Indianapolis Journal, Indianapolis, Marion County, 7 October 1897 — Page 4

4

THE DAILY JOURNAL • THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1807. Telephone Cr.ll>. Business Office 23S i Editorial Rooms...A 86 TEH>I4 OF SUBSCRIPTION. DAILY BY MAIL. Daily only, one month “ -<0 Dally only, three months j-J>> Daily only, one year Daily, Including Sunday, one year 10.00 Sunday only, one year. 2.00 WHEN FURNISHED BY AGENTS. Daily, per week, by carrier If °t* Sunday, single copy .. 0 cts Daily and Sunday, per week, ty carrier 20 cts WEEKLY. Per year Hednced Hate* to Club*. Subscribe with any ot our numerous agents or ■end subscriptions to THE INDIANAPOLIS JOI'RNAL, India mi polls, Inti. Persons sending the Journal through the malls In the United States should put on an eight-page paper a ONE-CLNT postage stamp: on twelve or sixteen-page paper a TWO-CENT postage stamp. Foreign postage is usually double these rates. All communications intended for publication In this paper must, in order to receive attention, be accompanied bv the name and address of tno writer. It it is" desired that reJecU/d manuscripts be returned, postage must in all cases be inclosed lor that purpose. THE INDIANAPOLIS JOL'RNAL Can be found at the following places: NEW YORK—Windsor Hotel and Astur House. CHICAGO—PaImer House and P. O. News Cos., 217 Dearborn street CINCINNATI—J. R. Hawley & Cos., 154 Vine street. LOUISVILLE—C. T. Peering, northwest corner of Third and Jefferson streets, and Louisville Book Cc., 256 Fourth avenue. GT. LOUlS—Union News Company, Union Depot. WASHINGTON. D. c7—Riggs House, Ebbltt House, Willard’s Hotel and the Washington News Exchange, !• ..urteenth street, between Penn, avenue and F street. The Taggart smile is laid up for repairs. It ha 6 lost its Holt. It is understood that Mr. Holt’s pocket* hook was opened with a hatchet. It will take more than a physician’s certificate to save Park Commissioner Holt. Mayor Taggart, reflectively: “Too many of the boys are getting Into these trust companies.” It is an ill wind that blows no good. It looks as if the sewer scandal might overshadow the police scandal. The Journal remarks again that an interceptor sewer sometimes intercepts queer transactions on the part of city officials. The News had not seen “the last card,” when the much-talked-about article with that caption was written. “The last card” was at that time up the sleeve of Mr. Robinson. The theory of the city charter is that the maj’or is responsible to the people for the acts of all his appointees and subordinates. Sterling R. Holt Is an appointee of Mayor Taggart. If the Hon. Sterling R. Holt did not receive $5,000 from the contractors, w T hy has he caused $5,000 of his money to be paid to tlio#e parties? The Holt denials and the Holt acts clash. Yesterday Mayor Taggart’s morning organ said, by authority of Park Commissioner Holt, “The whole story is concocted for political purposes, and there is no truth in it.” Later in the day Mr. Holt refunded the $5,00). Ex-Governor Boies, of lowa, will make no more speeches in the campaign. He insists that 16 to 1 as an issue is a failure. While Mr. Bryan has been telling that the 16 to 1 sentiment is spreading, ex-Governor Boies has declared that it is dying out. General A. J. Warner has revealed the Interesting fact that McLean is behaving badly in the Ohio canvass, having utterly refused to contribute a dollar to the campaign fund unless assured of the senatorship. That Is, Mr. Mcl<ean has w’earied of giving his money to elect others.

The Journal regrets that Mr. E M. Johnson, for whom it has always entertained a high regard, has in his excess of zeal to come to the rescue of his friend, the mayor, involved himself in thessererw r er scandal. Mr. Johnson's appearance in it is no doubt entirely due to his great desire to help his chief's administration out of the mire, but of his own motion he has rammed his arm clean to the elbow in what is certainly a very nasty mess. There is a variety of opinions regarding the outcome of the election in Greater New York, caused by the appearance of Henry George as a candidate with a large following of Democrats opposed to Tammany. One paper asserts that the contest will be between Dow and George, and another predicts that either Tracy or George will be elected. The Tammany candidate is not regarded as an important factor in the issue now that George shows so formidable a front. Tho effort of the News to exonerate the coterie of Taggart politicians whom a reputable firm accuses of obtaining money for a service not rendered is a beautiful illustration of that Independence which rejects evidence and places assumptions above facts. It Is a labored piece of special pleading, but that fact docs not relieve the article of the shamelessness which puts the say-so of two or three implicated men al*ove the sworn statements of the members of a Kputable firm. Unless the News ignores all facts in the Holt case, it must admit this evening that he caused, $5,000 to be paid to the representatives of the contractors. If it does this it must invent some plausible story to account for tho transaction. It can say, for Instance, that Mr. Holt has permitted himself to be made the scapegoat of the thrifiy persons about the Taggart throne by paying over five thousand dollars to save somebody. There can no longer be any doubt that $5,000 was furnished by Mr. Holt and was paid to those representing the sewer contractors. While in tho city yesterday General Wallace made some inquiry regarding the Republican prospect in the municipal election. He said that the fact that Indianapolis went Democratic so heavily two years ago had a very depressing effect upon Republicans up and down the State and inspired the Democrats with a feeling of elation. It was heralded as the turning of the tide and much of the uncertainty of the early campaign of 1898 was due to the fact that Indianapolis w r ent back. For that reason General Wallace feels tho importance of a Republican victory next Tuesday. If all Republicans will vote the Republican ticket such a victory will be achieved. The organ of sweetness and light and municipal reform cannot see anything improper in the Holt sewer transaction. It is even unable to see that there was anything about it in bad form. From the point of view of the organ of sweetness and light, bad form would have been, worse than du>-

