The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-13
He Denies that He Attempted to Sc
cure a Corrupt Contract for
the 1902 Sweeping.
MIDDLETON ALSO TEsTIFIEs
HE SAYS FUIs1As ATTEMPTED TO
BUY HIS INFLUENCE.
Records of the Bureau Of Assessments
Intr0duced-A Continuance To-
Morrow Night.

The Council investigation Of the sprink-
ling and sweeping contracts seems far from
the end. The examination of John H. Fur
mas by Mr.. Matson, attorney for Mr.. Logs.
don, consumed half of last nights session
Mr.. Matsons examination covered all the
ground OF Mr. Noers examination Monday
night. Mr.. Furnass testimony abounded
In absolute denials Of the questions asked
by Mr.. Matson. who sought to show that
Furnas was seeking, by his whole course
to bring the influence of A. B. Carter, Albert
j. Middleton, Harry B. Gates and others
to bear on Logsdon to obtain a corrupt
contract for the 1902 sweeping.
Didn't you,'' said Mr.. Matson, ''visi,
Logsdon at the Board of Public Works
office before the 1902 letting and tell him
of the Stuckmeyer arrangement, and tell
him that IL he had a friend who could &c
into a similar arrangement he had only
to name him and you would pay him -. .OOC
or 5000 a year?'
at did nothing of the kind replied Fur
mas.
Furnas said he never was in the sprink-
ling combination and had only sprinkled
one season. He also denied telling Logs
don in A B. Carter's Office that he hoped
the board would award him the 1902 con-
tract under his one-year bid, and that he
Gogsdon) would lose nothing by it," He
said he only had one conversation In Car
ter's office and that was after the bidding
Carter, he said. had suggested calling Logs
don over.
the Citizens League was produced by him
was published and on it the sweeping
charges were based.
NO IMPROPER PROPOSALS.
Furnas testified that Logsdon never made
any improper proposals to him and that no
one had ever told him of corrupt proposals
from Logsdon or any other member of the
Board of Works.
Furnas also contradicted witness Frank
Coffin, who testified that he had heard a
conversation between Remington and Fur
mas at Furnas's Office. in which Remington
demanded 10 per cent Furnas said he had
never talked with Remington, but that
he thought Coffin had confused Frank Shov-
er another contractor, with him.
Edwin d. Logsdon took hand In the
examination of Furnas. He asked Furnas il
he did not visit him Qogsdon) at the
Office of the Board of Public Works soon
after Logsdon became a member and ask
the transfer of money from the sprinkling
fund to the sweeping fund. the latter
was about exhausted Furnas said he did
not remember any such incident. Logsdon
also asked him IL. during the three months
the bidding on the contract for 1902 was
delayed, Furnas had swept any or had
even taken his sweepers oat Of the stable.
Furnas said he thought he had not.
A NEW WITNESS.
Albert J. Middleton. brother-in-law of
Logsdon. was the first new witness. He
testified that Furnas came to his factory in
January or February of 1902 and asked him
II he was friendly with the administration.
The witness said he guessed he was. Fur
mas asked him IL he could secure the con-
tract for sweeping. Furnas said he had
had to take Stuckmeyer in and pay him
$500 year to set the contract under the