Class_SK^U^ 
 
 . V<^-V c 
 
 HiKSl-:NTHl) liY 
 
THE 
 
 DESECRATION 
 
 AND 
 
 PROFANATION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 PENNSYLVANIA CAPITOL, 
 
 WILLIAM J. CAMPBELL 
 
 1623 Chestnut Street 
 
 PHILADELPHIA 
 

 
 X 
 
 
"Cursed he he that maketh the blind to zvan- 
 der out of the way," — Dent. 27: 18. 
 
 "Yea, the time cometh, that whosoever kill- 
 eth you will think that he doeth God service." 
 
 — John 16: 2. 
 
 "If, ivhen ye do well, and suffer for it, ye 
 take it patiently, this is acceptable with God" 
 
 — I Peter 2 : 20. 
 
 "And be not afraid of their terror, neither 
 be troubled." — I Peter 3: 14. 
 
Pennypacker's Mills, 
 
 Oct. 4, 191 1. 
 To the People of Pennsyhmnia: 
 
 In the city of Antwerp, at one time the 
 leading municipahty of the world, within a few 
 hundred yards of the banks of the Scheldt, 
 stands one of the most beautiful and imposing 
 of the cathedrals of Europe. From every civi- 
 lized country men and women interested in the 
 study of history, of theology and of art come 
 to view its proportions, to admire its architec- 
 ture and to indicate their veneration for its 
 associations. A spire rising from the roof 
 bears heavenward the symbol of suffering hu- 
 manity. Within its portals hang Ruben's 
 "Descent from the Cross," the masterpiece of 
 this artist in color, and Leonardo da Vinci's 
 painting of the "Head of Christ." Without, 
 against the very walls, the nasty, dirty, vulgar 
 Belgians of the present day have erected their 
 urinals and cloaca in full view of every visitor 
 to the sacred edifice. 
 
 We in Pennsylvania have recently been giv- 
 ing a like exhibition of ourselves. We have 
 5 
 
treated our Capitol after the same fashion, 
 with a similar lack of decency and good sense. 
 For four years I have waited patiently until 
 the Courts should fini3h their consideration of 
 the cases brought before them. It was the 
 only proper course to pursue. It would have 
 been better for the material interests and the 
 reputation of the Commonwealth if others had 
 acted with the same sense of propriety. I now 
 propose to speak. It is my duty. Nor do I 
 intend to assume any affectation of modesty. 
 Between you and me in this matter it shall 
 be an effort only to reach the truth, and all 
 other motives and impulses shall be disregard- 
 ed. I do not ask the acceptance of any state- 
 ment herein made as a fact unless it is verified 
 or be capable of verification from the record, 
 and I do not ask you to be influenced by any 
 of my reasoning unless it appeals to your judg- 
 ment, but I intend that those both now and 
 hereafter who care to be informed, and to be 
 correct in their conclusions, shall have the bene- 
 fit of such information as I possess with regard 
 to men and events and such intelligence as I 
 am able to bring to the subject. I claim now 
 the right to be heard. 
 
 Without any request or suggestion of mine 
 you elected me to the Governorship of Penn- 
 sylvania by the largest vote ever given to one 
 6 
 
presented for that office either before or since. 
 I am entirely conscious of the fact, and you 
 will remember, that my term was filled 
 with constructive work accomplished for the 
 benefit of the Commonwealth, and that the 
 standards of political conduct were maintained 
 at so high a plane that the President of the 
 United States held forth Pennsylvania as an 
 example for all of the States to follow. Gov- 
 ernor Robert E. Pattison at the close of an 
 attempt to have the State apportioned into 
 senatorial and representative districts in com- 
 pliance with the requirements of the Con- 
 stitution, said in 1883 in a message: "I have 
 exhausted all my powers to that end without 
 avail, and confess the futility of my efforts." 
 The State was so apportioned in 1906, the 
 first time this mandate had been obeyed in 
 thirty-two years. Mr. Roosevelt received 
 much credit for the policy of conserving the 
 forests and the waters. With respect to the 
 waters, this policy had its origin when in re- 
 sponse to a message from me the Legislature 
 of Pennsylvania, April 13, 1905, took away 
 from corf>orations the power to appropriate 
 "the streams, rivers and waters," and during 
 my term the forest lands of the State were 
 doubled. Charles E. Hughes received great 
 applause over the country and was appointed 
 
 7 
 
to the Supreme Court of the United States 
 because he endeavored to bring about in New 
 York the passage of the legislation which had 
 been secured here. Unlike Mr. Hughes, when 
 I was tendered the nomination to the Supreme 
 Court of the State I did not, looking to my 
 own comfort, abandon the Governorship to 
 which you had called me. My successor did 
 me the honor to conduct the affairs of his ad- 
 ministration with the officials he found in 
 charge of the departments at Harrisburg. The 
 gentleman appointed to the United States 
 Senate became there the recognized author- 
 ity upon questions of law, and now sits at 
 the head of the Cabinet. Pittsburgh became 
 a greater city. Valley Forge became a source 
 of instruction to the people of the nation, and 
 on the outer line of intrenchments was set the 
 bronze statue of Anthony Wayne. The move- 
 ment for good roads was begun and three hun- 
 dred miles in stone were constructed. Cor- 
 porations were not permitted to be organized 
 tmless they had a capital stock of at least 
 $5,000. By the act of May 8, 1905, the State 
 began the policy of aiding, deepening and im- 
 proving the channel of the Delaware river by 
 appropriating $375,000 to Philadelphia for this 
 purpose. Every newspaper now prints on its 
 editorial page the names of those responsible 
 
for its management. The constabulaiy was 
 created and organized upon such a basis that 
 it has met approval everywhere, and moreover 
 has maintained the peace as never before. The 
 most efficient department of health in the Uni- 
 ted States was established, and the Capitol was 
 both begun and completed. Therefore it is 
 that I demand that you listen, giving such 
 support to the utterance as you may find it 
 to deserve. 
 
 When I went to Harrisburg in obedience to 
 your call in 1903, I found the arrangements 
 for the transaction of the business of the State, 
 due to the fact that the old Capitol had been 
 destroyed by fire some years before, in the 
 most unsatisfactory condition. Residences and 
 other buildings in different parts of the town 
 as they could be found had been rented at con- 
 siderable expense and adapted. Most of the 
 departments were housed in what was called 
 the old shoe building, a brick structure stand- 
 ing in a manufacturing neighborhood within 
 a few yards of and running alongside of the 
 main line of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Here 
 among others were the records of the Interior 
 Department, with its evidences of the titles to 
 the lands throughout the State. They could 
 not be cared for, and every day and every 
 night they ran the risk of destruction by fire. 
 9 
 
Every time the fire bell rang I expected to hear 
 that the old shoe building with its contents 
 had at last succumbed. If you expected me 
 to be content that this condition should con- 
 tinue, shifting the responsibility for providing 
 a remedy over to some successor, or if you 
 expected me to participate in the erection of a 
 cheap and unworthy public building out of 
 keeping with the importance of the Common- 
 wealth, you had made a mistake in the selec- 
 tion of your Governor. I would not have 
 done either of those things then, and I would 
 not do either of them now. 
 
