Jasper County Democrat, Volume 13, Number 49, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 September 1910 — VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY [ARTICLE]

VERDICT OF NOT GUILTY

Ordered By the Court In Alleged Raised Bid Case. NO OIRECT EVIDENCE OF RAISE And Under the Statute the Case Was Being Prosecuted the State Could Not Get Testimony of Witnesses Who Say Bid was Read off sl,2so—New Affidavit Charging Another Offense May be Filed.

At 11:00 a. m., yesterday;, on motion of the defense the court ordered the jury to return a verdict of not guilty in the case against C. L. Bader and tfae county commissioners wherein it is charged that the bid of the Winamac Bridge Co., on the Milroy tp., bridge had been tampered with after it was opened and read and the figures changed from $1,240 to 51,400. Xot much of any real evidence was heard in the case, every step being vigorously opposed by the six attorneys for the defense, and the question of whether the bid was raised or was not remains as much in the dark as ever. It is reported that Prosecutor Longwell will file a new affidavit under another statute, charging the same parties with conspiracy.

The case of the State of Indiana vs. C. L. Bader, superintendent and general manager of Ifn'e Winamac Bridge Co., and County—Commissioners _C. T. Denham, Fred Waymire and John F. Pettit, for the alleged fradulentlv changing of the figures in the bid of the Winamac Bridge Co., on a 70-foot span bridge in Milroy tp., over the Howe ditch, from $1,240 to sl,400, was taken up at 11 a. m., Monday before Special Judge Wm. Darrodh of Kentland. The state was represented alone by Prosecutor Longwell, while the defense was represented by six attorneys, E. B. Sellers of Monticello, Judge H. A. Sties of South Bend, Geo. A. Williams and County Attorney Abe Haileck of Rensselaer, Prosecutor B. D. L, Glazebrook of the Pu-laski-Starke judicial circuit, and Mont Hathaway of Winamac. The jury was sworn to answer as to their qualifications and examination was first made by the state. Twelve of tfn*e regular panel filled the jury box as follows: Ralph Doeaelly, . ... Rensselaer J. W. Hitchings, . . . .Jordan tp. Geo. W. Casey, ...... Union Grant Davisson, .... . - Barkley Dudley Tyler . Carpenter John Bill, Jordan Earl Barkley. , Barkley William Fitzgerald, Kankakee William Murray, Hanging Grove John Xowels Union Willliam Hallier. . . . Wheatfield John Farabee. ..... Carpenter Prosecutor Longwell stated Mr. Longwell briefly stated the nature of the case and examined e;ach juror as to his qualifications. Some of them had formed opinions that they stated it would take evidence to remove, but the State passed the jury temporarillv without going into the question very deeply as 7 to what those opinions were. Mr. Williams for the defense then began examining the jurors, and made a very exhaustive examination. being assisted occasionally by MV. Sellers, and .frequently conferring with County Attorney Halleck. In a misdemeanor trial each side is entitled to three pre-emp-tory challenges of jurors; in a felony trial (such as this) to ten; and in a capital offense, such as murder, to twenty. Jurors Davisson' and Farabee had formed opinions that would only yield to evidence and were excused by the court. Jurors Hitdiings, Bill and Casey were challenged without cause by the defense, and stepped aside. - The bailiff brought in C. J.

