The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-06-29
pENNYrAcKER AS A WITNESS.

one or the amusing farces in connec- ton with the investigation now going on in connection with the Pennsylvania State Capitol rascality was the putting of ex-Goyernor Pennypacker on the witness stand and forcing him to tes- tify under oath. It Is not uncommon to put one criminal on the stand to testify against other criminals--and we think few will deny that Pennypacker was wilfulIy criminal or criminally ignorant of what was going on under his nose-but the position held by this one might, 1t was hoped. save him from testifying. but 1t did not do so.
 As was perhaps to be expected of him. he pleaded the baby act. and the "didn't know it was loaded" excuse for what he did or failed to do in con- nection with the job. It must be re- membered that some time in September of last year, and before the elections. Pennypacker and his Auditor General, as his title Is, issued a statement over their own names and duly sworn to. they being the surviving members of the board which had control of the furnishing of the new Capitol building. that being the place where the greater part of the grating and footing was done. In this statement they swore that the members of the board had honestly, carefully and wisely met their responsibilities" They also stated that parsimony on their part would have shown incompetency. and further averred that ''No bill was set- tied finally until the article had been measured. or weighed as the schedule required" That was campaign thun- der. for charges had already been broadly promulgated of 6 nature to se- riously affect the regulations of the three men composing the auditing board, and through them the Republi- can Party of Pennsylvania. On the stand last Friday he was not so sure about things, and The Hartford Times thus condenses some of his testimony: In the course of 1t. he said he thought
 it extremely likely he had made some
 mistakes, and wished to shoulder the
 full responsibility for them. Ine boards idea was to do what they could to help the construction of building
 that might be an object of pride to | the people. He had confidence in Ar chitect Huston and Contractor sander
 son. He was surprised when Snyder ksf1 Id ta finishings and decorations had already cost the State between $3.000.000 and
 S4.000, ,000 He did not know what they
 were costing; he had never asked. He
 said at once that there must be a halt. He had been a judge, Mathues law yer, Snyder a doctor; he doubts wheth-
 pass upon the practical questions they had to deal with. Putting the States Governor on such boards is all wrong.
 he thinks: If we did not get good 4, deceived, and it is an especially wicked thing" he says now. Tt is not only
 fraud but a species of treason. If they cheated the State and deceived us. if they loaded chandeliers and put in im- itation articles instead of the right ma terial, then they have done vicious, punished" And he says farther he had | Architect Huston's assurance that ev-
 erything was all right; and he person.
 thought Pennsylvania had got her moneys worth.
 | We do not know whether this was what the lawyers call a plea of con- l fession and avoidance or what 1t would be called, but the most casual reader is bound to see that his evidence on the stand differs quite materially from the statement sent out broadly last fall In that he pretty plainly main tained that nothing wrong had trans pired in connection with the Capitol work, but his main effort on the stand was to convince the court that others had pulled the wool over his eyes and thus caused him to sin. The fact is that he put his foot in his mouth when he became a witness.
 But really the most singular part of his story was when he said that 'the statutory stipulation in 1903 and 1905 that none of the unlimited appropria- tions for furnishing public buildings should be used for completing the Cap itol did not reduce the vast discretion- l dry powers OI or Public Grounds and Buildings" If the law was not designed and intended to
 limit the powers of the Commission
 ve may we'll ask. in the language of
 The Philadelphia Record, what on
 earth did it do, then. What does he
 suppose the Legislature meant by adopting that provision? The only ex-
 planation he offers is that none of the furnishing money could be used by the Capitol Building Commission. but that the Commissioners of Public Grounds and Buildings could use all the money there was in the Treasury in anything that they regarded as an alteration or improvement of a state building. We may be thankful. therefore. that the Pennypacker Commission utd not tear down the building Payne & Co. had erected, and rebuild the whole thing upon pretense of altering and Improv- | ing the new Capitol.
 OF THE SOUTH.