Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 91, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 February 1910 — HOW BRIDGE BUILDING IS DONE IN JASPER COUNTY [ARTICLE]

HOW BRIDGE BUILDING IS DONE IN JASPER COUNTY

Case of State vs. Bader Disclosed Tremendous Graft In Milroy Tp. Bridge.

DEFENDER! IS FOUND GUILTY i As Charged and Must Go To The Penitentiary, FROM TWO TO FOURTEEM YEARS,

pared the measurements with the plans and specifications, and the thing was a mystery no longer—practically every piece of the structural steel work had been scaled down one-third! As all structural steel is sold by the pound the scaling down meant a saving of one-third in the cost of the raw material. / Winamac Co., were patcF $l,lOO at the June meeting of the commissioners and filed a claim of S3OO, the balance, at the July meeting. Mr. Marshall got up and openly protested against the allowance of this claim at that meeting and made the charges of fraud as above stated were shown by his measurements. The matter was taken up by the ’ commissioners who sent County Surveyor Osborne out to examine the bridge. On his report the claim was cut SIOO and allowed at S2OO at the Sept, meeting of the board, but the contractors were allowed $25 for additional “backing” put in. The grand jury in September took the matter up and Tnvestigated it and among the witnesses examined were Mr. Marshall, who was equipped with figures to show that the bridge was not built according to plans and specifications by long odds. On the evidence adduced by the different witnesses an indictrfient was returned againts Bader, charging him as general' manager of the Winamac,Bridge Co., with presenting a .false and fraudulent claim against the county.

If Verdict Is Upheld, Which it is Likely to Be—Practically No Attempt Made to Disprove the Graft Charges.

The case of the State of Indiana vs. C. L. Bader, general manager of the Winamac Bridge Co., of Winamac, Ind., came to an end yesterday morning, when the jury returned the above verdict. Pending motions by the defense the court postponed sentence for a time, while defendant was reminded to the custody of the sheriff. Argument will be heard to-day on these motions. The jury was out from 4 p. m., Thursday, until 5:55 yesterday morning, when a sealed verdict was returned and read by the court on convening at 9 a. m., yesterday. The consensus of opinion of those who heard all of the testimony in the case was that a jury never had a plainer case of graft to deal with than this, and that any other verdict than that reached would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.

The defendant heretofore borne an excellent reputation, it would seem, in hts home town, and as he is crippled in one arm, having had one hand amputated, near the wrist, and everyone seemed to have much sympathy for him, but felt that if he was the tool of others the evidence was so clear that he himself was guilty also, that no other verdict could be reached. Mr. Baden is a democrat, or was at least before embarking in the bridge business, and at One time represented Pulaski and White counties in the state legislature. The circumstances surrounding this case were published in The Democrat last July, but for the information of the reader we republish them : Last March the contract was -let to the Winamac Bridge Cfc, for a 70 foot steel bridge oyer the Howe ditch in Milroy ftp. There were other ' bidders, the Lafayette Bridge Co., the AtCca Bridge Co., and the Kendallville Bridge do., Wallace Marshall of the Lafayette Co., w|as here in person, and, as was his custom at fcuch lettings, toor down the bids of the different companies as read off. His notes show that the bid of the Winamac Co., was $1,240, or S2OO less than his own, the next lowest bidder. This, however, the commissioners and auditor say is a mistake of Mr. Marshall, as the bid of the Winamac Co., iwas $1,400, as the records state, y Marshall claimed that he could not understand how his company could be underbid right along in this county, and he had come here in person at this letting and made a bid Ait cost or a little less on this bridge. He thought there something wrong, and when the material was on the ground had gone there in person and measured the different pieces of steel, com-