Dean of Rensselaer, one of the regular panel in place of Davisson, and Philip Blue, also of Rensselaer and former superin tendent of the poor farm, in place of Farabee. W. F. Smith, the stone road contractor, was brought in to replace Dill, F. W. Rutherford, bridge contractor, in place of Hitchings, and Boyd Porter in place of Casey. Dean was excused by the state, and B. J. Moore, the dredge rock contractor, took his place. Moore had expressed an opinion that would take some evidence to remove, but he was allowed to sit, Prosecutor Longwell bringing out in examining Blue, Smith, Rutherford, Moore and Porter that each had had contracts from the county, in different capacities. r; V; ; '; ' - Juror Smith was excused by the state, and Elizur Sage of Xewton tp., took his place. Rutherford was also excused by the state and George Morgan of Rensselaer took his place. The jury was then re-examined by Mr. Williams, after which he, Halleek and Sellers held a conference and Hafleck goes to Commissioner Waymire and talks with him. Williams later joining. Wiliams then confers wth Glazebrook and Hathaway. (We menton this merely to show that all six of the defense’s attorneys were busy.) Sage and Blue were excused by the state, and Isaac Hemphill of Rensselaer, a teamster on the county rock roads, took Sage’s place, and June Hinkle, a .Rensselaer horseman, took Blue’s place. Murray was then excused by the state and John Kresler of Rensselaer took his place in the box.

Prosecutor Longwell “passes” jury. ?' Mr. Williams examines the new members and after a conference with his colleagues, especially Attorney Halleek, excuses Morgan and Kresler. Charles Porter was summoned in place of Kresler, but on account of the critical illness of his mother the court excused him. Allen Swim, sexton at Weston cemetery, took Morgan’s place and James B. Erwin of Demotte the place of Porter. After examination by both the state and defense, and a conference of the six attorneys for tihe latter, the jury was finally accepted. The state had exhausted six of its ten challenges and the defense five.

It was 3 .’OS p. m., when the jury was finally secured and were sworn to try the case. An intermission of five minutes was taken and then the trial was on,, the jury being as follows: Wm. Fitzgerald, Kankakee tp. Isaac Hemphill, . . . Rensselaer Al Swim, . ... V . Rensselaer B. J. Moore, .’.... Rensselaer James B. Irwin, .... Demotte Ralph Donnelly, . . . Rensselaer Earl Barkley, .. . Barkley tp. John Xowels, Union tp. Boyd Porter Rensselaer June Hinkle, ... . . Rensselaer Willliam Hallier. .. .Wheatfield Dudley Tyler Carpenter what the; state expected to prove in a brief but pointed manner. He said that along in February, 19Q9, notice was given that bids would be received by the board of commissioners for a certain steel bridge of 70-foot span over the Howe ditch in Milroy tp.; that at the March term following bids were filed by several different bridge companies for the construction of this bridge, among which was the bid of the W inamac Bridge Co., at 51,240. The bids were opened by the commissioners at about 1 p. in., of said day and the amounts read off, that of the Winamac Bridge Co., being for 51,240; that the auditor would testify that some time later the bids came into his hands again (they came to him first sealed) and the bid of the said Winamac Bridge Co., read 51,400. (This was then s6s less than the next lowest bid, that the Lafayette Engineering Co.); that Mr. Bader was in tflie room and with the commissioners betime of the opening of the bids and the time they came into Auditor Leatfierman's hands, during which interval the alleged change in the figures had been made. The defense made iio statement