honesty or corruption. But it was all right. "Suppose the sewer contractors did pay Mr. Sterling R. Holt $5,000 to secure from the city authorities a modification of the sewer specifications?” It cannot see any harm in that. It maunders through a whole column to prove that it was a perfectly honorable transaction on the part of a Taggart city official and concludes that the whole story is a weak device of the enemies of reform. “The bomb is filled," says the Taggart organ, “not with dynamite, but with sawdust.” It concludes that the incident ought to make votes for Taggart. Great are sweetness and light. THE HOLT SEWER SCANDAL. The latest disclosures in the matter of the White river interceptor sewer scandal are of a character to arrest public attention. It is by far the most serious scandal of the kind that has occurred in the history of the city, and it is discouraging to think that it should have occurred under a charter intended to secure better municipal government. Never before in the history of the city has it been charged and proved that a city official has received a large sum of money—ln this case ss,ooo—for his influence and services in securing a decision from the city authorities favorable to contractors. The case is one that cannot be whistled down the wind or sneered away by self-constituted organs of reform. It is a gross violation of every principle of good government. The facts are beyond dispute. The affidavit of Mr. Royal Robinson bears the impress of truth on its face. His reputation for veracity has never been questioned in this community, and will not be. It is impossible for any person to read his affidavit without being impressed with a conviction that he is telling the truth. Besides, his statement is supported by a mass of circumstantial evidence. It is established beyond a doubt that a city official, an appointee of Mayor Taggart, did accept $5,000 for the use of his influence on other city officials. It is all very well to say that Mayor Taggart was not a party to the transaction, but those who know the intimate relations between Mr. Holt and Mayor Taggart will bo slow to believe this. Mr. Taggart is neither blind, stupid nor dull. He is a professional politician. If he understood that a fair proportion of the sum received by Holt was to go to the Democratic campaign fund he may have found it convenient to know’ nothing about the details At the transaction. He may have found it convenient to look the other way. However this may be, the matter has assumed a phase that involves his administration and calls for thorough investigation. In fact, it is a case for the grand jury. The law defines the character of Mr. Holt’s offense, and it is too serious to be condoned upon a mere refunding of the money illegally and corruptly received by him. The incident should not be permitted to close with his disgorgement.

AN ARRESTED ARGUMENT. Developments in the White river sewer business have' reached a point where Mr. Sterling R. Holt stands before the public charged by Fulmer & Seibert, contractors, %vith having received $5,000 for his efforts or influence in securing from the Board of Public Works a change in the specifications of their contract, which they greatly desired. The vital question is not what Mr. Holt did with this money, if he received it, but whether he received it. If he did receive it the public, taking cognizance of his relations to other city officials, and of the quarters in which he must have used influence to bring about the desired change in the contract, can form its own conclusions as to what he did with it. These conclusions may be conjectural, but they will be interesting. Among the admitted facts in the case are: First—The desired change in the specifications, after being at first and for some time refused by the city engineer, was finally made by the Board of Public Works on his recommendation. If the change had not been made the charge that Mr. Holt received $5,000 for his influence in having it done would be absurd on its face. The fact that tho change was made gives color to the charge. Second—City Engineer Jeup admits that Mr. Holt came to him to urge that the change in the specifications be made, and that as a result of such visit he changed his mind and advised the Board of Public Works to make the change. We quote from Mr. Jeup’s statement in the News: Mr. Holt came to me once and requested that the modification be made if possible, as the Union Trust Company, in which he was a stockholder, was furnishing the money for the work. I investigated and found that a modification of two feet would not jeopardize the value of the work in the least. This I set forth in a letter to the city attorney, after a consultation with the Board of Public Works. If Mr. Holt visited the city engineer to urge a change in the specifications it is fair to presume that he visited the president of the Board of Public Works for the same purpose. Before Sir. Holt took hold of the matter neither the hoard nor the city engineer had shown the least disposition to desired change. After his visits they evidently agreed that if the city attorney would say it could be done legally they would do it. Hence the correspondence between the city engineer and city attorney, following which the change was made. , Third—Mr. Holt does not deny that he assisted in bringing about the change in the specifications, though he treats his services as of little importaneei We quote from his interview in the News: “Did you help to secure a change in the specifications in the sewer?” “Not particularly. It was done by mutual consent at a public meeting of the Board of Public Works.” Mr. Holt says he did lot help in the matter “particularly.” He is too modest. He should not put so small a valuation on influence that was so promptly effective. He says it was “done by mutual consent at a public meeting of the Board of Public Works.” Mutual consent of whom? Evidently of himself, the city engineer and the president of the board, who is the board. Fourth—lt is in evidence that the Union Trust Company, in w’hich Mr. Holt is a stockholder, furnished the contractors with the money to do the work. If the trust company lost by the contract Mr. Holt would be % loser, and if it made anything he would share in the profit. He is also a city official, being a member of the Board of Park Commissioners, appointed by Mayor Taggart. The city charter says: No otfteer of such city shall, either directly or indirectly, be a party to or in any manner interested in any contract or agreement, either with such city, for any matter, cause or thing, or by which any liability or indebtedness is in any way or manner created or passed upon, authorized or approved by any officer, board or employe of such city. Violation of this provision is made a penal offense. It is a matter of public notoriety that Mr. Holt is both an officer of the city government and a stockholder in the Union Trust Company. In working to save the contractors from loss he was working to save live trust company, that la.