On this indictment he was arrested and gave bond for his appearance in court. At the November term, it was stated, his Winamac attorney, Mont Hathaway, would be unable to be in attendance by reason of then being engaged in other cases there, and the case was continued to the February term. Trial of the Cause. The case was taken up for trial Wednesday about noon. The defense moved to quash the indictment as returned by the grand jury because it did not charge “intent,” and the motion was sustained. Prosecutor Longwell then filed an affidavit, which was held good and the trial proceeded. While it was understood, that Mont Hathaway of Winamac would be Mr. Bader’s principal attorney, Mr. Hathaway was not here and Geo. A. Williams was the sole attorney for the defense. Prosecutor Longwell unaided conducted the prosecution. 'The jury was composed of the, following, those marked with a star not being of the regular panel, but called in to fill up the jury; Emmet-Eldredge, Alonzo Daniels, George Marr, Walter Harrington, Ed Catt*, Wilbur D. Bond, Harrison Wasson*, H. L. Williams, H. W. Kiplinger*, Geo. T. Dean, George Borntrager, Roscoe Garrjott. What the Evidence Was. The State’s witnesses were Auditor, Leatherman and the county commissioners. Wallace Marshall of the Lafayette Bridge Co., was the star witness for the state. Mr. Marshall testified that he was at the head of the above company.; that he was* a dvil engineer, manufacturer and contractor and had been so engaged exclusively for the past 25 years. He testified that he had gone out to the location df the bridge after the material was placed on the ground, but before! it was erected. and had measured the different parts,; that he had also gone out to the bridge again Tuesday afternoon—the day before pie trial—with the specifi-

and carefully measured i every piece of the work and' compared it with the plans and specifications. He had written Out the size and weight of each piece in the bridge as constructed and also the size and weight of the same piece in the 'plans and specifications. His testimony was very minute and convincing, and without going intb technical details of each pjece as given by him in the testimony, he stated that the total reduction in weight of the bridge as constructed was 13,885 pounds, or about 35 per cent, less than called for in the plans amd specifications. The value of structural steel laid down at the shops in this section was at that time $1.50 per 100 pounds, and the cost of labor in manufacturing it into a bridge was 75 cents per 100 pounds, and that the value m the 13,885 pounds of steel which the bridge was short, was $312, including cost of manufacture. In other words, by scaling down the bridge 13,885 pounds in weight, the bridge company had saved $312 in material and labor. He also testified that while the specifications said the parts must be riveted together that they were bolted, and that the saving the bridge company had made z in rivets and extra paint on material not put ih was at least SIOO more. In the planking there was 288 feet less oak lumber used than called for in the specifications, thus making another saving of several dollars to the bridge company. The strength and carrying capacity of the bridge, he testified, was reduced about 50 per cent, by reason of all these reductions in weight of the different pieces. He estimated the carrying capacity at 1,000 pounds per lineal foot as constructed, while if built up to plans and specifications it would have been 2,000 pounds. The average of country bridges was about 1,600 generally, he stated, thereby inferring that the specifications as prepared in this case were 1-4 heavier than necessary, but an honest bidder must bid on the construction as there specified. The plans and specifications had been made by the Winamac Bridge Co. The grand total of the saving made by the 'company by the scaling down was S4OO at least. Mr. Marshall’s testimony was not shaken in the least by crossexamination, but 1 was strengthened if anything. He impressed one with being a man who thoroughly understood his business

and had everything at his tongue’s end. Asked if he had not taken a great deal of interest in this case, ho frankly replied that he had. The cross-examination of Marshall was not long, and after, recalling Auditor Leatherman and asking him a few questions as to the filing of the claim, the state rested. It was show>n that the claim had been sworn to before C. F. Kelley, the bridge company’s draughtsman, who is also a notary public, and that Mr. Leatherman received it through the jtxail. Outlines the Defense. Attorney Williams in outlining the defense said the defense would not claim that the bridge was up to specifications; that the defendant had so told the commissioners; that he could not complete it by June 1 as he could not procure the required dimension steel, and for this reason, after informing the commissioners that he could not get the material, had made -ft a little lighter, of material in stock; that the carrying capacity of the bridge was 110 to 115 pounds per square foot, while that of the bridge described in the specifications was about 120 pounds.. That Bader had gone out to the bridge with the commissioners and the county surveyor and inspected the bridge; that Bader had made no secret of the changes, and that there was nothing criminal in his acts. The first witnesses for the defense were Carl Riddick, editor of the Winamac Republican, Samuel A. Marsh, a Winamac banker, Wm. H. Diggs, telephone owner, and Wm. Herath, a Winamac liyeryman, who each testified that defendant’s reputation was Al at his home.