 A Commission had been appointed for the 
 erection of a new Capitol, an architect had 
 been selected, and a contract had been made 
 covering the expenditure of $4,000,000.00. A 
 commonly expressed opinion upon the street 
 was that before the building should be com- 
 pleted twenty-five years in time and twenty- 
 five millions of dollars would be required. This 
 opinion received support from the experience 
 of other States in erecting capitols, and of 
 Philadelphia in erecting her City Hall. Al- 
 though the Commission had been appointed by 
 m)^ predecessor, I assumed responsibility for 
 them — that is to say, it was within my power 
 as Governor to have removed them all, at least 
 with one exception, and to have appointed 
 
others in their stead. Like every other Com- 
 mission and appointive body, it was subject 
 to the control of the Governor. What they did, 
 therefore, was done under my authority and 
 with my assent. There was much futile dis- 
 cussion at one time as to why the Commission 
 permitted the Board of Public Grounds and 
 Buildings to do anything in the way of alter- 
 ation. How could the Commission have helped 
 it, if the Governor chose to exert his author- 
 ity? There were also many idle editorials 
 written to tell you that it had been expected 
 that the structure as it has been completed 
 would cost but $4,000,000. Whoever made 
 that statement to you told an untruth. The 
 contract and the specifications were both print- 
 ed in full, and anybody concerned to know 
 could have seen exactly what the $4,000,000 
 were to secure. That contract made provision 
 for the bare building alone and none for light- 
 ing, for the heat regulation, the panelings on 
 the walls, the fire-places and mantel-pieces, the 
 decorations in the rooms of the Senate and 
 House, the decorations of the dome, the decor- 
 ations in the other rooms, the paintings in the 
 corridors, the twenty-eight subjects to be 
 painted by Abbey, and none for the furniture. 
 If nothing more had been done, the Governor, 
 members of the Legislature and officials would 
 
have had to trudge through the mud to the 
 building, since no provision had been made 
 for approaches or pavement. When they 
 reached it they could have done no work — they 
 could not even have sat down. 
 
 The Board of Public Grounds and Build- 
 ings consisted of the Governor, the State Trea- 
 surer and the Auditor General. It is a vicious 
 arrangement, since the Governor, who is vested 
 by the Constitution with supreme executive 
 power, is required to sit upon terms of equality 
 of action with two other officials who may at 
 any time outvote him. The Governor ought 
 to be a member of no board performing duties 
 of the State. However, the system had been 
 devised by the wisdom of legislators, had been 
 accepted by my predecessors and had long 
 continued. The act of March 26, 1895, directs 
 that this Board "shall have entire control and 
 supervision of the public grounds and build- 
 ings . . . and all the repairs, alterations 
 and improvements made and all work done 
 or expenses incurred in and about such 
 grounds and buildings, including the furnish- 
 ing and refurnishing the same," and they "are 
 authorized to enter into contracts for . 
 furniture, . . . repairs, alterations or im- 
 provements." The power thus given to the 
 Board is broad and absolute in its scope and 
 
far beyond that of the Building Commission, 
 which was limited and restricted to a specific 
 purpose. Its power was not confined to small 
 buildings or large buildings, but extended to 
 all, together with the public grounds, and in- 
 cluded the authority to alter and improve. To 
 carry into effect its powers, appropriations 
 were made to it at each session of the Legis- 
 lature in the following terms : "The State 
 Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed 
 to pay out of any moneys not otherwise ap- 
 propriated . . . such sums as may be re- 
 quired by contracts made in pursuance of law 
 which shall be done only on the 
 written orders of the Board of Commissioners 
 of Public Grounds and Buildings." 
 
 This system is likewise open to criticism. 
 In response to a message from me the open 
 end of the sack was closed, with respect to 
 expenditure for bridges, by the act of February 
 15, 1906. But the system had been devised 
 by Governor Pattison, the government had 
 been conducted in accordance with it for nearly 
 twenty years, numerous structures had been 
 erected and no one had arisen anywhere to 
 object. The general appropriation bill, ap- 
 proved July 18, 1 90 1, contained, however, this 
 provision : "Provided that expenditures al- 
 lowed under this section shall not be so con- 
 13 
 
strued as to authorize the Commissioners of 
 Public Grounds and Buildings to complete the 
 present Capitol building," and the proviso was 
 retained in the appropriation bills of 1903 and 
 1905. The effect of this proviso is difficult 
 to determine. No attempt is made to repeal 
 the power of the Board, and in fact such a 
 result could not be accomplished by an appro- 
 priation bill. The power to improve, alter, 
 repair and furnish is left as it was under the 
 previous legislation, and an appropriation for 
 these purposes is made in the same section, 
 but an appropriation to "complete"' the Capitol 
 is withheld. My interpretation of the lan- 
 guage was and is that the Legislature, know- 
 ing of the contract for the erection of the 
 building and having made provision for the 
 sums required by it, intended to prevent the 
 Board of Public Grounds and Buildings from 
 spending moneys for the completion of that 
 contract and in relief of the Building Com- 
 mission. Such a provision would be wise, 
 and this is an interpretation entirely consistent 
 with a retention of the general power of the 
 Board. As in much of our legislation, it is 
 necessary to grope the way amid conflicting 
 statutes to ascertain the legislative intent, but 
 the testimony given for the defence in the 
 various trials that I was of the opinion, and 
 14 
 
gave expression to it, that the Board had the 
 power to alter, improve, repair, furnish and 
 equip the Capitol building was correct. I ac- 
 cept that responsibility. 
 
 The members of the Board were aware of 
 the fact that the next session of the Legisla- 
 ture would occur in January of 1905, and that 
 it was expected of them that the Capitol should 
 be in readiness. If they had failed to meet 
 the responsibility and had sought to excuse 
 themselves upon the ground of want of au- 
 thority, those who have been so ready to berate 
 them for achievement would have been equally 
 earnest in charging incompetence. But what 
 is of far more consequence, they would have 
 neglected a duty imposed upon them by the 
 law. Like men, they accepted the responsi- 
 bility. Even if they had been disposed to lie 
 down and shirk, the necessity of providing ac- 
 commodations for five new departments cre- 
 ated after the making of the contract by the 
 Building Commission, to wit. Fisheries, Mines, 
 Health, Highways and Constabulary, would 
 have compelled them to modify and magnify 
 the plans for the building. That the Legisla- 
 ture made no other provision for these depart- 
 ments and depended upon the Board to ar- 
 range for them, is convincing proof that my 
 interpretation of the legislation is correct. 
 15 
 
Thus Section 5 of the act of April 3, 1903, 
 creating the Department of Fisheries, directed : 
 "The Fisheries Commission shall have an of- 
 fice in the State Capitol, and it shall be the 
 duty of the Board of Commissioners of Public 
 Grounds and Buildings to provide from time 
 to time the necessary rooms, furniture, appar- 
 atus and supplies." Section 2 of the act of 
 April 15, 1903, creating the Department of 
 Highways, directed: "The State Highway 
 Department shall be provided with suitable 
 rooms in the State buildings at Harrisburg, 
 and its offices shall be open at all reasonable 
 times for the transaction of public business." 
 Section 2 of the act of May 5, 1905, creating 
 the Department of State Police directed : "The 
 Superintendent of State Police shall be pro- 
 vided by the Board of Public Grounds and 
 Buildings with suitable offices at the Capitol 
 in Harrisburg" ; and the other two depart- 
 ments were simply left to the care of the Board 
 by the Legislature without specific directions. 
 How the Board was to obey this legislation 
 without doing constructive work in the Capi- 
 tol the critics have been too careless even to 
 consider. 
 