THE INDIANAPOLIS JOURNAL, THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1897.

himself, from loss. If he would do that in violation of the city charter, would he hesitate to receive $5,000 for the use of his influence? Fifth—Mr. Holt’s denial of the charge is very feeble. The Sentinel quotes him as saying: Do you suppose that if I owe a man or a firm $5,000 I am not going to pay it? Has there been any evidence that anybody has ever come to me and said that I owed him $5,000? * * • The man who says that he left money at my office for such a purpose is the man I am after. Who makes these affidavits. anyway? Is there any evidence that such affidavits have been made? Can anybody be found who has seen them? I can recall no conversation that I ever had with anybody at my office with regard to this sewer. This is not the hot and indignant denial of a man who is charged with a disreputable and illegal act. It is an equivocation, a Juggling with words. Sixth—Mayor Taggart admits by implication that Mr. Holt received the money. In an interview in the Sentinel he says: “If Fulmer & Seibert have paid any man to exert his influence In their behalf, that is a matter between them and him.” This is an attempt to shift the blame from Holt, the city official, to Holt, the individual. Seventh—At this point, just as the Journal was about to draw the conclusion that Mr. Holt did receive the money, it learned that he has refunded the money. That ends argument. WHAT WILL HE DO WITH HOLT? When Mr. Ed Austin, a member of the mayor’s Board of Works, was proven to be implicated in a public scandal he was forced to resign from the board. When the superintendent of police showed up at a mass meeting, full of fire water, and insisteu on giving away the scheme to trade Cox for Taggart he was compelled to retire from the force. Now comes Mr. Sterling R. Holt, a member of the mayor’s Board of Park Commissioners, Mr. Taggart’s most particular friend, who lives with him at his hotel, and whose mutual admiration is so great that they name fast horses for each other and in other ways equally touching demonstrate the closeness and cordiality of their relations, and involves the mayor's administration in the greatest of all the many scandals that have attached to it. Now, what will be the fate of Mr. Holt? Will he be requested to resign, or will he be removed? And will the mayor have his friend Polster bring him before the board when the incident is settled?

SO CAUSE FOR ALARM. When it was telegraphed over the country that Minister Woodford had delivered an ultimatum to Spain the report was effectively used to depress stocks of actual value. Speculators were affected with visions of a war with Spain and sold to an extent that broke the market. A few days later, after the hoax of an ultimatum had been exploded, another report was started to the effect that Spain had sent its fleet to Havana as its defiant answer to the attitude of the McKinley administration as presented by General Woodford. Then there was so much talk of the prospect of the United States being attacked by Spain that the imagination already saw the bombardment of New York by Spanish ships. With this was revived the rumor that Japan would join Spain and that our cities on both oceans would be laid under contribution or bombarded. It became really quite painful. The statement which Admiral Brown made Tuesday night at the meeting of the Loyal Legion, in answer to a question, as to the effect of a war with Spain should relieve the anxious and restore to the timid placidity if not courage. “Spain would be knocked out before the conflict had been fairly begun,” was the answer. Nor is it the response of a braggart, but of a man who has spent his life in the navy, who knows its strength and the strength of the navies of other nations. W< have a better navy than Spain can muster and we could reach Hanava and capture it before Spain coylcl get to Cuba. So strong is the Atlantic squadron that no fleet that Spain can collect can reach our cities. The statement of Admiral Brown is emphasized because it is probable that, during the next year, the people of this country will have several wars or rumors of war with Spain, which will make the nervous very unhappy. Therefore let us accept the word of an authority to the effect that war with Spain would not in the outset be disastrous. The other fear that Japan will join Spain and simultaneously drive our people out of the cities on both sides of the continent should not be indulged. Admiral Brown knows the Japanese rulers. He has been stationed in the harbors of Japan. He declares that Japan does not want war with the United States and that Japan’s interest, in Hawaiian affairs has been overrated. This is the opinion of a man who understands the situation, the past as well as the present, and is qualified to give an authoritative opinion. It is undoubtedly the opinion of all who have information on the subject. There is little or no danger of war with these countries, certainly no such danger as would warrant a fall in good dividend-paying stocks. IT WOULD DEFEAT REPUBLICANS. A citizen of independent tendencies remarked yesterday that “if this mysterious half scandal about the White river interceptor should have got into circulation regarding a Republican administration just before election it would result in the defeat of leaders for re-election by an overwhelming vote.” There can- be no doubt about the matter, since all of the independent element is in the Republican party, and very much the larger part of the community really in favor of honest and open administration is Republican. It may be added that denial would not save a Republican administration if reports, reasons and facts like those in the affair of the interceptor were current. In law the accused are held to be innocent until proven guilty; but in politics Republicans in office must be prepared to defend themselves against damaging charges sustained by any sort of reports and suspicious circumstances. It remains to be seen how far the mysterious circumstances, sustained in part by sworn statements, will interfere with Mayor Taggart s vote. Certainly, no Republican who would not vote for one of his own party under similar conditions will now vote for Mr. Taggart. The same is true regarding the purchase of the mayor’s land l’or the park system. If. as the Journal has stated, the Taggart bogs were needed to make the system what it should be, they should have been taken. Instead of doing this, a record was made for the public use showing that tho land of Mr. Taggart had been withdrawn, when, as a matter of record, the park commissioners, subsequent to the date of withdrawal, petitioned the court to have the lands of the mayor appraised for the park. The mayor, the clerk of the park commission and those on the board whom the mayor has appointed have given the peo-