whatever, and the state called its first witness, Auditor Leatherman: Mr. Leatherman is shown the bid oi> which the alleged change in figures was made, and identifies tlhe paper. The state offers to introduce the bid in evidence, hut Mr. Sellers objected, and gave a long list” of reasons why it should not be introduced, attacking the sufficiency of the affidavit, etc. . The objection was sustained, because the preparatory evidence leading up to the bid had not been introduced. The state then had Mr. Leatherman bring up the road record from his office containing order of the commissioners for the letting. Mr. Sellers objected to every question asked and moved to , strike out the answers after they were answered, but was overruled by the court in almost every instance. , The record was introduced as evidence and read; the notices as published of the letting and the "proof of publication as filed by the publishers of the newspapers in which the notices were printed. The letting was to be on Monday, March 1, 1909, Sellers moved to strike out everything, and gave a long'list of reasons for bis objections at each and; every stage, being prompted occasionally by Judge Steis. His objections were still overruled. One of the many objections to the road record notice was that no evidence had been introduced to show that the commissioners had the power to order tlhe letting, etc., etc. The state again offered the bid in evidence, to which Sellers excepted and was again overruled. State reads bid from the road record, being strenuously opposed by the defense’s attorneys. The court comes down off of bench and reads entry in road record, then overrules motion to strike out. Judge Steis also raises his voice in objection and the section of statute under which the prosecution was brought was looked into by the court, and objection overruled. Prosecutor Longwell then reads all the record pertaining to this letting as shown by Road Record 7, page 29, showing the various bids filed as they appear on record. Objections are again made by the defense and Sellers moves to strike out. The state again offers bid, and Sellers gets up with his stereotyped objections. The court doesn’t even rule, but says: .“Proceed, Mr. Prosecutor,” and the bid was read. Steis also objects to questions asked the auditor about when lie received the bid, and Sellers and* Steis were sustained three times to tlhe manner the question was put, but finally the prosecutor got his question in the proper technical form and was allowed' to proceed. The auditor stated that the bid came to him sealed, and perhaps 25 minutes after it was opened he saw the paper. The bid was then, after all this sparring, ready to be. presented to the jury, when Mr. Sellers again interposed a string of objections as long as the moral law ; the court asked to see the bid. then examined the affidavit and sustained the objection, the trouble seeming to be at this stage in that the affidavit named “C. L. Bader” while the bid was signed “C. L. 8.—,” a peculiar way Mr. Bader has in signing his name so that the latter part of it, after the P> is a scrawl that might mean almost anything. This was where it appeared the state was about to get out of court, and the Prosecutor asked for .five minutes recess, which was granted,, the jury retired and the court was shown authorities by both sides. The court also re-examined the affidavit and the. bid. Finally the jury was called back, at about 5:15 o’clock and the court excused the jurors until 9 o’clock yesterday morning, court also adjourning until that hour. ♦ - Tuesday Morning. On the of court , Tuesday morning Mr. Leatherman resumed the witness stand, (he, court over-ruled objections I of the defense to the introduction jof the bid alleged to have been

changed, and said that it could be read to the jury. Sellers ob : jected again long and vigorously, and a few more questions were asked) of witness by the state and he was cross-questioned by the defense as to his possession of bid beforedt was finally read, the court over-ruling objections. The auditor testified that it was the same bid he had seen and recorded after it was opened by the commissioners, but was somewhat more worn and ruffled than when he first saw it. The figures were a little more plain then than now. (More objections from Mr. Sellers.) Witness examined bid last July, under glass the surface of the paper about the figures appeared, broken somewhat. The bid was again attempted to be offered in testimony and a huge bunch of objections were again interposed by Mr. Sellers and Mr. Sties. Objections overruled; At last, after several hours efforts the bid was allowed to be read to the jury. ; Sellers moved to strike out paper and objected to its being handed to the jury for examination. The latter objection was sustained and the jury did not get to see it at all. j; Mr. Leatherman was then excused and Wallace Marshall of the Lafayette Engineering Co., was called. Marshall testified that he was present at this particular letting; heard the bids read off of the different companies bidding, He did not see the bid in question and on objection of the defense was not permitted to testify to the amount read off. This ruling and the ruling against allowing the bid to be examined by the jury ended the case. The rulings were proper, it is said, and no blame can attach to the court. Prosecutor Longwell asked for a five minute recess to look up authority, and not being able to find any way around this stumbling block, the court, on motion of the defense, instructed the jury to return a verdict of not quilty, and the trial was over. Wallace Marshal and other representatives of bridge companies who were present at this par-

ticuar letting were here and would have testified, it is sailjl, that the bid was read $1240,.but under the affidavit filed evidence could not be gotten in. As, the matter now stands the tax payers of Jasper county are as much in the dark as ever as to whether the figures in the bid were actually tampered with or not. iT The above case has nothing whatever to do with the six indictments pending against Bader individually for bridge graft, but they will not be tried at this time and are not likely to be tried until the supreme court rules on th * similar case pending there.