The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-06-29

conducted the examination for the de-
Tense. After the issue Of the paper on
tanning the article of Whiteside's had
been identified. the defendant was called
TO the stand TO acknowledge that he had
prepared the article for publication.
Ex-Secretary Marsh then took the
stand. His direct and redirect examina-
tons were long. many details Of an IN
interesting nature being gone over. He
read from the minutes OF the proceed
ings relating to the important features
of the Ease. He told the Jury how the
80 plans entered in the competition were
received from the competing architects.
numbered and placed in the auditorium.
the name of the owner being in an en-
velope that was not opened until afler
the award had been made by ballot. He
denied that any of the competing archi-
tects were allowed to explain their
plans before the award was made during
the month the commission was decid-
ing which TO accept. or that Seymour
Davis, the advisory architect by whose
advice the board was supposed to be
guided. ever wrote a letter recommend
ing that plan M. AZ. that of Cass Gil
bert. who captured the second prize, be
accepted instead of No. 80, Mann's. He
told Of the award being mad Aug. 5.
1896. and the contract being prepared
and signed the following month and of
tnt utldN ItSullInS lItiH TIE SutttSSlhl
architects inability to procure a bond
in accordance with the terms of the
contract.
Then came the story of the second
contract, in which two Of the objec-
tionable features of the first were elm
mated, enabling the architect to obtain
al indemnifying bond from a surety
company to secure II. A. MARROW, one
Of the local men who had agreed to sign
the bond providing he were Unidentified.
The witness spoke of a provisional
agreement" which was to the effect tina:
although Mr.. NARROW signed the boId
II was not binding unless Mann secured
him (Marlow) by an i~ndemnifying bond
from a surety company.
That provisional agreement was a
sort of a string on the bond?" asked A..
J. Campbell.
NO, you could hardly call il that
The witness admitted there was no rec
ord in the minutes of thai agreement.
If IL were in writing IL might be found
among the effects of the secretary's Of
flee. but subsequent investigation failed
To find II. The ex-secretary did not APP
pear to be very clear as to the date
when the second contract was signed.
he admitted, however, that il was dated
the same as the first, Sept. 8. Neither
could he explain how IL was that w. *.
Flowerree, "A member of the commission,
had not signed the second contract. The
witness admitted that he was rather
mixed up on the two bonds and it was
hard for him to recollect the circum-
stances connected with each.
Architect Mann's testimony covered
much Of the ground gone over by MI.
Marsh. He told of his experience as an
architect, The buildings he had designed,
etc, and his story of the award to him
Of the first prize for the Montana CAPT
tn1 Hn Annfa1 that ha tr,al e., -
the commission in the selection of his
plans by any means whatever. His
cross-examination lasted two hours and
was quite severe. 1t consisted largely
of a rehash of his direct examination,
with a detailed account of the generally
adopted manner of preparing plans,
whether as needed by the contractors or
before the contract is awarded. Wit
ness did not know why the commission
adjourned for a week directly after the
contest closed and before the award
was made. He admitted going through
the Yellowstone park about that time
and hat Advisory Architect Davis also
made the trip, which will he remem-
bered was the subject of caustic COM
ment in Representative Whiteside's mi
nority report. During his testimony as
To his plans, he said. in reply to a ques-
ton, that il would cost about $40, 900 to
complete the foundation and basement.
He told of the trouble he experienced I'm
securing an indemnifying bond to Sc
cure his Helena bondsmen until an OBJ
jeCtionable feature i'm the contract, hold
ing the architect responsible for dis
honesty on the part of the contractors,
had been eliminated, and he admitted
that all this time, about three months,
he had men at work drawing his plans
in detail. when in reality he did not
have a binding contract with the state.
When the indemnifying bond was Sc
he was paid in all $22. 500 in warrants.
"All the work for which you received
$22, 500 was performed without a bind
ing contract" asked Attorney Campbell
as a sort Of a climax.
The witness admitted that was about
the size of il. He again denied that he
had attempted to bride any member of
the commission to vote for his plans.
If you had bribed any member, would
you testify to that effect now?" asked
the attorney.
Yes. sir"
This was the only sensational question
of the day connected with the cross-ex-
animation, and court adjourned. 1t is
expected that the evidence will be about
concluded Tomorrow, unless too much
time is devoted to the character witt
nesses. Of whom, il is understood, there
are several.
MAINE RFPlIRI ICaNS