ple to understand that the mayor’s land had been excluded from the park limits and was no longer thought of, when, as a matter of fact, the majority of the board had taken action to purchase the ground. If a Republican candidate for mayor should deliberately deceive the people in this manner he would be swamped in overwhelming defeat. There may be no Irregularity in these transactions, but the deception which has been practiced causes grave suspicion. Against the word of the mayor and his associates stands the record of the Circuit Court. In such a case, if Mr. Taggart were the Republican candidate, the people would accept the record of the court and vote against him because of the attempt to deceive the people. It remains to be seen liow many Democrats there are who will vote against a candidate who has permitted himself to be put in a position where irregularity somewhere is a fair assumption. Hon. Frederick W. Seward, son of William H. and assistant secretary of state under his father, is an ardent advocate of the annexation of Hawaii. In a communication to the New York Tribune he calls attention to the fact that practically the only opposition to annexation comes from a few Americans. European governments have not only interposed no objections, but generally recognize the proceeding as a most natural one. In reply to the argument that Hawaii ought not to be annexed because of its alien population of diverse nationalities Mr. Seward says: It is not a valid argument against annexation; for if it proved anything, it would prove too much. It would prove that no nation should annex outlying territory unless already populated with its own citizens —an absurdity on the face of it. This objection. however, has always been raised when annexation of territory has heretofore been proposed. If it had been accepted as valid we should still be only thirteen States along the Atlantic coast—for the valley of the Mississippi and the Rooky mountains contained "an alien population” of French, Spanish and Indians. It was said of Florida that tho Spanish would go away, and then the population would be only “Seminoles and alligators.” So in like manner California was objected to as being inhabited only by “wild cattle, Indians and Greasers.” and Alaska w.as denounced as being only the habitation of “icebergs and polar bears.” Is there no such thing as the spread of American population and American enterprise? Have they not always followed the Hag? Have they not followed it up the Mississippi and the Missouri and over the Rocky mountains, and across the plains, aid down the Pacific slope? Are they not following it to-day even over the Chilcat pass and up the distant Yukon? Why will they not follow it into Hawaii? This is the true American view. The United States has never made an acquisition of territory that did not include more or less a foreign population, but there has never been any difficulty in assimilating them. Raise the American flag over Hawaii and American emigration and enterprise will do the rest. According to the Sentinel of yesterday Mayor Taggart said Tuesday evening that there would be a meeting of the Board of Public Works Wednesday morning at which the charges in connection with the sewer scandal would be considered. We quote from tho Sentinel: The general public will be admitted at the meeting and it is expected that there will be an attendance in proportion to the interest excited by the vague and misty charges which are said to have emanated from the firm and which have been very generally circulated by the Republican organ and Republican leaders In a feeble effort to make political capital. “The hearing will be open to all.” said Mayor Taggart last night. “The administration invites investigation and there will be no meeting except wh/sre all who wish to come may do so.” That night there was a star-chamber meeting at the mayor’s hotel at which he was a party to settlement of the matter. The meeting of the Board of Public W T orks to which the general public was to be invited, and at which everything was to be done openly and above board, was not held. The supporter's of Mayor Taggart are greatly disturbed over the scandal concerning the interceptor. Some of them are quite demoralized. The action of the accused in paying back s£,ooo has made the matter worse, because it is a quasi confession to having had the money of tho contractors. The affair is the talk of the town. A large part of the people believe that some sort of iniquity has been practiced. Unless full and clear explanation Is made the scandal will cost Mr. Taggart many votes. It is the Republican opportunity, which should not be thrown away if a full Republican vote is polled next Tuesday for the Republican ticket. There is no reason why a full Republican vote should not be polled for the Republican ticket unless there are quite a number of Republicans who have come to the conclusion that it will be the best thing for Indianapolis to be continued under the control of a coterie which is involved in a series of scandals that would ruin a Republican ticket.

Mayor Taggart’s evening organ, discussing the Holt sewer scandal, says: If the payment was a reward for his services already rendered, it is not generous to ask for its return. While If its return is asked because the bargain was not carried out, the city administration Is absolved. If this thing had occurred under a Republican administration the columns of that paper would have rung with denunciations of the moral obliquity that could tolerate such a transaction. As it has occurred under an administration which it supports it exhausts the r;sources of casuistry to find a defense for it. ‘‘My interest in the whole transaction, and the only interest that I had,” says Mr. Holt in an Interview, “was to protect the Union Trust Company.” Did any part of the $5,000 go to the trust company? If so, why did not the company come to his defense? The people who rallied to his defense were members of the Taggart ring. An understanding has been reached between the representatives of the Loyal Legion and the trustees of the State Soldiers’ Home by which those residing at the home will have a library of several hundred books. BUBBLES IN THE AIR. Frank. She—Would you love me more if I had a million dollars? He —Os course I would. I would have more time. Information Wanted. Mrs. Lushforth—What kept you so late? Mr. I.ushforth—Met old-time friend. “Old-time friend? High-old-time friend, I presume.” l*le Story. Dismal Dawson—This pie ain’t like the pie mother used to make, eh, pard? Everett Wrest—Dunno. I know it ain’t like the pie me brother used to fake when he had a job on a bakery wagon. Enterprlwinß. Mrs. Watts—That Simonsbee woman is a perfect fiend! Mr. Watts—l always thought her so gentle and refined. Mrs. Watts—Oh. she Is among you men, but what do you think of a woman who will wear her little boy’s baseball shoes to a bargain rush and spike every woman who gets in her way? •