 The erection, ornamention and equipment 
 of the Capitol was by no means a simple and 
 easy task. It was the most elaborate and 
 16 
 
complicated constructive work ever undertaken 
 by the State. In the nature of things the 
 men in charge of it were unprepared by special 
 training, and the resources provided for ordi- 
 nary and routine occasions were inadequate. 
 Even the most skilled engineers when called 
 upon to erect a bridge over the St. Lawrence 
 at Quebec or to dig a canal across the Isthmus 
 of Panama cannot rely upon formulas, but 
 have to feel their way. Reasonable persons 
 would expect many mistakes and imperfec- 
 tions both of method and material, and if they 
 be honest, will admit that expectation. Most 
 of the efforts to erect capitols in this country 
 have resulted in failures both in design and 
 construction. 
 
 The equipment involved much more than 
 that which has been ignorantly designated as 
 furniture. For over half a century the records 
 of the government at Harrisburg had been 
 gradually stolen by literary thieves. To-day 
 not an autograph sale occurs in New York 
 which does not contain more or less of original 
 papers which were once a part of the archives 
 of Pennsylvania. Every collector of experi- 
 ence is familiar with the fact. The Board with 
 proper foresight determined to take due care 
 for the future, and in every room in the vast 
 building they placed metallic cases in which 
 17 
 
could be preserved safe from abstraction, mutil- 
 ation and fire, the records of the departments. 
 These metallic cases are not furniture. They 
 are the tools of the workmen, the engines of 
 the power house, the looms of the mill, the 
 wagons of the farmer, the gold foil of the 
 dentist. The task confronting the builders 
 was not that of keeping a set of books such as 
 could meet the scrutiny and approval of the 
 Audit Company of New York, or that of mak- 
 ing contracts which would baffle the technical 
 skill of a Quarter Sessions lawyer. It was 
 nothing so small, limited and incidental. 
 What they were called upon to do was to erect 
 and adorn a building ample for the needs of 
 the work of a Commonwealth of eight millions 
 of people, in so substantial a manner as to meet 
 the requirements of architectural strength and 
 with such grace as to satisfy the cultivated 
 tastes of instructed artists. 
 
 The financial relation of the Board of Pub- 
 lic Grounds and Buildings toward the Capitol 
 was entirely different from that of the Build- 
 ing Commission. The latter could only use 
 $4,000,000, the former were only limited by 
 the balance in the Treasury of the State. 
 While the members of the Board well knew 
 that the State was strong enough and had 
 sufficient resources to justify the erection of 
 iS 
 
a building in every way worthy and credit- 
 able, and it may be said that I for one would 
 have assented to nothing less, they likewise 
 felt and appreciated the importance of using 
 all feasible means to keep the expenses within 
 reasonable limits. You have never been per- 
 mitted to be informed as to the pains which 
 were taken by the Board in this respect. All 
 that the existing legislation required was that 
 the bills should be certified by the Superin- 
 tendent and should be approved by the Board. 
 At the outset they determined that the work 
 should be done under the supervision of a 
 competent architect, and instead of selecting 
 some favorite of their own, they, in order 
 that there might be unity of purpose and de- 
 sign, placed it in charge of the architect who 
 had been chosen by the Building Commission 
 and had planned the building. They com- 
 pelled him to reduce his commissions from five 
 per cent., the usual compensation allowed to 
 architects, to four per cent., much to his dis- 
 satisfaction. They required him to prepare 
 plans for the entire work, and adopted the 
 resolution offered by me April 12, 1904, that 
 after full advertising the contract should be 
 awarded as an entirety to the lowest respon- 
 sible bidder. It was pointed out to me later 
 that this plan was not in accord with the pvo- 
 19 
 
visions of the act of 1895, which required 
 schedule advertising and purchases, which fact 
 I had to concede, and the resolution was re- 
 considered. It is only another illustration of 
 the fact, so often made manifest, that restric- 
 tions born of lack of confidence, and imposed 
 upon ofhcials charged with responsibility, pro- 
 duce in practice results exactly the opposite of 
 those intended. Could this contract have been 
 awarded entire for a lump sum we should have 
 known in the beginning the exact amount to 
 be expended and all of the subsequent trouble 
 would have been obviated. The Board main- 
 tained the spirit of this resolution as far as it 
 w^as practicable. Since the law required that 
 the contract should be awarded by schedule 
 and item, they determined to prepare a special 
 schedule to contain only those items required 
 for the new Capitol. The object was to attract 
 the attention of bidders as much as possible 
 by separating it from the bulk}' general sched- 
 ule of supplies. The law required advertise- 
 ment in twelve newspapers. They inserted 
 the advertisement in fourteen newspapers and 
 called particular attention to the fact that it 
 was for the equipment of the Capitol. When 
 the bids were opened it was found that upon 
 all of the forty-one items, except upon four, 
 John H. Sanderson was the lowest bidder. Af- 
 
ter a full discussion of the subject the Board 
 awarded the contract to him upon all of the 
 items. 
 
 In the case of Clark vs. Pittsburg, 217 Pa. 51, 
 the Supreme Court said : "If each item of 
 extra work should be awarded to a separate 
 bidder the confusion to follow in the general 
 work may be well imagined, even if the imagi- 
 nation of the distinguished counsel for appellee 
 is stretched in likening it in bis brief to the 
 confusion of tongues that occurred in the con- 
 struction of the tower of Babel." The mem- 
 bers of the Board were impressed with the 
 correctness of this thought. Individually I was 
 well pleased that Sanderson had secured the 
 contract. I had never met him in my life until 
 introduced to him by Mr. Carson on the day the 
 bids were opened, and never had had any rela- 
 tions with him of any kind, business, social or 
 personal, but I knew that he had successfully 
 furnished the County Court House in Camden, 
 and that he had the reputation in Philadelphia 
 of making the best of furniture. I believed his 
 selection meant unusually good work, and 
 the result justified this belief. Tiffany, of 
 New York, and Wanamaker, of Philadelphia, 
 through their agents, had for a week or ten 
 days been going over the work and the plans, 
 and the belief of the Board expressed at the 
 
time was that Sanderson had been forced into 
 making a proposition advantageous to the Com- 
 monwealth. Since the actual bidders were few, 
 it was debated whether it would be well to re- 
 advertise, and the conclusion was that by such 
 a course we would be more likely to lose than 
 to gain, a conclusion in which I concurred. 
 
