The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-02

you had, did you use language such as
have asked you about either that or In
substance concerning Mr. Logsdon? Al
have said not unless there was lapse OF
the tongue / could not explain in any man.
ner at all
$50 that If these other gentlemen testi-
| fed to that. and you did say ii, your ex-
PLANTATION now is that IL was lapse or the
tongue as you call il? Will you syear that
you didn't? Al will swear that didn't
make that expression knowingly.
Mr.. Duncan-What is the best of your
recollection?
Mr.. Spaan-He doesn't need any posting.
| submit Mr.. Duncan has no right TO inter-
fere with my examination of this witness
nor to help him out of a hole when he gets
into it,
Mr.. Duncan-I submit have a right to
ask the witness who is being questioned IL
this way TO give his best recollection.
positively that you did not that kind
OF language? A.-Not TO my recollection at
all. To the best of my recollection, no.
Q.-Didnt you use language that meant
that? A.-No, sir, did not.
Q.-So, coming back to my proposition
when l was interrupted by Mr.. Duncan, If
you did say that TO those gentlemen, 1t was
what you call lapse of the tongue, was 1t
1t? A.-That is true, if IL was said.
Off IL was said IT was simply lapse OF
tongue when you are talking of as impor-
tant things as that, Mr.. Noel? A.-About as
often as you do, Mr.. Spaan.
Q.-And other gentlemen. So you may
have had, when you were discussing this be-
fore the gentlemen, you may have said he
was an honest gentleman, you may have
forgotten IL? Al have not forgotten any
thing concerning the conversation. 1 know
the substance of it and 1 have repeated 1t
to you.
Q.-When you were talking about Mr..
Logsdon In the manner already indicated
there were more than Mr.. Expert present.
were there not? AIR. Expert, Mr.. Wynne
and Mr. Shea.
Odd you have a conversation with Mr..
EnSley some two three weeks ago, in
which you said at that time, after having
carried on the investigation for some time,
that you had no evidence against him and
that he was honest? Was that lapse of
the tongue? Al had a conversation with
Mr.. Ensley and there was no lapse of the
LOGSDON'S HONESTY.
Q.-There was no lapse of the tongue?
A.-No, sir
OIL want what you said about Mr..
Logsdon's honesty and that you had no
evidence against him. Ain answer TO
a question by Mr.. Ensley in regard to the
sprinkling investigation, / said to him, in
substance, this: "Of course, Mr.. Kenning-
ton and Mr.. Logsdon were the parties to
the corrupt transactions, If there were
any. Mr.. Remington denies there were any
corrupt transactions, and Mr.. Logsdon de-
MES it, and no one else seems to know
IL. II.
thing ike this: There is a chance to be-
lieve that Ed is honest, is there?" / said:
There is no evidence to fix this conclu-
sion at this time
guage without any qualification that Mr..
Logsdon was perfectly honest? Al did
not.
$50 that Mr.. Ensley was mistaken the
other day, was he? A.-Mr. Ensley possi-
bly, 'misconstrued what / said.
$50 that he had a lapse of the tongue.
of these gentlemen with perjury.
$50 that he had lapse of the tongue
or the memory or something like that?
A.-No sir; 1 think Mr.. Ensley explained
my statement very accurately.
Odd you think Mr. Expert had lapse
of the tongue or the memory when he
made his statement on the witness stand
A.-Those inconsistencies of human ten
dency are hard to explain, Mr.. Spaan.
Q.-You heard him testify that you said
Logsdon was as straight as a string and
put it in the present tense, didn't you?
Ayes. sir.
Q.-Before you took that memorable trip
with Mr.. Martin over to see Mr.. Folk did
you have any evidence-that lawyer
don? Al had no evidence against Mr..
Logsdon further than what has been
brought out by the committee on investi-
cation and impeachment; that is, further
than what had been before the committee.
At that time there were some witnesses
| that had not been examined.
get the condition of your mind when you
went over to St. Louis. Did you have any
evidence against Mr.. Logsdons honesty
and integrity when you went over there?
Al had the evidence / used afterwards.
We had one or two meetings of the COM
mittee before we went to st. Louis.
Q.-Y0u had no evidence only what ap-
peared before the committee? A.-Before
the investigation committee? Yes. sir.
Q.-And that was entirely confined to the
sprinkling contract, was it not. as far as
confined, / think, to the sprinkiing con-
tract and TO some portions of the sweep
ing contract which the sprinklers performed
and for which they were paid by the city,
and for some other irregularities.
PROTECTION OF GAMBLERS.
Q-Had one word been said before the
committee about gamblers and the pro-
lection of gamblers? A.-Not as against
| Mr.. Logsdon, no. sir.
Q.-Now, when you were appointed as at
| torney for that committee, didn't you I'M
| derstand it TO be your duty not so much
| to convict Mr.. Logsdon as 1t was to get at
| the facts, and If he were not guilty of the
| things charged to have him acquitted?
| Ayes, sir; and / so expressed myself
| many times.
Q-And that you were not employed as a
prosecuting attorney, simply to prosecute,
were you? A.-No. sir.
Q.-And you were there to find out the
| truth for your friend, as you had called
| him up to that time, as we'll? Ayes. sir:
Q.-Now, who suggested to you to go and
| see Mr.. Folk? AIR. Hilton U. Brown
| made the first suggestion.
Q.-Mr. Hilton U. Brown was the general
| manager of the News? Ayes, sir.
Odd you have any talk with Mr.. Mar
| tin before you went over there? Al had a
| talk with Mr.. Martin in which
OIL didn't ask what it was. Did you have
| a talk with Mr. Martin? Al did.
Q.-Now then, Mr.. Noel, did you talk to
| any member of the Citizens League before
| you went over to st. Louis concerning this
| matter of going to st. Louis? A.-No, sir.
not one.
Q-Had you talked to DR.. Hunt about II?
Al had not.
$50 that the only people you had talked
| to about going to st. Louis to see Mr..
| Folk were the two gentlemen that repre-
scented the Indianapolis News at that time?
| A.-And probably my wife.
Q.-Dont bring your wife into 1t; let her
stay at home. 1 am talking about in con-
| nection with this case. Your wife is not
| connected with this case. She has nothing
| TO do with this case except to keep you
| straight when you go home IL she can do
| that. The only people you talked to about
| this matter of going to see Mr.. Folk. out
side of your wife, was Mr.. Brown and Mr.
| Martin. who represented the indianapolis
| News? Ayes, sir.
| Ozone was the general manager and the
| other holding what position? A.-One was
| general manager and the other managing
| editor.
| Odd you talk to Mr.. Williams, Charles
| r. Williams, before you went over there!
| Ayes, sir.
| Q.-About going over? A.-No. sir.
| Q.-About going TO see Mr.. Folk? A.-No