REBUTTAL EVIDENCE TESTIMONY OF DEFENSE IN THE LIETGERT CASE IMPEACHED. ♦ Character of One of the Men. Who Says He Saw the Missing Woman at Kenosha Torn to Shreds. ANOTHER POINT FOR STATE NO SOAP BOILED IN THE SAUSAGE MAKER’S FACTORY MAY 1. < All Grease Hanled Away the Morning Before—The Defendant and the Phonograph People. ♦ CHICAGO. Oct. 6.—The testimony in the Luetgert trial to-day was more interesting to the general public than it has been at any time for the last two weeks. The drytechnical evidence of the experts gave way to impeachment evidence offered by the State against the witnesses for the defense who had stated on the stand that Mrs. Luetgert had been seen in the vicinity of Kenosha, Wis., within a few r days after the murder is said to have been committed. Several of those who claimed to have seen the woman around Kenosha fared badly at the hands of their neighbors, and Witness Scholey, the principal witness for the defense on the Kenosha story, had his character torn to shreds. One of his neighbors who testified against him said he did not know what was meant by Soholey’s veracity, but made himself clear in the next breath by adding, “I do know, though, that Scholey is no good.” Evidence was introduced to show that Luetgert had not put any grease or chipped bone into his vats for making soap on the night of May 1, as his business partner. William Charles, had testified, because it had been all carted away on the morning before. It was also shown that Luetgert had no occasion to make any soap, for when the factory was seized by a deputy sheriff several days after the murder is said to have been committed a great many barrels of soap belonging to him were found in the basement of the factory. The first witnesses were those who attacked the evidence of Matt Scholey, who testified that he saw Mrs. Luetgert in Kenosha on May 3 and 4. Witnesses followed each other on the stand rapidly to say they would not believe Scholey under oath. Several of the witnesses were not of a high order of intelligence. One would not believe Scholey because, ho said, the latter had been his partner in a saloon venture and had quarreled and dissolved the copartnership. *v ilhaiu T. Apt el, Andrew Larsen, Peter Barbos, Peter YV agner and outer neighbors of the man who was so positive in his identification of a photograpn of Mrs. Luetgert as the picture of the woman he said tie saw in Kenosha two days after Mrs. Luetgert disappeared asserted without reservation that they would not believe Scholey under oath. Sharp and sarcastic crossquestioning by Attorney' Phaien brought out the fact that at one time or another the impeaching witnesses had experienced trouble at the hands of Scholey. Witnesses were called to impeach other witnesses who had testilied on behalf of the defendant. Gordon Clark, who is connected with the firm of Lord, Owen & Cos., Aront whom Luetgert purchased the barrel of ik>tash which he is said to have used to the body of his w'ife, testified that ire once explained to Luetgert that there was no dinerence between the different biands of hunyadi water. This evidence was introduced in rebuttal of the story that on the night of May 1 Luetgert sent Frank Bialk, the watchman at the sausage factory, to a drug store twice to get hunyadi water because upon the tirst trip Bialk had secured the wrong brand.

A TEAMSTER S EVIDENCE. One of the strongest features in the rebuttal evidence offered to-day was the evidence of Adam Brinker, a teamster for a soap factory. It was in reference to the tallow, grease and chipped bone which George Eland said he delivered at the factory on May 1 and which William Charles testified was procured as some of the ingredients of soft soap which was to be made for the purpose of thoroughly cleaning up the big sausage factory preliminary to its prospective sale to an English syndicate. Brinker said he hauied all the tallow—sixty-six pounds—and 150 pounds of bone away from the factory May 1. He explained that it was his duty to do this once each week, usually the last day of the week. He conveyed the material to a soap making firm by which he was employed. “Did you see bones, tallow or mixed grease in barrels other than the grease you handled on May 1?” asked Assistant State's Attorney McEwen. “No; the barrels were all empty that I saw in the factory that day.” “Did you ever put any bones or tallow in the icehouse?” “No.” This evidence was considered important as contradicting the story of the defense to the effect that Luetgert had used barrels of grease and tallow in the factory on the night of May 1 in making soft soap According to the story of Brinker there was absolutely no tallow, bones or grease in the barrels which are alleged to have been rolled into the basement and afterwards dumped into the middle vat. Brinker added that he knew Mrs. Luetgert quite well and had seen and talked with her just prior to her disappearance. He said she talked rationally and that she did much of her own house work. This latter statement was in contradiction of the story of Mary Siemering. Deputy Sheriff Frank Moan was called to the witness stand to tell about what he found at the Luetgert sausage factory on May 4, when he made the seizure under the foreclosure. He said that he took possession of everything in the grocery store connected with the factory. He found amOpg other things 100 boxes of soap ot different brands. This point was brought out to impress upon the jury that Luetgert did not require the soap it is asserted he proposed making. ~ , . .. ... Emma Schimpke was recalled to the wit* ness stand and an effort was made to show by her that all the impeaching evidence that had been produced by the defense on tpstlmony was the result of a misundorstanding of her story. On direct examination she had stated that she saw .Luetgert and his wife going toward the sausage factory at 10:30 o’clock the night of May 1. She w>as asked upon cross examination if she had not testified to seeing Luetgert and his wife on May 23. The witness said she had not. She had said, however, that on the night of May 23 she met Harry Hedler and other bovs at about the same point she met them on the night of May 1. upon which date she had seen Luetgert and his wife. Attorney Phelan showered questions upon the witness relative to her meeting boys at night. Her face became scarlet and she became angry and snapped back her replies in a manner that amused .even Judge Tuthill, while the spectators smiled broadly. MRS. LUETGERTS DOUBLE. To-morrow witnesses from Kenosha, TVis., will be called to the stand no refute the stories of the persons who stated positively that they saw Mrs. Luetgert in the Wisconsin town on May 3, 4 and 5. It is expected that these witnesses will be confronted with the woman they mistook for Mrs. Luetgert. This woman was traced to Joliet by Detective Deeelle. She is said to be in Chicago now. She is described as a traveling evangelist of somewhat eccentric disposition. The phonograph men are having fun with the Luetgert ease. Yesterday afternoon the big sausage maker refused to talk into a phonographic receiver until a contract was made that would assure him 50 per cent, of the receipts. It had been agreed by Arnold Luetgert, son of the prisoner, that the Columbia Phonograph Company should have an option upon the "talk” for two weeks at $3,000, and if the company declined to buy at that time the 50 per cent, contract should remain In force. But Luetgert upset all negotiations by refusing to talk. "Talk is cheap, as a general thing.” said he, “but my talk costs money to-day.” Courtland Shaw, manager of the phonograph company, made the followMng announcement in the phonographic machine, which had been