 Before the award was made the Board sent 
 for the architect and insisted upon his giving 
 in a general way his estimate of the probable 
 cost of the work undertaken. He named a 
 sum of from $500,000 to $800,000, and the 
 estimate was entered on the minutes. The 
 Board required the architect to make a set of 
 Quantities Plans and a Quantities Book, which 
 gave a description of each piece of work and 
 article of furniture and its location in the build- 
 ing. They also required the architect to cer- 
 tify the correctness of the bills before they 
 were paid, and the contractors to make affi- 
 davits to the same effect. The only one of 
 these precautions demanded by the law was 
 the certificate of the Superintendent. I have 
 pondered over the matter at times since in an 
 effort to see whether there was anything else 
 which could have been done better to safe- 
 guard the interests of the Commonwealth, and 
 in vain. I put the query to the Investigation 
 Commission of the Legislature when I appear- 
 
ed before them, and received no response. I 
 now ask each of you whether you, with all the 
 assistance of the light since given, looking at 
 the problem from the point of view of experi- 
 ence and not of forecast, can suggest any other 
 precautions that could have been taken. 
 
 The Capitol was erected, furnished and 
 equipped. It was all done within the compar- 
 atively brief period of four years, an unparal- 
 lelled example of expedition and zeal in the 
 public behalf. When the Legislature met in 
 their next session the halls of the Senate and 
 House were ready for their use and there was 
 nothing wanting for their comfort. When the 
 new Governor whom you had elected came to 
 Harrisburg he found his decorated office and 
 beautiful reception room, lined with the paint- 
 ings of Violet Oakley, ready for his occupancy. 
 The Attorney General sat in his stately apart- 
 ments and put away with a sense of absolute 
 security his indictments into the steel cases 
 which had been prepared for him. The In- 
 vestigation Commission, upon carved chairs 
 and around spacious tables, rested at ease as 
 they wrote their condemnation of the men who 
 had seen to it that these appliances were pro- 
 vided. 
 
 The Capitol contains four hundred and sev- 
 enty-five rooms. Unlike the Capitol at Wash- 
 
ington, it provides for all of the departments 
 of the government. It is five hundred and 
 twenty feet long, two hundred and fifty-four 
 feet in width, two hundred and seventy-two 
 feet in height, covers two acres of ground and 
 is half a mile in circumference. It is larger 
 than St. Paul's Cathedral, for building which 
 Sir Christopher Wren was knighted by a grate- 
 ful sovereign, and it is longer than Westminster 
 Abbey. The weight of the dome is fifty-two 
 millions of pounds. While every continent 
 contributed to its construction, it everywhere 
 gives expression to the life, the thought and 
 the achievement of this Commonwealth. The 
 most skilled artists in the world devoted their 
 talent to its adornment. It contains the finest 
 bronze work in America. Around the dome 
 are these citations from the writings of Penn : 
 
 "That we may do the thing that is truly 
 wise and just." 
 
 "That an example may be set up to the 
 nations." 
 
 "There may be room there for such a holy 
 experiment." 
 
 "For the nations want a precedent." 
 
 "And my God will make it the seed of a 
 nation." 
 
 Said Theodore Roosevelt : "Those are the 
 most magnificent bronze doors I haTC ever 
 24 
 
seen." The Hon. George W. McCall, of Mas- 
 sachusetts, recently said to me : "It is the most 
 beautiful public building I have ever seen." 
 Alany men and women of taste and experience 
 have described it as the finest not only in 
 America, but in the world. A traveller from 
 Europe put in print: "The Capitol v^hich in 
 its mass of granite reigns over the city seems 
 to throw a shadow of power and richness over 
 everything. The outlines equal in beauty any 
 of the beautiful monuments passing into pos- 
 terity. . . , But the Capitol as it is will 
 remain a jewel of which a nation may be 
 proud. . . . The man who has achieved 
 and executed this monument is a genius." 
 
 Most of such works heretofore undertaken 
 have resulted in architectural and artistic fail- 
 ure, but all who have seen the Capitol of 
 Pennsylvania are impressed with its beauty 
 and acknowledge its success. Moreover, both 
 building and equipment have stood the test of 
 time. It has now been in the use of the un- 
 friendly for four years, another year is rolling 
 along, and no man arises anywhere to say that 
 there is aught wanting or imperfect. 
 
 The financial part of the problem shows such 
 marvelous results that nothing can explain the 
 lack of public attention to it except an inten- 
 tion that you, the people of the State, should 
 25 
 
not be informed. When Massachusetts erect- 
 ed her Capitol she borrowed the money to pay 
 for it. When New York erected her Capitol 
 she likewise borrowed the money to cover the 
 expenditure. Pennsylvania borrowed no 
 money. She imposed no tax. At the close of 
 the fiscal year December i. 1902. before the 
 work was commenced, the balance in the Trea- 
 sury was $12,868,806.34 
 
 At the close of the fiscal year 
 December i. 1906, after the 
 work had been completed and 
 paid for the balance was $11,440,042.00 
 
 In the meantime the five departments before 
 referred to were erected, organized and equip- 
 ped, the count}- bridges which had been washed 
 away across the Susquehanna rebuilt, the for- 
 estry reserves doubled, a number of armories 
 built for the National Guard, and the debt re- 
 duced to the extent of $1,160,482.00. The 
 outcome is emphasized by the events of later 
 histor}-. It might well have been expected 
 that with the cessation of this extraordinary 
 expenditure, with an increase of revenue, and 
 with nothing new in the way of department or 
 constructive work, the balance in the treasury 
 Avould much increase. That balance December 
 I. 1909. had fallen to $8,620,014.79. 
 
 I ask of you. who may be interested and 
 26 
 
who care for the reputation of your State, to 
 scrutinize the annals of American finance and 
 see whether you can find anywhere in State 
 or nation a parallel for this achievement. So 
 far as I know, it has never been equalled. 
 There has never before been so much time 
 given to, and so much money expended upon, 
 the investigation of the details of a public work 
 as in the case of this Capitol, and it has seemed 
 to me that if fairness toward men were not a 
 sufiicient motive, curiosity alone ought to have 
 led some investigator, somewhere, to an in- 
 quiry as to how it was possible to achieve sucli 
 a financial result. The time has now come 
 when you shall be informed. 
 
 Dr. William P. Snyder, whom you elected 
 Auditor General, was an exceptionally capable 
 and efficient public official. Appointed by 
 Governor Stone a member of the Building 
 Commission, and being also a member of the 
 Board of Public Grounds and Buildings, the 
 success of the Capitol was largely due to his 
 efforts. During his term of office he collected 
 from delinquent corporations taxes part of 
 which had been neglected or regarded as worth- 
 less by his predecessors. Democratic and Re- 
 publican, some of them as remote as the year 
 1844, amounting to the sum of $5,818,159.87. 
 He is no political friend of mine. I have 
 27 . 
 
reason to believe that he did what he could 
 in Chester county to prevent my nomination 
 for the Governorship. But I do not hesitate 
 to tell you this fact concerning his public 
 service, and it is for you to estimate its value. 
 In addition, during my term and under my 
 direction there were collected from the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States upon claims 
 arising out of the War of 1812, nearh^ a 
 century ago, and out of the War of the Re- 
 bellion, nearly a half century ago, $1,238,- 
 136.91. All of the moneys, therefore, which 
 the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
 expended in beautifying and equipping your 
 Capitol w^ere dipped up as it were out of the 
 seas. Do you really think they did very 
 wrong in feeling that they ought so to invest 
 them ? Remember that the same energy which 
 led them to aid in building a Capitol led them 
 to gather what under other circumstances 
 w^ould probably have been lost. 
 