Defendant Testifies. Mr. Bader was next called. Had been general manager of Winamac Bridge Co., a corporation for about nine years, had .built eight or ten bridges in Jasper county and now had contracts for two or three more. Told commissioners at April meeting that he could not get material in time to complete by June 1. Admitted that there was no penalty in contract if he did not complete it on time, however. Commissioners , and township trustee were urging that bridge be hurried up; knew, in a sense, at time he took contract that he could not get material in time specified. Admitted bridge was lighter than that specified, uniformly so, but it was symetrical. Bridge was 70 foot span, 16 foot roadway, was allowed $l,lOO in June; bridge completed about June 10. Went out with commissioners and county surveyor in August to inspect bridge. Thought the 5 foot extra on backing covered difference in weight of material, and did not include this extra backing in the S3OO claim; had no intention of defrauding county or filing a false and fraudulent claim. On cross examination admitted that he did not tell ers how much lighter bridge would be; said commissioners said they wanted a “good bridge” and seemed to infer from that that this bridge would do, as it was a “good bridge.” Asked if he had any intention at the time he took the contract of putting in the bridge called for in the specifications, said he did. Asked if a representative of another bridge company would say that the ’bid of the Winamac Bridge Co., for this bridge was $1,240 would you say it was true? “No, it was not true.” Had no conversation with John F. Pettet at all in July as witness was not here. Court adjourned until 9 o’clock Thursday morning. On the re-convening of court Thursday morning Mr. Bader |vas re-called and testified to a nqmber of minor matters connected with the contract, and said that the absence of hub guards on the bridge was due to the fact that the commissioners had long ago told him to omit them from all bridges erected; did not tell him in particular to omit them from this bridge, however. In this he was later corroborated by the'commissioners. (The specifications called for hub guards, however 1 , and if there was no intention to have them put on it would seem |that they should be stricken from the spec- j

ifications, instead of being left there to fool some other bidder who had to take them into consideration -in making his bid.) On being cross-examined again he stated that he knew at the time of filing his claim that the bridge was not up to specifications, but he had made no offer to reduce the price because of this, believing that the extra 5 foot of backing put in covered the discrepancy. SSAsked if all, the other bridges constructed by his company were no nearer the specifications than this one, he said they were all practically up to specifications. Commissioners Testify for Defense. Commissioner Fred Waymire was next called and testified that as the Board understood, the, “backing” was but 5 foot, and, not deeming this sufficient, had instructed the contractors to make it 10 feet instead. mire~ testified that so far as he was concerned he had not given the contractor the privilege to change the A day or two before Marshall made objections, at the July term, Waymire had heard through Auditor Leatherman that complaint was made about this bridge. (The complaint was made by Mr. Marshall, we understand.) This was the first time he had heard anything about it. Z thing about the plans called for 5 foot backing, the Specifications said 12 foot it seems, and the bridge is still short two feet from that called for.) Cross-examined Waymire said he had later spoke to Bader about the bridge and the latter admitted it was a little light, but did not say 14,000 pounds lighter than specifications. At the September meeting, when the S3OO claim was allowed at S2OO, and $25 allowed for extra backing, Bader told commissioners that he thought the bridge was worth the contract price,’ but if they thought otherwise they might deduct whatever they thought proper. Bader might have said before this that it was lighter than specifications, but did not remember >if he did or not. Commissioned Denham • next testified; said Bader toldr-him thrft- he could not get steel to put in bridge on time; witness knew bridge was lighter than called for but did not know how much so. Claim of S3OO was adjusted on report of County Surveyor Osborne. Bader Ordered Plans Changed. On cross-examination said he first knew in June or July when claim of $l,lOO was allowed (in June) that bridge was light; that Bader said he had to make some little.changes. Bader never told witness how much short of metal bridge was. i. Commissioner Pettet next testified; said Bader told him that' he could not get material in time, and showed letters from steel mills; did not know how much light bridge was; Osborne: did not give shortage in pounds J only in dimensions. On cross-examination witness said Jim Leatherman first told

