The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-12
He Admits that He Sought to Secure
Contract Through influence OF
Logsdon's Brother-in-Law.
OFFERED TO PAY MIDDLETON
REASON HE WENT INTO PARTNER.
SHIP WITH sTUCKMEYER.
Mr.. Furnas's Explanation Of Confer
ences with HI. b. Gates More to
the Latter's Credit.

John H. Furnas, who has for seven years
been interested in the city street sweeping
and sprinkling contracts, was the most i'm
portant witness on the stand in the Council
investigation of the sprinkling and sweep
ing contracts last night. Much of Furnas' S
testimony covered the ground told of by
other witnesses and was largely corrob-
atory of Fred Fuehring. A large portion
was devoted to the business details of
handling sweeping contract.
Before Mr. Furnas was called, Fred
Fuehring testified that he had kept account
of the sweepings on Ohio street.. between
Noble street and Highland avenue, last
year. He testified that 1t was only swept
sixteen times between July 21 and Nov. 1,
although the schedule called for two
sweepings each week. He said piles of
sweepings were left in the street once.
These sweepings, when not removed by the
night force, are removed by the day force,
which the city pays. The dirt, under the
contract is to be removed at the expense
Of the contractor before a. m. He said il
happened to all contractors and that the
city very seldom was at any expense.
STUCKMEYER'S INFLUENCE.
Mr.. Furnas's testimony relating to the
sweeping contract of 1899 was less obscure
than that of his partner, Mr.. Fuehring.
He admitted that Charles II. Stuckmeyer
was taken in partner because the 1899
record of sweepings w. ; taken as an indi-
cation that such a step would be neces-
sary. Stuckmeyer, he said, was a close
political friend of Mayor Taggart's and was
less likely to be pounded with fines Be
how xx-ar oh Ia 20 H.
with Stuckmeyer. by which. If the fining
process was resumed. they could throw
up their work. Stuckmeyer dealt with the
city and they with Stuckmeyer
The fines of 1899 were very severe. he
said. One night they aggregated $3.50 It
was nothing unusual for them to be SIS
or $50 a day and the fines were for both
day and night work. This was ruinous.
They were fined so much for West New
York street that they ceased sweeping at
all and withdrew their day man to save
money. The fines then stopped.
Furnas said William Flynn was inspec-
tor and he could only surmise the reason
for the fines. but he took the treatment as a
punishment for taking the sweeping con-
tract from Graves & Jones'
Stuckmeyer was not known to Furna s
until few days before the 1900 bidding.
He agreed to give them the work at IL
cents for all work that passed inspection.
Furnas said he insisted on no responsible
ity because he did not want to be fined out
of business. Furnas denied he had gone to
the Grand Hotel and talked with Taggart
about the 1900 contract. He denied that
Taggart told him he would not give him
the contract unless he took Stuckmeyer
in. He also denied telling Albert Middle
bret fhor In ID w nf n
he had been so told by Taggart He said
the only time he had gone TO Taggart was
when he sought him at the Grand Hotel
and told him the inspectors were unjustly
filming them. Taggart he said. told him il
the inspectors were doing that he would
take care OF them.
FINES INCREASED.
ssAnd the next night we were fined $3.50 .
Furnas said ne didn't hunt Taggart any
more. He said the gross profits during
1901. during the stuckmeyer contract, were
about 5000. not including the 1850 paid