The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-04-25
IL He Divided the Work with Them
He Thought He Was Entitled TO
He Paid for Ii.
STORY OF A CAMPAIGN FUND
BENNINGTON REFUSES TO IMPLI.
GATE LOGsDON IN ANY WAY.
Committee In Session Throughout the
AfternoOn-Kenningt Admfs-
siOns-Day's Developments.

Frank Remington completed his story OF
the sprinkling business for the past six
years yesterday afternoon. The Council
investigation committee met at 2 o'clock,
but Mr.. Expert did not attend. Chairman
Wynne and Mr.. Shea went ahead without
him. Mr.. Expert says II is almost impos-
sible for him to attend afternoon sessions.
After Remington was excused from the
stand Chairman wynne announced that
there would not be another session until
Monday night. 1t is expected to devote all
of Tuesday. including the evening. to the
hearing Of other witnesses.
Kennington's important testimony yester-
day was in verihcation of the charge OF his
fellow-contractors that he had attempted to
first collect 10 per cent and afterward s
per cent OF the gross amounts received by
them. Remington admitted demanding the
per cents, but denied any knowledge or
completely of Edwin ID. Logsdon In the
transaction. His explanation of the reason
he demanded the percentages was that he
wanted to make that amount for himself
for "his trouble" Logsdon and he had
never discussed it. and there had never been
any arrangement to pay anything to the
campaign fund.
NIX NOELS Il.
Before Mr.. Noel resumed his examination
of Remington yesterday afternoon he cx-
planned to the committee that witnesses
could be required to testify to self-crim-
mating matters, as the charter distinctly
so provided. but that the testimony could
not be used against them. Mr.. Matso Q
counsel for Mr.. Logsdon. insisted that
committee could only refer the question
the court for determination as to wheth'
they should be answered or not and than
the court would do no more than enforce
the ordinary rules OF evidence. The staty
ute could not give the committee authority \
Wynne listened to the lawyers controversy
and smiled but did not attempt to make q
ruling.
Mr. Noel took up the payment of $3.50
Remington testified he made In 1899 to AL
bert Sahm and Charles Mcguire. Demo-
cratic members of the Board of Public
Works, for the Democratic campaign fund.
Mr.. Noel offered Remington chance to
correct his testimony as to the year. and
Remington said he had given the wrong
year and that money had been paid about
that all he had testified to in reference to
that should have been that time He did
testimony showing that he had received
favors In 1900 In the contract letting, nor
did he reconcile other testimony as TO this
year with 1902. He simply said he had been
mistaken in the year when he spoke CT 1888.
KENNINGTON'S DENIALs.
Mr.. Noel then followed the case outlined
by the aff1davits of Kennington's FIVE fell
low-contractors and which were the basis
of the published charges. Remington de-
MED meeting Fred Fuehring IN the safety
deposit Office Of the Indiana Trust Com
pany before the bids for the 1902 contract
were received. He said he met Fuehering
at Rust's house on Cedar street. All the
contractors met there the night before the
bidding for the 1903 contract. At this meet
ing he said the number of wagons required
to do the work was discussed, but there
discussion of prices. II is under
stood, however, that Rust & Remington
wud bas Sd tS talked to tSs he T
had been done by Rust. The combination
secured the work against Reeder & Newby,
but had to bid $40 to get IL.
'You recognize this document7'' said Mr..
Noel, handing Remington sheet Of paper.
Yes, sir.
You recognize that signature7"
Eyes, SIR
Whose Is IL
ut Is mine"
purported to have been sworn TO before
Merle Sidener, a notary. who was then
clerk of the Board of Public Works, show
ing that Rust & Remington were not IN
collusion with any other bidders with
others not to bid Remington said he
had signed this affidavit but had not sworn
10 II Was pOSilisc oiocucf not a0-
minister the OATH
REACHED AN AGREEMENT.
80 you met on the night of April n at
Mr. Rust's house and agreed as to the
number of wagons needed TO carry on the
combination and then went to the boards
Office the morning Of April rs and signed an
affidavit that there was no collusion?"
Yes, sir"
Remington said such affidavits were
customary. Mr.. Noel promptly confronted
him with an affidavit made in 1900 when a
number of the combination bid. This was
attested by c. ii. Spencer, who was then
clerk Of the board. Remington recognized
his signature and again said he had not
been sworn.
Remington said he met Fred Fuehring
and Conrad Rust at the safety deposit
June Is, 1902 There he divided the money
he had collected for the first month OF
work by the combination under the con-
tract The combination was in force all
OF 1902 During that year Fred Nolting's
work and John Furnas's were causes OF
complaint and witness had TO visit the In
spectoIs TO prevent trouble
Mr. Noel here began his examination to
the relations OF the witness and Logsdon-
Remington testified that he had had no
conference with Logsdon before the 1902
letting He denied that he had asked
Logsdon TO widen the sprinkling area In
streets nor TO have streets added TO the
schedule He first talked TO Logsdon about
the sprinkling contract In February OF
this year. He had never talked 10 Logs
don in 1902 but once and that was when he
was called before the board at a time when
Chairman Megrew and Logsdon were along
and they merely told him that the sprink-
ling was not being done satisfactorily and
there would have 10 be an Improvement
WHEN HE NET LOGSDON.
In February of this year the witness met
Logsdon at Meridian and Washington
streets and asked him when the bids would
be received Iocsdou said they were pre-