him bridge was light, about same time testified to and just before Marshall made complaint to the board; first conversation with Bader regarding it was in July. Commissioners Opened thte Bids. Auditor Leatherman was recalled and testified that the bids at this letting were opened by the commissioners themselves. Original bid of Winamac Co., was admitted in evidence and examined by jury to show that it was for $1,400 instead of $1,240 as shown by Mr. Marshall’s notes of the various bids, taken at, the time as they were called off/ C. F. Kelly, the young draughtsman of the Winamac Bridge Co., was the next witness. Had made no computation ’of how much light .the bridge was in pounds. Cost of raw material at that time was practically same as testified to by Marshall, but his company only figured 60c per 100 pounds to “manufacture.” . On cross-examination he testified that when the contract for this bridge came in he gave a set of working plans to the shop foreman. The latter brought them back and told him they did not have all the dimensions in stock; reported to Bader who then fried to procure same from the mills; could not get them and said people down there wanted bridge; asked witness if he did not have another set of working plans for a bridge of that sizewitness said he did, but they were for lighter construction; had this material in •stock and the lighter plans were substituted at Bader’s instigation and knowledge. This concluded the evidence, at 11:30, and court adjourned until 1 p. m., when argument was begun by Prosecutor Longwell, who began by stating what the charge was, presenting a false claim, and read from the statute the penalty, imprisonment in the state prison not less than two nor mbre than fourteen years arid a fine of not less than $lO nor more than SI,OOO. Mr. Longwell talked for about 30 minutes, making a very able plea indeed, reviewing the evidence and dwelling on the fact that the defense had not attempted to. disprove the testimony of Mr. Marshall, although having the same right as the state to bring in expert engineers to testify regarding the dimensions of the bridge; that they had not attempted to disprove his testimony because they could not, and that they had admitted that many of the parts were of lesser

dimensions than the specifications called for. Mr. Williams then followed and spoke for an hour or more. He argued that there was no intentional .provqp, that Bader had made an honest effort to get the steel of the pi<oper dimensions, but could not, and had then gone to the commissioners like an honest man and so informed them; that they told him to go ahead and put up “a good bridge/’ that the bridge put up was a good one and worth every penny of the $1,400, though it might be a little lighter than the strict letter of the specifications. Mr. Williams made a powerful plea for his client, from a lawyer’s point of told of his high character as testified to by his friends and neighbors, arid said these changes had been instigated bv a rival bridge company, vs Prosecutor Longwell then (Soagd for the state, telling the jury that while it might seem hard to find a man guilty of a charge of this kind, that for the protection of the public and the public treasury of this and qther counties such crimes must be punished. He said many peculiar things had cropped out during the progress of the trial. He thought the evidence very clearly and conclusively proved the defendant guilty. \ court then gave its instnrctions to the jury and the latter retired at 4 p. m., to deliberate. The instructions did not favor the state much more, if any, than the defendant, and seemed very impartial indeed. They stated that the commissioners had no power whatever to change 01ans and specifications after the contract was let, and that if the jury found beyond a reasonable doubt that Bader knew that the bridge was / 13,885 pounds short in weight, or had reason to know that it was, at the time he filed this claim, etc., the jury should find for the state. The instructions also explained what “reasonable doubt” meant.