Year: 1859

made by James :. Graham and John +. Nc


Cauey, against "Chef Warden Walkup and


the Managers of the Prison" The propriety
of giving the Importance of official accusers
against State officers, to these interested, un-
princpled calumniators, is most question.
able, and if it is to he held precedent the


people may expect their most reliable public


servants to be thus attacked quite often, and


the legislature to be annoyed at any and all


times, by vicious, irresponsible outsiders,


seeking through this medium, revenge for


some fancied wrong, or some thwarted


scheme of villainy Here were these two


men, both claiming to be interested in this


State Prison difficulty, and both thirsting


for revenge upon the officers of the State,


who have been instrumental in exhibiting by
comparison, the base practices, gross frauds,
and vile extravaganza, heretofore practiced
in the affairs of that instituton-and yet
they entertain them as State accusers. If as
witnesses they knew any fact, or could point
to persons who they believed could testify to
the same, it would have been right to ex-
anime them on those points, but in their
first communication as appears by the report
they expressly say that these charges are
based upon information received from others.
With this admission in the title page to their
book of inuendoes, this Committee admit
them cloaked and Masked as State accusers.
No one can read this report throughout
without being convinced that this Committee
went upon its duty with their verdict al
ready fixed, and used these charges as a re
port, or else that they received these charges
in qualification of most culpable passion
for the meanest description of gossip. They
can take either horn of the dilemma.


In considering these accusations, it has be-
come quite trite to speak of them as serious
charges" ard persons who have never read or
analyzed them use this phrase without know
ING why, any more than that they have heard
Others so speak of them. This is true of
newspapers-one follows another. Let us
examine them and see what they are; assum-
ing that they are true for the purpose of
this analysis.


Charge first, (page seven of the report) if
denied puts in issue, first, did Walkup
his services as Chief Warden of
the prison at the time he was appointed.
If he did do so, then did he do so with the
express understan ling that he was to receive
no compensation of any nature or kind
whatever for his time and services at the
prison. Then il both the foregoing propo
sitions are true did he cause bill to be in
troduced and passed through the Senate,
approprating to him pay for those services.
Now without referring at this time to the
facts-what difference does it make to the
people whether he volunteered or not, he
performed the services-that is admitted.
and the citizens of this State do not want
his or any other mans services for nothing;
and what do they care at whose instance the
law appropriating money for the same is in
trodnced into the Legslature!


Yet as a piece of defamation this charge
first is made to answer before the public all
the purposes of an issue of fact, worthy to
be gravely considered.


Charge number two, places in issue the
fact Of whether Walkup made purchases
for the prison, when it was the right Of the
to do that work, and that he
had it in his power TO retain thousands OF
dollars of the peoples money without fear
of detection. 1t is not that the purchases
were not made honestly and correcty-it Is
not that he has retained one cent of the pub
lie money-these would have been charges.


Charge third contains dirty insnuation
that Walkup endeavored to cheat Charles L.
Weller out of thousand dollars-monies
drawn by him for the use of the prison,
through Mr. Weller, and finishes up with
an assertion that if Walkup's memory
was so defective as no. to recolect the re-
cept of so large a sum Of money, that then
there was cuIpable negligence in keeping
the books of the prison, or they (the books,)
would have shown the fact. This, as a mean
is quite perfect, but as a charge,
it does not state that he did defraud Weller,
nor does it state afrmatively that the books
of the prison do not show this very transac-
ton about the thousand dollars.


The fourth charge ignores the existence of
commissary, and insinuates that Walkup
did not issue The amount of provisions to
the prisoners, which appears in the report
of the Directors, made about the first Of
February 1859.


The fifth charge puts in issue the fact as
to whether san officer Of the prison" told a
friend, that the money he was gambling
with, belonged to the State. 1t is not as
serted that any one has gambled off the
moneys of the State, but it is asserted that
an officer told a friend, dc. And this con-
temptable committee entertain this as a
charge.


Charge sixth has something in tit as
tl,nt tLoro f,lco 10 inns