Year: 1869

and the explanation OF some OF tneu
was that Yarnall had found basis fl
making them in the fact of his own
neglect in keeping the books. This ex
PLANTATION could have been substantial
ted by unimpeachable testimony hao
the committee seen proper to take any
thing moro than my own statement ID
regard to the matter.


As to the practice of whipping con
victs with raw hides, l have no recol
lection that any evidence was taken by
kthe committee on the point. The au
Thor of the synopsis" may have heard
from those with whom he associated
while in Meundsville, that such prac
tice did obtain, but it was not given IL
evidence at any public session of the
committee. Furthermore, that practice
never did obtain.


"The committee say the letting ot
contracts has not been altogether in al
respects impartial. The stone has cost
from S6.75 to $1,000 per perch. A great
many of the stone were purchased with
out being measured, Only two or three
loads of the ruole stone bought at from
So to So per perch were measured. The
rest were guessed at by convicts."


The author of this paragraph must
have been strangely forgetful of the
evidence which the committee obtained
in regard to its subject matter. In an
swer to it, Ipropose to show the stone
book of the contractors who furnished
the stone alleged to have been "guessed
at" and any unprejudiced person can
determine for himself how much OF
truth there is in the allegation. / ap-
peal also to the committees report of
the evidence. The general statement in
regard to the cost of the stone, cannot
fail to mislead. The truth is that on
some 80 perch. contracted for at $1,000,
33 per cent. additional was afterwards
allowed because the stone were extra
large and fine. As to the guessing by
convicts, for the public to understand
fully what foundation there is for the
charge, it would be necessary to publish
the entire evidence on the subject, and
| am very much mistaken if that evil
dence will substantiate the allegation.


And now, in conclusion, the Chairman
of the committee, the reported author
of the synopsis" having taken the
initiative by furnishing it for publica-
tion in violation of the agreement, or
understanding, between the members of
the committee that no publicity should
be given to their conclusions for the
present, and thus sought to influence
public sentiment against tho Peniten-
tiary authorities, and brand myself, in
particular, as a sYinGler, | nope 10 be
excused somewhat if l do not refrain
| from few words in relation to him
| personally.


There is an opinion held in common
| by quite a number of those who are
acquainted with that gentleman's course
in the matter of investigation, and that
is, that he displayed all through spirit
very much like that of persecution.
One would have supposed. that regard
for common decency and lively inter
est as to what might be said of him in
the future-some concern lest a
damaging Interpretation might possibly
be put upon his conduct afterwards
would have caused him TO be exceed
ingiy careful in forming associations
with those who Were blatant in their
expressions of ill-feeliug towards gen
tlemen whose management of public
funds he was investigating. His per-
sonal habits also, while in Moundsvilie,
were such as to excite remark, ana it
might have been doubted whether, al
times, his conduct, III consequence OF
those habits, was such as 10 make
it altogether certain that he was
properly qualified to conduct the
investigations; and this doubt could
have been strengthened when on
his directing the Committee Clerk
not to put down certain words of wit
ness on the stand, rose and insisted
that they should 60 down, and inquired
if the clerk had been sworn, his reply
being that he did not know. And
again, what is to be thought of SEN
ator, "grave and reverend seignior," !"
who, appointed by the Legislature of
which he is a member to preside at an
investigation into the in which
large amount of money, entrusted by
the State to certain public function
aries, has been expended, could, at the
same time, place himself in a position
with regard to expenditures OF public
funds, so delicate as to require the
fullesb explanation | allude to Ger
tain certificates on the Auditor, given
by him to Peter Yarnall, the prosecuting
witness, for alleged services to the com
mittee, without the knowledge of the
committee. And still further, ID there
not sufficient cause for suspicion as 10
the motive, when q leading member Oi
a committee ?ppo,nted To report facts,
to hear testimony and act, as 1t were,
as judges, could permit himself to va
cate the chair and occupy the position
of prosecutor for the StateW Did the
Legislature Intend this investigation TO
| be a prosecution, or is the chairman
alone responsible for the shape which it
did assume Was it not seriously pro-
posed by the chairman and another
member of the committee from the same
county to allow evidence to be given on
but one side of the case to permit no
"rebuttive testimony" Tin the language
of that member) to be given at all; to
assume for the committee the full pow
ers of a Star Chamber And, finally,
when it is recollected that one memker
of the committee, Hon, B. +. Harrison
of jefferson, had gone heme more than
a week before the committee adjourned,
and had had no opportunity to become
fully informed of the conclusions OF the
ether members, or to form his own, and
had not signed, what excuse can there
be for the action of the chairman in
furnishing for publication what was
not, at the time it was furnished, a
synopsis" of the committees report


Respectfully, yours,


q. S. MCFADDEN.