The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-09
PAID TWICE BY THE CITY
ID. A. MURPHY'S AFFIDAVIT AS TO
ENGINEER JEUP'S OFFICE.
One Inspectors "Snnp'-F1ack Was
Foreman of Grand Jury to Which
Murphy Complained.
Dennis A. Murphy tells in the following

Dennis A. Murphy tells in the following
communication of his experience with the
rottenness of the Taggart administration:
Il have lived in this city twenty-five
years and have been III the contracting bust
ness seven years. have been Democrat
all my life, but 1 cannot, for good reasons,
support Mr.. Iaggart this year. Since the
nomination of Mr.. Taggart he has met me
and wanted To know Why i was against
him for reelection, and told him that as
long as MIR. Jeup was city engineer l could
NOT give him nay support tod him how l
was oppressed by Mr.. Jeup because he did
not like me, and practically forced to re-
tire from business. He patted me on the
shoulder, smiled and said Why did you not
come to me? L will look after all my friends
Since his nomination different city inspec-
tors have come to me and told me to figure
on work below cost and they would assure
me that | would get through all right, even
II IT was at the expense of the property hold
ers. In the spring OF 1896 l knew of so much
rottennesS in the city engineers office and
among his inspectors that l went before the
grand jury of Marion county. Joseph F'lacl1
was foreman of the grand jury, and l gave
TO him list of witnesses that L wished
called to prove the charges that / SWOre
to before the grand jury. These witnesses
were not at that time nor any other time
called before the grand jury to testify.
After | had testified Joseph t'lack walked
out of the grand jury room and went di-
rectly TO Mayor Taggarts Office. / followed
him TO the office and heard them talk about
the very matters that / have testified to-,
and the whole thing was ended at that time.
ION the 9Th day of August, 1884, | pre-
sented to the Council the affidavit which 1
desire you to publish in your paper That
affidavit has been in the hands of a Repub-
lican councilman ever since that time, and
whenever he makes an attempt 90 bring the
matter UP before the Council in order that
the Council may investigate it some Demo-
crat moves to adjourn. This has been done
time and again since the day it was pre-
scented. / have myself talked with Dennis
j. Wren. the person mentioned in the atti-
davit, and he told me that the city engineer
made the proposition to him that he was
going to. permit him to CraWa two days pay
for one days work. The bill for work men,
toned in this affidavit came before the
School Board with recommendation from
City Engineer Jeup that it should be paid,
he knowing that the city had already paid
him for the same work about two weeks be-
fore that. and when it came before the
board for action Henry Russo, Democrat,
objected to it's allowance because it had
been paid. These are only few OF the rea-
sons why / cannot support Mr.. Taggart. If
these facts are denied 1 can Lurnsh
abundant proof fer them.
MIR. MURPHY'S AFFIDAVIT.
The affidavit Mr.. Murphy speaks of is
embraced in the following:
ITO the Common Council of the City of
Indianapolis--The undersigned, Dennis A.
apols. and a resident and voter of said
city presents to your honorable body and
makes the following charges against Bern
ard j. T. Jeup, an employe OF said city IN
the capacity of city engineer.
HE Charges that on or about the period
between the 9Th day of March and the 9Th
day of April, 1896 one Dennis J. Wren was
employed as an inspector of the work being
done on a certain sewer connection with
school building No. 10, on East Michigan
street, in the city. of indianapolis; that as
such inspector, said Wren was paid by the
School Board of the City Of Indianapolis
salary or S15 per week during the time he
was employed as such inspector being ABOUT
four weeks that the employment of SAID
Wren by said School Board and the payment
of his salary was with the knowledge and
under the appointment of the said city en-
"He further charges that during the time
between the above-named dates the said
Dennis r. Wren was also paid for his serv-
ices as inspector by the city OF 1nulahapols'
that on or about April ! and May /, 1926,
paw rolls were prepared by the said city
engineer in which the name of Dennis J.
Wren was placed as being employed by said
city of indianapolis and entitled to be paid
for his services as such Inspector; that SAID
paw rolls were approved by the Board or
Public Works of said city. and sald lOenniS
T Wren received from the funds of said
city pay for his services as inspector our
ing the period between the dates named as
aforesaid: that the said Bernard ]. 7. Jeup
well knew that he had been paid for such
services by the School Board ABOVE reIeffeq
to- and that said Dennis J, Wren received received
double pay for his services as sucn lhspec log
with the knowledge ana coHhlNance VI saiu
.Wherefore. the undersigned petitions
your honorable body, TO investigate tne
and Te1uired and take such action in the
"DENNIS A MURPHY.
state of Indiana, Marion county, IS,
Dennis A Murphy, being duly sworn, on. on
oath saws that the facts alleged in the
above petition are true. as he verify Pc
lieves. DENNIS a. NJ cINr - l.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
18th dav of August A. D. 1871
~ AN y STTARWAT.T, Notary Public"