 Not only was the Capitol erected and equip- 
 ped without delay, without taxing you for the 
 purpose, without borrowing money or materi- 
 ally lessening the balance in the treasuiy, but 
 it may be safely affirmed that it was done at 
 a reasonable cost. The architect publicly de- 
 clared that it was the cheapest building of its 
 character in the country, and he gave figures 
 28 
 
to prove the fact. Since no one undertook to 
 refute the statement it is probably correct. 
 This does not mean that no mistakes were 
 made or that there were not instances in which 
 articles, if they had stood alone, could have 
 been bought for a less sum. In a matter of 
 such complication and difficulty it would be 
 remarkable if such instances did not occur. 
 It ought to be remembered, too, that for a 
 rival contractor to say on the street or 
 on the stand that if he had secured the con- 
 tract certain articles would have cost the Com- 
 monwealth less is a very different proposition 
 from making a bid to that effect on which he 
 could be held responsible. Talk and opinion 
 are always in abundance and have little market 
 value. The only sensible way of forming a 
 conclusion as to whether the expenditure is 
 reasonable or otherwise is to make a compari- 
 son with other similar work. The questions 
 so elaborately presented by the Legislative In- 
 vestigation Commission and in the Courts, of 
 the difference between the cost and charges 
 for a specific article of furniture or piece of 
 work are wide of the mark, for the reason that 
 they leave out of view the general expenses 
 connected with the whole undertaking. 
 
 For the purpose of this comparison I take 
 the figures given by the Investigation Commis- 
 29 
 
sion, who had the aid of the Audit Company 
 of New York at an expense of $28,001.40. 
 They gave the total cost of the construction of 
 the building as $6,985,968.52. Of this sum 
 the Building Commission expended $3,970,- 
 000.00, and the Board of Public Grounds and 
 Buildings $3,015,968.52. In an effort to have 
 the sum as large as possible the Investigation 
 Commission made the mistake of including 
 $303,693.14 expended for the Highway De- 
 partment under direction of the act of April 
 5, 1903, after the contract for construction 
 had been awarded ; but as they stand these fig- 
 ures differ widely from those to which you 
 have grown accustomed. The larger sum of 
 which you have heard so much — $13,159,- 
 601.01: — is only reached by including the cost 
 of a building commenced by Governor Hast- 
 ings, in 1897, the furniture, the metallic cases, 
 the temporary arrangements for the session of 
 1905 and other items, and is about as accurate 
 as though you were to include the books in 
 your library and your wife's fur cloak in the 
 cost of your house. I^stimate., the ent i r e cost 
 of building, furniture, metal cases and equip- 
 ment at $11,033,400.89. I am not an expert 
 and do not assume to guarantee these figures 
 as absolute, but I believe them to be more 
 nearly correct than any others which have been 
 30 
 
published, even those for which you have paid. 
 The result is reached by omitting $550,000 
 expended upon the Hastings building and by 
 allowing one-eighth of the cost for the five de- 
 partments created after the contract. 
 
 The Capitol at Washington contains four 
 hundred and twenty rooms, fifty-five less than 
 the Capitol at Harrisburg. From the official 
 reports published in 1901 it had cost the Na- 
 tional Government for construction alone 
 $18,227,424.81. 
 
 The Capitol of Massachusetts, about one- 
 half the size, cost for construction alone $3,- 
 477,226.00. 
 
 The Library of Congress, the only building 
 in the country which can be compared with the 
 Capitol in artistic merit, with 2,039,582 cubic 
 feet of contents less, cost for construction alone 
 $6,344,585.34. 
 
 The Capitol of New York cost for construc- 
 tion, and is still unfinished, $24,265,382.01. 
 
 The City Hall in Philadelphia cost for con- 
 struction alone $18,243,339.86. 
 
 The depot of the Pennsylvania Railroad in 
 New York, with tunnel and approaches, cost 
 for construction, $112,965,415.12. 
 
 A single hotel in New York built for a pri- 
 vate corporation about the same time actually 
 31 
 
required a greater outlay than the Capitol of 
 Pennsylvania. 
 
 Comparisons with some buildings nearer 
 home may also be helpful to your judg- 
 ment. Alongside of the Capitol stands the 
 hall of the Executive Department, built by 
 Governor Pattison at a cost of $500,000.00, 
 A squat, two-story stone building, covered with 
 plaster, ornamented with imitation marble col- 
 umns, in the same proportion the massive gran- 
 ite Capitol would be modest at $25,000,000.00. 
 For the Eastern Pennsylvania State Institution 
 for the Feeble Minded and Epileptic at Spring 
 City, there have been expended for construc- 
 tion $1,100,000.00, and for the Homoeopathic 
 State Hospital for the Insane at Rittersville 
 $1,903,750.00. Each of these is but a hospital 
 and neither has been completed. The Girard 
 Trust Building at the corner of Broad and 
 Chestnut Streets, in Philadelphia, the dimen- 
 sions of which are only 137 feet by 134 feet 
 II inches, cost, without the ground, for con- 
 struction and furniture, $1,541,236.26. 
 
 Compared with any one or all of these struc- 
 tures erected in different parts of the country 
 and at home, is it not fair to claim that the 
 expenditure upon the Capitol was reasonable? 
 
 I have described to you what was accom- 
 plished for your welfare by the members of 
 32 
 
the Building- Commission and the Board of 
 PubHc Grounds and Buildings, and I now pro- 
 pose to say a few words about them as indi- 
 viduals. It has been the fortune of my life 
 to have been brought into contact with men 
 in all classes of society, from Presidents of 
 the United States and Judges of the Courts, 
 down to those confined in the dock charged 
 with crime, and to have been required to study 
 their characters and judge of the probabilities 
 of what the latter had to tell. You threw me 
 among the men who builded the Capitol. I 
 saw them at their work and I shall give you 
 my judgment. One and all I believe them to 
 have been impelled by an earnest desire so to 
 perform their task that it would be creditable 
 alike to themselves and to the Commonwealth. 
 It is said that Governor Stone described Hus- 
 ton, the architect, as a dreamer. I think that 
 characterization is in part correct. What was 
 needed in his position was not a bookkeeper 
 or the cashier of a bank, but an artist and poet, 
 with imagination enough to design, with en- 
 thusiasm enough to carry his inspirations into 
 execution, and with none too keen an appre- 
 ciation of the importance of mere money. If 
 the building had been erected by the Audit 
 Company of New York, it would have been 
 exact no doubt, but little else. The builders, 
 33 
 
