Jasper County Democrat, Volume 14, Number 8, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 3 May 1911 — BRIDGE GRAFTER GOES TO PRISON [ARTICLE]

BRIDGE GRAFTER GOES TO PRISON

Sapreme Court Affirms Lower Court in Bader Case UPHOLDS POINTS CONTESTED A Victory for Prosecutor Longwell and Judge Hanley Who Have Been Bitterly Assailed By a Small Coterie of Politicians for the Prosecution of This Case—Also Shows That The Democrat Was Right, as Usual.

The supreme court of Indiana, without a dissenting voice, last Friday upheld the decision of the Jasper circuit court in the case of the State of Indiana vs. Clinton L. Bader, superintendent and general manager of the Winamac Bridge Co., generally known as the “bridge graft case,” wherein Mr. Bader was convicted a year ago for presenting a false claim against Jasper county for the construction of a 70-foot span bridge over the Howe ditch in Milroy township, and Mr. Bader must now go to the penitentiary at Michigan City and serve out his sentence of two to fourteen years. Probably no case ever tried in Jasper county has attracted so much attention as this one, and the decision coming so soon after the oral arguments of the attorneys before the court —only last Tuesday—is somewhat of a surprise all around, and shows that the court from a study of the case and the evidence presented in the transcript had already made up its mind before the attorneys were heard and that there was nothing in the argument put up that was considered worthy of additional investigation. The decision was handed down by Judge Monks, one of the very ablest jurists on the bench, and was concurred in by all his colleagues. The points on which the defense hoped for a reversal are all held bad and the alleged errors of Judge Hanley in permitting certain evidence to go before the jury and in his instructions were not errors, and he is upheld on every point. The syllabus of the opinion says:

The omission of quotation marks after a fraudulent tlaim filed against the county, recited in the affidavit, is immaterial. , (2) The verification to a claim is not part of it and need not be recited. (3) Charging that one knowingly committed an act charges that he knew the claim was false. (4) The record kept by the auditor of the proceedings in ordering the construction of a bridge was competent evidence. (5) The specifications and blue print being,part of the contract, were admissible in evidence. (6) The state had a right to show by witnesses the smaller sizes of the steel used and what thq difference would amount to in weight, and how much less the bridge was worth as constructed than If constructed according to Contract. The witness, being an expert engineer, could testify as to difference of value. (7) Where defendant gave evidence as

to conversation relative to change in material and construction of the . bridge, it was not error for the court to instruct the jury of the commissioners’ inability to change the contract. (8) Instructions which may have been called for by the argument of defendant’s counsel will be presumed to be correct. (9 Good character can not work to prevent conviction and such instruction is proper. (10) It is not error to refuse instructions not signed by defendant or cpunseL It will thus 1 be seen that the defense “had not a leg to stand cn’ : in the appeal; that Judge Ilanlev did not err on any of the propositions of law excepted to, and that a complete victor}’ for the taxpayers has been achieved, thanks to Prosecutor Longwell, who in the face of the most bitter opposition from politicians of his own party here and the severe criticism and abuse of the

party organ, went ahead manfully and did his duty as a sworn officer of the law. j The decision can have nothing but a good effect all oxer the state. It is a victory for the right, and contractors in the future will have a Vare deliberately set about to defraud the taxpayers on public contracts. The general opinion, of course, is

that Bader was not alone in the bridge graft steal, but-it was he who was caught with the goods, and now he must suffer the penalty. The way of the transgressor is always hard, and even though he may have been made the “goat,” he did not see fit to open his lips and the men "higher up,” if there are such, will probably escape the penalty of their past misdeeds, while he occupies a felon's cell in the penitentiary. t * Mr. Bader was a man of more than ordinary intelligence and knew right from wrong, and yet he chose the wrong. He fully

deserves the sentence imposed upon him, but still we feel compassion for him and for his family—which is a highly respected one —for the disgrace he has brought upon himself and them, the compassion we feel for any man convicted of a crime against his fellowman. He had unusual advantages for keeping in the right track, and is really not deserving of as much pity as the poor devil who has grown up in the gutter, been kicked and cuffed about all his life and really had little or no opportunity to know right from wrong. If Bader fell in with a band of rascals and * allowed himself to become one of them he can have no one to blame but himself. There are six other indictments pending in the circuit court here against Bader, but as this verdict has been upheld it is not likely these cases will ever be pressed. Just what will be the “modus operandi” now seems to be a question. Bader gave a bond to the state and the governor, who, through misrepresentation of the facts, went out of his way to grant a parole pending appeal. This bond and the commitment issued by the Jasper circuit court seems to have been left with the governor. The late legislature passed an act admitting to bond persons convicted of crime, pending an appeal, but provides that the defendant will “abide by the order and judgment of the court to which such cause is appealed, and will, surrender himself In execution of the judgment if such appeal be affirmed or dismissed.”

Up to yesterday nothing had been done in the matter and we were . unable to learn what he will do. It would ; . appear from the act referred to that when the sentence was affirmed it was the duty of the defendant to surrender himself to the court and be taken to the penitentiary, even though application for a rehearing were made, and not be entitled to sixty days respite pending the application, as the legal mind of the Republican States.