carried to Luetgert’s cell: “Adolph L. Luetgert's denial of his guilt, taken in the Cook County Jail, Oct. 5, 1897.” Then Luetgert was urged to make his statement in a ten-minute talk. “Not on your life.” quoth the sausage maker. "I want the contract made and signed before I say a word in that funnel. I take no man's word for anything. I have been lied to and lied about ever since I’ve been here.” Luetgert’s son tried to persuade his father to talk to the machine. The prisoner turned upon him with: "I’ll do nothing of the sort. You are at liberty. I am locked up. I need money and y'ou bet I’ll get it before I speak in that tube.” So the machine was carried away. Late this afternoon matters were patched up and Luetgert was to have told the story he did not tell upon the witness stand. The phonograph men have a spicy talk among physicians, reporters and others taken at the Luetgert factory last Sunday durUig an experiment which was conducted by Dr. Riese. THAT BROKEN NOSE. (Concluded from First Page.) had declined to let the defense see these notes. According to a ruling of the court the night before, it was not necessary for Mr. Wiltsie to exhibit them. An exception was taken, the court o\ - erruling the objection to Mr. Wiltsie’s question. When the fact that Keefe had informed the grand jury he had known Ferriter only about a year was brought out, the witness pleaded that "he didn’t recollect” testifying to that effect before the grand jur£. Keefe gave an account of his movements, as well as those of the gang, previous to going over to the alley in the rear of the Cincinnati Brewery Company’s office. He didn't know where Ferriter got his bucket. Keefe “rushed the can" the first time with a dime which Ferriter gave him. This was five or ten minutes after the gang assembled. He had heard no swearing or vile language. The gang had been talking for a half hcair “about railroading.” Ferriter and Niland engaged in a sparring bout. "When did you learn they were sparring?” asked Mr. Wilsie. "The day it happened.” "Did you see any brick throwing, or any one having a coupling pin in his hand?” "No, sir.” "Did you see anybody hit at all?” "No, sir.” "Didn’t you tell this jury awhile ago that you saw a man struck?” “No, sir.” Mr. Wiltsie sprung the grand Jury notes to further clinch the witness's contradictions. Keefe, gave the grand jury a different version. "You knew Charles Ware personally?" "Yes, sir.” "Did he speak in a po 1 **" friendly way when he came up?” THE GANG “SCA'i ED.” “Yes, sir. He said we _ild have to scatter, that we were making a bad show’ing and people were complaining.” “You knew that a man named Brooks had shot a man while a crowd was collected in the same neighborhood a short time before, didn't you?” The court would not permit the witness to answer this question. Keefe’s description of the spilling of the beer w T as a little vague on cross-examination. "As & matter of fact, you don’t know whether or not Ferriter struck at the officer, before the officer knocked him down?” The witness turned his eyes to the Hoor, and after a moment made the admission: "No, sir.” Dan Kinney, 379 East Georgia, also a Big Four brakeman, was one of the 800 gang with Ferriter on April 27, and he foilowed Keefe in the witness chair. His acquaintance with the prisoner runs back ten years. On examination-in-chief his testimony was largely corroborative of that given by the preceding witnesses. After Niland struck Ferriter, the latter chased Niland around the brewery office. The witness did not see Ferriter throw anything at his antagonist. The two men returned to the alley in a minute or two and renewed amicable relations. The words Policeman Ware spoke when he arrived were those repeated heretofore. "Ware put his hand on Ferriter’s right shoulder,” said the witness, reaching this stage in the story, “and Ferriter jerked away, spilling the beer. Then Ware knocked Ferriter down. I turned around and left. I saw nothing further of the trouble.” Kinney said, on cross-examination, that Niland, during the sparring bout, had hit Ferriter in the mouth. He did not see a brick or a coupling pin in the hand of Niland when that worthy returned to the alley. "Y'ou didn’t hear what the policeman said to Ferriter?” "I didn’t catch w’hat He said,” said the witness. “How many times, if at all, have you been arrested?” Mr. Potts at once objected to this question. holding that the State had no right to show that the witness merely had been arrested; that it had no right to impeach him in such fashion under the circumstances, unless there w r as reason to believe that witness had been convicted of an infamous crime. “These are men,” said Mr. Potts, with some warmth, “living in the poorer section of the city, who always are arrested when they are found drunk. They send their bucket for beer because they can get it so much cheaper than when they buy it by the glass. The men who go to the Grand Hotel and the Denison for their liquor are never arrested, and I say—” “I insist that the gentleman refrain from making such an argument before this jury.” shouted Mr. Wiltsie, and in a few seconds the attorneys were in a lively legal struggle. The court finally permitted the witness to answer the query, the defense taking a formal exception.

