he valued at about $2S,00O?'
Yes"
What was the total amount of the
contract with the county,"
1T was s54 973.S5, including the
countys portion of the marble, So
05945; deducting that left balance OF
S4S, 914.40, on which the rake-off of 20
per cent was to be paid, making the
true value of the furniture for the
county's part 500, 1882"
What were the figures you fur
nished in the schedules before Morris
talked about the 20 per cent?
II don't remember exactly, but It
would be about the price finally paid
less the 20 per ce.lt l added on at his
suggestion"
'And you say that Morris was to get
20 per cent on the whole $SS,l9o, less
the amount of the marble, $9,730 2?
Now, don't you know th@t,-,is not
true?"
Il know that was the contract
Did Morris and Bamberger agree to
pay the greater portion of the eX-
pense of fitting up Cahoon & Haynes
opera house out of the 20 per cent?
Morris did,
Did they agree to pay for that pur-
pose 81, $50 out of the 20 per cent?
- = 01r or
WAS that done to obtain Cahoon'
good will?"
mot on my part. L always believed
Cahoon to be honest, and L do so
still"
You think Cahoon was entirely in
nocert in the matter?'
II do
Did you write your firm a letter
marked confidential on that natter?
Il may have done So"
Did you mean to convey to the firm
the idea that Cahoon had been cor
ruptly influenced by the chair deal?'
II meant to convey what the letter
says"
MORRIS SPOKE AS WE"
"Why did you put the Interrogation
mark after the statement that Cahoon
was innocent?"
81 was told he was innocent, but
had my doubts about it.
WHO did you mean by NJ. and E. ?"
Morris and Bamberger. Norris al
ways spoke as We and 1 thought in
my own mind that he meant Bamber-
ger and himself, but 1 had TO talk with
Bamberger at any time about the mat
ter. 1 mentioned it to him once, and
he threw up his hands and said.
know nothings about it; ask joe
"Then you paid Morris $500 and
81, $50 on the chair business"
Yes"
WAS there any more?'
THE $1,000 1 left for Morris with
Knox"
'And you figured up that there was
still owing to Morris about $4,000?
Yes, about that, but it was not paid
and there were some other dealings
labor. ETC., that made the figures up
to about $1,000 or $1S,00O."
The letter of April 10 was put
in evidence. 1t refers to the
board of education, and says there
was zone big crank on the board,
whom Hayken was smoothing down,
but the others would surely sit on
him. as the writer was bound to get
there. The writer begs them to agree
to the 20 per cent and . per cent 10
the architects Says he has paid Proud
foot $50. to come out of the 5 per cent,
and that the amount of the bill for the
chairs is to be deducted from the ~
per cent. He says he encloses schedule
of estimates submitted by Brunswick
Bake company, Reyell, Matchell x co.
and others, and wonders how ne sue
ceeded in the face of such other bids
L cr1a
cess was such that he thought he ought
to run for alderman.
Letter of April 81, 1894, refers to IAN
other tussel with the board of educa-
ton and assures his firm that The
board is coming round slowly but sure
ly; parties on 90 per cent rake off
clamorin'g for substantial come down
of 81, 500 as inducement to hurry up
signing. "I cannot advise compliance
and now on receipt of this please wire
decision. You are aware that first
they must sign before 1 fork over, and
I shall take good care to have every
thing solid"
COMPLIMENTS TO MCCORMICK.
Two letters of August 3, 1894. One
says, your favor of 30th ulto. in which
YOU say comments are not favorable
to this company, ETC., etc, received. /
have mailed you the full batch Of all
newspapers, and today also The Her
aid Of the 18th ulto. and perhaps you
will feel otherwise after reading all
comments as made and certainly ought
to know that here, as always, are some
soreheads, and mud singing cannot be
prevented Were it not for stirring up
more stink / would send you affidavits
of Recorder Lippman, where in the an
swer Alderman Mccormick would be