each of them, expected that if they should suc- 
 ceed in erecting a Capitol adequate for the 
 needs of the government, substantial in its 
 material, tasteful in its art, and should complete 
 the work with promptness, it would meet with 
 your appreciation and to them would be ac- 
 corded the meed of your praise. They were 
 entitled to entertain that expectation. No 
 man can with truth deny that the Capitol meets 
 all of those requirements. Instead, however, 
 of receiving the commendation they properly 
 anticipated, they were confronted and some of 
 them overwhelmed by a display of propensities 
 at once both mean and ignoble. Another set 
 of men came into the exercise of the powers 
 of the government, and during the next four 
 years the Capitol, thanklessly accepted with 
 all of its conveniences and facilities, was utterly 
 lost sight of amid outcries over the moneys 
 which had been expended. There was no ad- 
 miration of strength, there was no recognition 
 of beauty, there was no appreciation of art, 
 there was no sense that the soul of Pennsyl- 
 vania had found expression in a wonderful 
 production, and no utterance of any sentiment 
 or feeling in connection with it except that of 
 the sordid love of money. And every' man of 
 them, who joined in these cries, was well aware 
 all of the time that he had not contributed and 
 34 
 
had not been called upon to contribute any- 
 thing of his substance towards its erection. 
 In the words of Schiller : "Mit der Dummheit 
 kampffen Gotter selbst vergebens." 
 
 Buildings as well as men have their fortunes 
 and misfortunes. The Capitol was in several 
 respects adventitiously unfortunate. In the 
 first place Senator Quay had recently died. 
 In a way it was the final expression of the 
 power he had so long wielded in the affairs 
 of the Commonwealth. In every county were 
 men whom he had defeated in political com- 
 bats who, not daring to confront him longer 
 while he was alive, were ready nevertheless, 
 now that he was dead, to indicate their unhap- 
 piness over the merits of any work which 
 might perhaps be associated with his career. 
 In the second place, the Capitol was completed 
 at a time when there was a spirit prevalent 
 over the entire land which made an attack upon 
 it, as upon every other important work, in- 
 evitable. Men in high places had secured a 
 temporary but pronounced popularity by as- 
 sailing business interests and private property, 
 and their lesser imitators arose in every com- 
 munity seeking this kind of factitious repu- 
 tation. In the general boiling and overrunning 
 of the pot, Pennsylvania could hardly hope to 
 escape some scars. 
 
 35 
 
In the third place, just as the work was fin- 
 ished, by one of those freaks of ill fortune 
 which come to spoil the campaigns of the 
 ablest of generals, a Democrat from Illinois 
 was elected to the position of State Treasurer 
 and became a member of the Board of Public 
 Grounds and Buildings. The time has now 
 come when it is necessary for me to include 
 in this narration the characterization of an in- 
 dividual, and I shall endeavor to be as fair 
 to him as the truth will permit. No man 
 can understand the French Revolution unless 
 he has some measure of the mental and moral 
 qualities of the Jacobins. The attack upon the 
 Capitol was the work of William H. Berry, 
 and whatever of credit or discredit may come of 
 it belongs to him, and ought to be accorded 
 to him. The crop which was later gathered 
 by legislators, lawyers, newspapers and poli- 
 ticians came from the seed of his sowing. 
 No such shallow devices as his exclusion from 
 the counsels of the Investigation Commission, 
 and from the witness stand in the Courts, 
 can deprive him of the honors which are 
 justly and almost exclusively his own. He was 
 no ordinary Democrat, such as grow to ma- 
 turity upon the farms around Reading and 
 Allentown. Without intelligent comprehension 
 of affairs, without broad reading or culti- 
 36 
 
vation, without thorough information upon 
 any subject, he was nevertheless fluent and 
 ready to instruct the world. Without finan- 
 cial capacity to manage his own business in 
 such a way as to attain success, he had been 
 called to take charge of revenues amounting to 
 $25,000,000.00 annually. He contended that 
 the country can be enriched by the unlimited 
 issue of paper mone}-. He was sufficient of 
 a reformer to turn out the trained clerks in 
 his department and put his friends in their 
 places. He was sufficient of a moralist to put 
 the State funds in a trust company from which 
 he could get a loan upon his brickyard. He 
 was nevertheless genial and affable, and sought 
 the aid and experience of Dr. Snyder, in keep- 
 ing his records, with all the warmth of good 
 fellowship. I believe that he did not really in- 
 tend to do any great harm, and that his main 
 purpose was to help the Lord in an effort to 
 place a suitable incumbent in the Governorship 
 or the Vice-Presidency. 
 
 In the fourth place, and most important of 
 all, the Legislature which was to follow would 
 elect a United States Senator to succeed Sena- 
 tor Penrose, and if Stuart, who had been 
 nominated for the Governorship, could be de- 
 feated, Penrose as the leader of the Republican 
 party in the State would be overthrown. 
 Z7 
 
Penrose had just come into control of the 
 organization of the party, and his hold upon 
 it was by no means assured. The blow at the 
 Capitol was in reality directed at him. In the 
 campaign which followed Berr)^ became the 
 apostle, the newspapers constituted the cohorts, 
 and the object sought to be secured was the 
 control of a great Commonwealth. The beau- 
 ties and expenses of the Capitol, the candidacy 
 of Stuart, and the fate of Snyder were only 
 incidents which marked the course of the con- 
 test. 
 
 The attack opened up over a very trivial 
 miatter. The great bronze doors, the most im- 
 pressive in America, were ornamented with a 
 number of human heads, each of them rather 
 larger than a walnut and smaller than a base- 
 ball. Ingenuity can discover among them the 
 faces of Dickens, Grant, Shakespeare and the 
 death mask of Napoleon. A like ingenuity 
 did discover a resemblance to certain officials 
 and men active in aflfairs. and for weeks these 
 little heads were the only material available 
 and were made to do full duty. With the ad- 
 vent of Berry they were abandoned, the scope 
 was widened, and the winds were let loose. 
 Everything that irresponsible and disciplined 
 guile could originate in an effort to belittle 
 tlie achievement and to increase the expense 
 38 
 
was published broadcast. The figures were 
 perverted. Double-leaded editorials were put 
 forth day after day condemning the secrecy 
 with which the work had been undertaken, in 
 newspapers whose own affidavits to the cor- 
 rectness of their receipted bills for advertising 
 it, lay in the Treasury, and although during 
 its progress the representatives of the entire 
 press had come to the Board of Public Grounds 
 and Buildings and prevailed on them to change 
 the arrangements for correspondents in the 
 Senate and House. Berry, instead of attend- 
 ing to the duties of his office, went around the 
 State brandishing the leg of a chair which he 
 had secured somehow, somewhere, and talked 
 violently about imposture, although when the 
 cases came later to be tried counsel conceded 
 of record that the material and labor were in 
 every way in accord with the specifications of 
 the contract. On one occasion while Berry 
 was out on the stump assailing his colleagues 
 who were in Harrisburg attending to the busi- 
 ness of the State, a bill was presented to the 
 Board charging $850 for the erection of a flag- 
 pole. This pole was erected because James M. 
 Lamberton, Esq., had called our attention to a 
 statute requiring it. The erection of this pole 
 made it necessai-y to cut through the stone roof 
 of the Capitol, an interference with the con- 
 39 
 