FREQUENTLY ARRESTED. “O I have been arrested a half dozen times,” replied the witness, nonchalantly. “I don’t recollect the first time. It might have been in 1890. I was arrested with John McPeake and others. I remember the circumstances. An officer was struck with a keg. I don’t remember the last time I was arrested.” On redirect examination Mr. Griffiths showed that In the first case where Kinney was arrested the charge was assault and battery and he had been convicted. He was sentenced to twenty days in the workhouse. Mr. Wiltsie asked how many other times he had ben sent to the workhouse, but the court held that it was too late to ask the question. Frank (“Boney”) Keefe, who has been a railroader, but is now out of employment, was the third member of FerritePs gang to testify in behalf of the gang’s leader. He. too, has known the defendant a long time. The gang had first assembled, April 27. on the East-street bridge over Pogue’s run. The incidents that followed have been set out already, and “Boney’s” account ot them did not differ materially from that of his brother. From the appearance of the witness, the name by which the gang knew him, is not far fetched. He twisted a stringy mustache as he testified. “Boney” said Patrolman Ware KnocKid down Ferriter, and stod over him as if he were about to strike him again. The latter part of this information was ordered struck out of the record by Judge Grubbs. Continuing. “Boney” said he did not see Ferriter strike or attempt to strike the policeman. The “boys were just monkeying” before the policeman arrived, Mr. Keefe told Prosecutor Wiltsie, when that gentleman took the witness in tow. “Me and Kinney was talkin’ about railroad business,” he volunteered. “Boney” said the patrolman placed his hand on Ferriter’s right shoulder and was quite positive as to this. The state’s contention is that the officer, in holding the prisoner by the shoulder, did so for the purpose of searching him for a weapon, and not for the purpose of seizing the beer, as the defense will insist. “Boney” admitted that he had been convicted for drunkenness and had served fifteen days in the workhouse. “I don’t like this thundering in the index,” remarked Mr. Potts, as Mr. W’iltsie smiled significantly at “Boney’s” replies as to his record. “Mr. W’iltsie’s face expresses huge volumes, as if something terrible were held in reserve.” “The court has no control over Mr. Wiltsie’s face,” interjected the judge. “Nor am I responsible for my face," added the attorney to whom the face belonged. A few trite personalities were indulged in, and then, it being the noon hour, a dinner recess was taken. THE KENTUCKY WITNESS. The witness to the shooting whose name has not appeared before in the case was P. H. Upton, of (new) 203 South New Jersey street, a laborer in the employ of the city, and the defense began the afternoon with him. Ho has lived in Indianapolis two years, coming there from Edinburg. Before that time he was a postmaster and a road overseer in Kentucky. His home Is at the corner of Georgia and New Jersey streets, a half block from the scene of the murder. “I saw Patrolman Ware go up to the boys in the alley,” said the witness. “The boys had been standing there talking in a loud voice. I saw no disturbance. After the policeman spoke to them the crowd scattered. Ferriter approached in a few minutes from the direction of Oakley’s saloon. He crossed the Intersecting alley and returned to where the policeman stood. The policeman grabbed him and said, ’Give me that bucket,’ or words like that. The beer was split as the policeman jerked the boy. I did not see Ferriter strike at the policeman. 1 am sure I would have seen any

