The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-05-06
LOgsdon's Counsel Charged with Try
ing to Prevent the Submission sf
Important Evidence.
CONTRACTOR NoLT1NG's STORY
DENIES HE TALKED To LOGSDON
ABOUT sPRINKLING CONTRACT.
He Says Remington ssLamented" Fall
ure of Contractors to Enter Ar
rangement-Other witnesses.

The session of the Council committee on
investigation and impeachment last night
was filled with protest against the charac-
ter of the testimony that is being intro
duced to substantiate the charges in re-
lation to the street-sprinkling contract. w.
A. Ketcham and f. E. Matson, attorneys
for E. ID. Logsdon. the member of the Board
of Public Works who has been directly in
volved in the charges. made protest several
times. and when the committee rose Mr..
Logsdon. pale with anger. protested to
Chairman wynne and Mr.. Expert
You are giving my feelings and my repu-
tation no consideration" said he. ''you are
permitting testimony to come before you
which is the limit of hearsay and on which
the papers base what they call evidence
and on which l am held up to ridicule In
cartoons. You are treating me worse than
a prisoner in the Criminal Court"
''The committee will give everything due
consideration" replied Mr.. Wynne. You
are all right"
''Of course I'm all right" replied Logs
don hotly, ''but you do not seem to regard
my feelings and my reputation at ALL"
Ir.- Wynne and Mr.. Epper: said no more.
LAWYERS DISPUTE.
The lawyers had several disputes. and
they were becoming personal when Chair
man Wynne called them 10 order. Mr..
Ketcham characterized the testimony intro
duced by Mr.. Noel as house that jack
brlit'' affair and that no court in chrfsfen-
dofn would ever admit much OF the ''stuff'
Mr.. Noel presented. He alluded TO the ef-
feet of the evidence" on the public mind
AMI the prejudice IL was likely TO create
against innocent persons. The committee
adheres to it's rule of wide latitude and
permitted all Mr.. Noers Questions to be
answered.
Another development OF the investigation,
confirmed last night, is that the affidavits
on which the published charges concerning
the street sprinkling were based were not
secured by the Citizens League, and the
league has no affidavits from the sprinkling
contractors 1t is understood all OF the
leagues af1davits relate to the sweeping
contract. 1t had been developed from the
testimony of Conrad Rust and Fred W.
Noting that the affidavits were made In
thc off1ce or Charles Martindale, attorney
for w. II. Newby. and were for use in New
byss Injunction suit against the Board OF
WSrks. Noting testified last night that he
na9 not &c tne OF his
BEN asked TO. The affdayits were never
used In the case.
FURNAS AND BENNINGTON.
Che first witness last night was Frank
NJ. Cofin. 1884 Beliefontaine street. who is
employed weighing mails in the railway
mail service. He testified that he heard a
coTversat!on in February last at the Office
of the L. c. Thomas Company. where John
H: Furnas has desk room. The conversa-
ton was between Furnas and Frank Ken
niitgton. Remington told Furnas IL he got
ans work under the contract he would have
to pay 10 per cent. After the witness went
ous Furnas told him IL was Remington
What did Mr.. Furnas say as to what the
Ncal. --.-.t-..s
Mr.. Ketcham promptly objected. He de-
cla-ed that IL was taxing the limit Of even
the hearsay latitude assumed against the
protest of Logsdons counsel at the begin
nirlg OF the investigation He was tired OF
he:sring witnesses testify that they had
person had said so and so. Chairman
Wynne said the answer should be made.
CJffin replied that Furnas said: Prank
what do you think of city administration
asking 10 per cent. on sprinkling. sweeping
ana sewersg"
Mr. Noel then asked Conn IL ne had
overheard conversation between Ken
ninsyton and Logsdon In the office of the
BoSrd Of Works In January last CONN
sais he had. Logsdon and Remington were
stahding near the boards table. outside the
rafting, and the witness was about fve
feed from them.
Vow tell what that conversation was"
IS can't answer that" said the witness.
'.tyas II about this sprinkling contract7'
cannot remember what II was about"
"Nill you swear that II was not about the
"Eo. cannot; do not remember what IL
wae about
"gil you say It was about it1"
mot bar rra
thiSgs pass through mans mind"
COULD NOT REMEMBER
TIE witness answered all questions tend
ingi to extract information about this con-
ver:ation by saying he dic not remem-
bers
Finally he said he could say there was
nothing said about 10 per cent"
M Noel asked him II he remembered
talfing with Ross Martin and j. A. Hum
phrfys. postal clerks. In the transfer sta
tiort at Terre Haute on April q. He said he
dds Mr. Noel asked him II he did not tell
these men that he had heard the conversa-
tiors between Logsdon and Remington. and
thas Logsdon told Remington he would
hayss, TO have 10 per cent. Of the sprinklIng
contract. He said these men were mis-
takfn; that he had used the names or
Fuixias and Remington and not Logsdon.
Mr. Noel again asked the witness 10 re-
Irestl MS recolitctlOn as 10 tniS cOuNerSa-
tiors I'm the basement OF the courthouse
but he again said he could not remem-
ber.
Os cross-examination the witness said the
condensation between Logsdon and Ken
ninfton was in an ordinary tone
Mf. Noel next put j. A. Humphrey. OF
17l6s North Alabama street. on the stand.
Mrs. Humphrey said he and Ross Martin
and, two other clerks had heard Comm talk
In rle transfer room at Terre Haute. Mr..
Nod asked the witness n he heard Conn
say sthat he heard the conversation between
Loeasdon and Remington and had said g
wasf about the 10 per cent
HIRE Mr.. ketcham furiously objected 70