tract of guarantee of permanence and imper- 
 viousness. The pole had to be both substan- 
 tial and safe. Nevertheless I thought the bill 
 too large, in which I had the support of Sny- 
 der, and we stopped its payment. A couple 
 of weeks later Berry returned on a vacation 
 from his political toil and I asked him what 
 he thought ought to be paid for the pole. He 
 said he could get one for $150.00, a statement 
 which was not correct. The next morning 
 far and wide the newspapers proclaimed how 
 Berry had prevented the payment for the pole, 
 and it furnished many a headline for the cam- 
 paign. After the election we all three united 
 in ordering $600 to be paid for it. Its only 
 importance now is that it furnishes you an 
 illustration of what was going on at the time. 
 The real accusation, however, dinned into 
 your ears in every possible form of assertion 
 and innuendo was that of graft ; that is, that 
 the officials having control of the work made 
 money for themselves by a combination with 
 the contractors. We met this storm right 
 squarely in the face. With its earliest mur- 
 murings Snyder and I published a statement 
 showing every cent which had been expended 
 by ourselves and others in each and every way 
 in connection with the building and equipment 
 of the Capitol. That put you in possession of 
 40 
 
the actual facts. The result was that all pos- 
 sible changes were rung over the figures, and 
 the manliness and integrity of the act were 
 ignored. Then we invited Charles Emory 
 Smith, the editor of The Press; George W. 
 Ochs, the proprietor of The Ledger, and 
 Charles H. Heustis, the editor of The Inquirer, 
 three leading Philadelphia newspapers, to come 
 up and examine the building and books of 
 account. They were willing enough to deal in 
 adjectives, adverbs and generalities, but had a 
 reluctance to confront facts, and they declined. 
 Then I made arrangements with the railroads 
 for cheap excursion rates of fare and invited 
 you to come and see for yourselves. Sixty 
 thousand of you came. I shook hands with 
 ten thousand upon one Saturday, and they 
 went home like missionaries, telling their 
 neighbors of the wonders of the building they 
 had inspected. The result of this bold and 
 straightforward course was that Stuart was 
 saved from defeat, Penrose was saved from 
 destruction, and I had the intense personal sat- 
 isfaction of knowing that the main object 
 sought to be accomplished by the cultivation 
 of scandal had been thwarted. 
 
 It is hard to kick against the pricks, it is 
 difficult to tell a story in conflict with the truth 
 which is mighty and in the end prevails, for 
 41 
 
the stars in their courses fight for its disclosure. 
 Some quite recent developments give us a 
 glimpse of the machinery which directed this 
 scandal. At that time James M. Guffey, who 
 had made an immense fortune in oil, was the 
 leader or boss of the Democratic party in the 
 State. In 19 lo through some unlucky turn 
 of affairs he went into bankruptcy. Among 
 his assets his assignee found a note to his order 
 for $15,000, given in 1906 by William H. 
 Berry, long overdue and unpaid. It was prob- 
 ably understood between them that it was not 
 intended to be a real financial obligation. At 
 all events, Berry made no effort to pay it and 
 Guffey made no effort to collect it. Berry 
 acted as though he felt under no obligation, 
 because in a convention of his party he aided 
 in an effort to oust Guffey from party leader- 
 ship, and the only possible inference from their 
 conduct is that both felt that Guffey had re- 
 ceived consideration for his money. In the 
 stress of the political campaign of 19 10 Berry 
 in a published statement gave this explanation : 
 "During my incumbency as Treasurer I was 
 subject to extraordinary expense in exposing 
 the Capitol steal. ... I accepted the 
 financial help of several Democrats, each with- 
 out the knowledge of the others, and among 
 them Mr. Guffey." Probably each of them 
 42 
 
would have been disappointed to learn that 
 what he had believed to be his own monopo- 
 listic venture was in reality a joint operation, 
 and therefore, in the goodness of his heart, 
 Berry did not inform any of them of what the 
 others had done. 
 
 Since charges had been made and circulated 
 in sensational fashion all over the United 
 States, to the great delight of your enemies 
 and rivals and those of the Commonwealth, it 
 was generally felt that they ought to be ser- 
 iously examined, and in my final message I 
 recommended an official investigation. The 
 Attorney General, the Hon. Hampton L. Car- 
 son, undertook such an inquiry. Of all men 
 in public life he was probably the best fitted 
 by personal qualifications and previous train- 
 ing for the performance of such a duty. Keen 
 in intellect and one of the purest hearted men 
 ever born, a scholar of wide attainments, his 
 fame as a lawyer had extended over the whole 
 country, and the mere fact that he was willing 
 to accept the office of Attorney General was 
 an honor and assurance to you. Moreover he 
 had written the leading book upon the sub- 
 ject of conspiracies, accepted by lawyers as an 
 authority, and was therefore an especially dis- 
 ciplined expert. He examined the contracts, 
 papers and parties, having the advantage of 
 43 
 
the statements of Berry and Sanderson which 
 the Investigation Commission failed to secure, 
 and he made a complete and voluminous re- 
 port, consisting of three hundred and seventy- 
 nine printed pages, in which he reached the 
 conclusion from the evidence submitted : "I 
 do not hesitate to say that in my judgment 
 there is no trace of crime. No conspiracy is 
 disclosed between State officers to share in the 
 profits of the contracts ; nor between the archi- 
 tect and the contractors ; nor to secure the con- 
 tracts for the contractors; nor to shape the 
 schedules in such a way as to mislead bidders ; 
 nor to deter bidders in order to stifle compe- 
 tition." 
 
 The effect of the conscientious and laborious 
 attempt to work out a correct result by a com- 
 petent person was to cause the Attorney Gen- 
 eral to be included in the abuse. An accurate 
 ascertainment of facts and a just conclusion 
 from them were not at all what the occasion 
 demanded. A new administration came into 
 power which had felt the weight of a storm 
 before it grasped the reins. A new Legisla- 
 ture occupied the beautiful rooms of the Sen- 
 ate and House, and the situation was surround- 
 ed with temptations for those whose aspira- 
 tions looked to the future. 
 
 Upon the meeting of the Legislature a com- 
 44 
 
mission, consisting of three members of the 
 Senate and four Members of the House, was 
 appointed "to make a full investigation of all 
 the circumstances and transactions connected 
 Avith the erection, construction and furnishing 
 of the State Capitol." 
 