such action. The officer knocked the man down, hitting him in the face. Then ho helped the boy up. As he moved oft the boy held bn-k and the policeman had to pull him. I was standing at my back gate. I heard a voice say. My God, don’t kill that man.' I saw no licks struck by Ferriter. When the two reached the brewery steps, the officer ordered him to sit down. The yourvg man w is backwards in doing this and the policeman hit him across tie nose with his mace. Blood spurted out all over the boy’s face. The blow knocked him down. Then the policeman helped him up, and. holding him by the coat lapels, sat him down, very hard on the steps. ‘Now, you keep quiet or 1 11 give you another one/ or something like that was what the policeman said. As the policeman turned around to get his wheel the other man reached around, got his revolver and tired at the policeman. The prisoner’s face was scary-like. Then the young man turned and ran, holding his pistol pointing towards the ground. He fired another shot a few feet away. Hensley, who was standing near the officer’s w heel, stepped inside the brewery office before the phot was fired.” The witness afforded some amusement on cross-examination when he stated that he was appointed postmaster by "the Governor in Washington." He couldn't recall the name of this official, but thought he might remember it if it were mentioned to him. He held the office about eighteen years ago; he didn’t remember the dates, nor whether his appointment was made verbally or In writing. The "Governor in Washington" paid him 2 cents for every stamp he canceled, and settled every quarter. His first quarter’s salary, he recalled, was sl7. He didn’t remember the date he was married, but recalled readily that his wife’s name was “Mary Ann.” The prosecutor dragged him through a great deal of family history. UPTON WAS CONFUSED. Over and over again Mr. Upton described in minute details the actual occurrence* leading up to the tragedy, all for the benefit of the state’s attorney, w’ho sought every opportunity for an opening wedge to shatter this important witness’s testimony. Upton reversed his former statement, now saying the officer did not force his prisoner down to the brewery office steps. He was quite positive the officer brought his mace down on Ferriter's nose. He. didn’t raise the mace very high; the blow fell fiat across the bridge of the prisoner’s nose. "The man crumpled back to the ground.” as the witness put it in his unique vernacular. Contradicting his former statement, he said the officer did not help up Ferriter from the ground; Ferriter rose without assistance. "You saw Ferriter’s eyes, didn't you?” "Oh, I couldn’t ketch em,” came the reply. Upton had not seen Habeny or Wilkins near the place. ’’But you saw the color of Ferriter’s eyes after he arose from the ground, didn't you? What was the color?” asked Mr. Wiltsie. "Mostly white,” innocently enough replied the witness. Mr. Wiltsie took a tack calculated to break down that portion of the testimony relating to Hensley's disappearance just before the shooting, but it was without avail. In fact, Upton saw no one near the two principals in the tragedy. Upton had not been before the coroner or grand jury. He claimed he knew nothing of the investigation, the Indianapolis News being the only paper he takes. "I’ve never told a soul about this till now,’’ the witness, said. “Who is paying your bills at the Highland?” demanded Mr. Wiltsie. "I don’t know. 1 guess my attorney will look after that?” "Who are your attorneys?” “There,” pointing over to Messrs. Griffiths & Potts. Mr. Wiltsie questioned the witness sharply about his conduct since his arrival in Martinsville. He admitted taking one glass of beer. “Were you not ordered off premises here? Were you not drunk?” “Your Honor," said Mr. Potts springing up, “I object to this improper conduct on the part of the state’s attorney. He has no reason whatever to believe this man was ordered off any premises.” Mr. Wiltsie challenged the defense to withdraw its objection to the last question he asked, if it didn't think he was basing his line of questioning on actual belief. The court smoothed over the troubled waters. “To whom did you first tell anything about what you saw?” asked Mr. Potts, on redirect examination. “To you gentlemen last Friday evening. You called on me that night when I was in bed, and I up and told you all I know.” Messrs. Griffiths and Potts say they discovered Upton by chance, while making inquiries from house to house In the neighborhood of the tragedy last Friday. After Upton was excused an agreed statement of facts as to Police Surgeon Courtney’s testimony wa3 introduced. He swore that Ferriter’s right nasal bone was broken when the young man was brought into the station. This paved the way for the introduction of Dr. A. S. Tilford, of Martinsville, as an expert witness. The defense expected to prove by him the probable condition mentally of a man Injured on the nose, as described In Ferriter’s case. There was an argument over the admissibility of expert testimony on such a hypothetical question as Mr. Potts put to the witness. The court saw no reason why the question should not be put. Dr. Tilford thought such an injury as described might produce a concussion of the brain, might temporarily bring about unconseiouness or might cause a bewildered state of mind. A man "wouldn’t have much ability to act" under such circumstances” w’as the opinion of the doctor. Ha might arise, in a daze, and yet be able to walk off, still in a somewhat addled condition. Dr. Keegan, another local physician, testified on the same line. On cross-exam-ination Dr. Keegan made a better witness for the state. Mr. Wiltsie’s hypothetical question covering Ferriter’s actions led tha doctor to believe the man was conscious and knew what he was doing.

QUIET LITTLE TOWN. Mayoress of Jamestown, Kan,, Denlea that the Place Is Wicked. CHICAGO, Oct. 6.—Anna M. Strain, mayoress of Jamestown, Kan., In a letter to the Tribute, says: “In your paper of June 11 you say: ‘Bj:-a political freak at the last election the town was given over entirely to government by women, and it. is claimed that the result has been disastrous.’ Wo have a woman mayor, four women in the Council, a man for police judge and a man for street commissioner and city marshal. We know of no disastrous results of last spring’s election. “The article goes on to say: 'Saloons ara said to be running wide open, game chickens are permitted to demonstrate their powers in the most brazen fashion, and even quiet games of the national pasteboard variety have found safe harborage.’ We have two ‘joints’ here, np more than we have had for several years past, but probably two more than w r e shall have after the next term of court, as the grand jury has found indictments against both of them and tbs owners are now out on bond. No gam t chickens have fought in our town since the election. As to the other ’quiet games’ referred to, no such games have ever come to our knowledge. v “The women officers of this town did not seek office, but they w’ere put there by the people, both men and women, and the woman’s ticket was started by men. We did not promise anything more than to do our duty. Our town is a peaceful little place, with quiet Sabbaths. We arc having new stone sidewalk crossings laid and repairing other sidewalks. Anew dry goods store has been opened, and, best of all, by the efforts of the officials we expect to be a dry town in the near future. "Our women are all Chirstlan women, respected in the community, as the vote at the city election would show, and we do not deserve the reputation the daily press is giving us. The paper from which you have taken your information would do well to Investigate before publishing such slanderous statements. We are making a vigorous effort to have the law obeyed in regard to the liquor question as well as other matters.” Farm Implement Makers. DETROIT, Oct. 6.—The closing session of the annual convention of the National Association of Agricultural Implement and Vehicle Manufacturers was held to-day. Philadelphia was chosen as the place of the IS9B convention. Memorials to Congress favoring a railway pooling law, an anti-scalplng law and nonpartisan consular service were adopted. The report of the legal committee showed that good work was being dona by the association in opposing hostile legislation in the various Stans regarding the laws taxing corporations of one State doing business in other States. The follow trig officers were elected: President, VV. H. Purlin. Canton. 111.; vice president for Indiana, J. M. Westoott, of Richmond: secretary, O. D. Frary, Chicago; treasurer, O- W. Johnson, Racine. Wis. Liquor Dealers lluried. NEW HAVEN. Conn., Oct. 6.—At to-day's session of the National Council. Knights of Columbus, It was voted to refuse membership, active or associate, to all liquor dealers. and to ask all liquor dealers now members to resign. This takes effect next March.