 The Commission as appointed consisted of 
 Senators John S. Fisher, A. E. Sisson and 
 Arthur G. Dewalt, and Representatives R. W. 
 Fair, Moses Shields, R. Scott Ammerman and 
 Robert Dearden. I give their names because 
 in this matter each individual ought to bear 
 his own share of responsibility and receive the 
 commendation or opprobrium which belongs 
 to him. Certainly it may be conceded that sel- 
 dom in human affairs have men been charged 
 with greater responsibility. An important 
 work had been accomplished and upon the 
 wisdom of their conclusions temporarily de- 
 pended the question whether it should meet 
 with credit or discredit. The good fame of 
 the Commonwealth was for the time entrusted 
 to them. The fate of officials whose daily 
 lives they had seen for years, of Snyder whom 
 time and again they had called upon to pre- 
 side over the Senate, rested in their hands. 
 Oh! the pity of it that in the performance of 
 their task they could not have been inspired 
 with some of that earnestness of purpose and 
 45 
 
zeal for your welfare displayed by the builders 
 and decorators, that they could not have arisen 
 above the mephitic airs that surrounded them ! 
 Their report will be found upon page 4170 of 
 the Legislative Record, Vol. Ill, for 1909. 
 From this report it is plain that they started 
 out with an entirely incorrect conception of 
 their duty. They state it as follows : "The 
 questions for the determination of the Com- 
 mission were fraud and dishonesty in the mak- 
 ing of the contracts, and the performance of 
 them." No such questions were submitted to 
 them. They were nowhere instructed to de- 
 termine fraud and dishonesty. The resolution 
 of January 28, 1907, directs them "to make a 
 full investigation of the circumstances and 
 transactions," and the Act of April 23, 1907, 
 appropriates to them the large sum of $100,- 
 000 for the purpose "of inquiry." If this in- 
 quiry disclosed innocence, zeal and success, 
 then it was their duty so to report instead of 
 determining fraud and dishonesty. It may be 
 said that their statement was made inadver- 
 tently, which is probably true, but this inad- 
 vertence is important since it unwittingly dis- 
 closes the attitude of mind with which they 
 approached the inquiry. Berry and the news- 
 papers had told them there was fraud, and their 
 understanding of the resolution was that they 
 46 
 
were so to find. This is further shown when 
 at the very outset they hasten to say: ^*The 
 Commission is also indebted to the press of the 
 State for timely assistance and information." 
 Could anything be more improper and undig- 
 nified or show a sadder lack of appreciation 
 of the exalted position they occupied as the 
 representatives of the Commonwealth in a ser- 
 ious examination of a complicated situation? 
 If of course a gentleman connected with some 
 journal had testified concerning a fact known 
 to him alone he might well be thanked. It was 
 not that case. The thanks are given to the 
 press at large throughout the State. The edi- 
 tors of three leading journals had declined 
 to examine the Capitol when invited, and it 
 is not likely that they had any facts to impart. 
 It would be interesting to know how this in- 
 formation was conveyed. No one of these 
 gentlemen appeared on the witness-stand. In- 
 formation imparted in secret and without re- 
 sponsibility is not to be trusted, and to the 
 extent that this report is based upon such in- 
 formation it is unreliable. The assistance 
 given, which we are assured was timely, had 
 been in the way of intimidating possible 
 witnesses and jurymen, arousing among the 
 people animosity toward the contractors, pre- 
 venting an unprejudiced investigation and in- 
 47 
 
dicating support to any adverse report. These 
 thanks are an evidence that the members of the 
 Investigation Commission had abdicated, for- 
 gotten their functions, and taken their places as 
 partisans and assailants. It is very much as 
 though a grand jury had thanked a mob of 
 lynchers for aiding them in disposing of the 
 case. As might well be anticipated from this 
 auspicious beginning, the report in every aspect 
 of it exhibits a lack of coherent thinking 
 and announces inaccurate conclusions with re- 
 spect to almost every topic considered. Let 
 me illustrate by citations from it so that you 
 may understand the ground upon which this 
 uncomplimentary averment is made. One of 
 the subjects for their condemnation and one 
 of the frauds they discovered was in connec- 
 tion with the attic contract. Of this contract 
 they say : "What is referred to as the attic 
 contract embraced a series of changes of room 
 arrangements on the fourth (fifth?) floor, and 
 provided rooms and equipment on the attic 
 floor for new departments of the government." 
 After discussing the matter they find that the 
 expenditures for this purpose "were illegal and 
 unauthorized," and further "that the parties 
 to this fraud are amenable to law and should 
 be held." In their general findings they return 
 to the subject and after condemning the Board 
 4S 
 
of Public Grounds and Buildings for doing 
 this work blame the Building Commission for 
 permitting the Board "to interfere with its 
 contract and duties and to add to the construc- 
 tion work of the new Capitol building." When 
 they made that finding they had entirely over- 
 looked and forgotten the Acts of April 2, 1903, 
 April 15, 1903, and May 5, 1905, which speci- 
 fically authorized and required the Board to 
 do that very thing, although as to some of 
 them they themselves had individually voted 
 for these acts. 
 
 No doubt this is nothing worse than a blun- 
 der due to imperfect investigation, but what 
 confidence can be placed in the other conclu- 
 sions of men who recommend a prosecution 
 based upon no better foundation than their 
 failure to observe a fact so obvious as the ex- 
 istence of statutes they themselves helped to 
 frame? Suppose some Berry, anxious for 
 preferment, supported financially by political 
 forces, and incited by newspapers eager to sell 
 sensations, had charged that they conspired so 
 to report and they had been brought before a 
 jury and confronted with the statutes, what 
 could they have answered? 
 
 In their report they g^o so far as to assume 
 the role of prophets and visit their condemna- 
 tion upon action which was not taken, bui; 
 49 
 
which in their opinion would have been taken 
 had events been otherwise than they were. 
 Thus they say : "But there can be Httle doubt 
 that if the other bids had been considered the 
 bid of Sanderson would have been changed of 
 record to meet requirements." What do you 
 citizens think of that utterance as a manifes- 
 tation of dignity, fairness and justice? If I 
 may be permitted a like privilege, then I de- 
 clare my conviction that the method pursued 
 by the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
 not only prevented the Capitol from being 
 ruined by the diverse fancies of successive leg- 
 islative committees, but also saved the expen- 
 diture of $12,000,000.00. 
 
 Another matter of the same kind is a gran- 
 ite wall around the park, to which they give 
 prolonged attention. There is no such wall. 
 None was ever built, and no money was ever 
 expended on it. Their finding upon this sub- 
 ject is : "This contract was actually awarded, 
 reconsidered and postponed, reawarded and 
 finally suffered to die owing to a vigorous pro- 
 test by citizens of Harrisburg which could not 
 be silenced." What difference does it make 
 what was the reason of the Board for not 
 doing this work if as a matter of fact it was 
 not done? However, they are utterly mis- 
 taken. No contract was ever made. No con- 
 50 
 
tract could be made without my signature. 
 Believing that this contract could not be made 
 under the head of "Repairs" under the Sched- 
 ule, and there being no other item to cover it, 
 I refused to enter into the contract. The ori- 
 ginal papers on file will show this situation of 
 affairs with the absence of my signature, and 
 I presume the Audit Company of New York 
 was not aware of the provision of the law re- 
 quiring all of the members of the Board to 
 unite in making contracts and the Investiga- 
 tion Commission accepted the statement with- 
 out examining the record. 
 
 The report further finds that there was 
 fraud in connection with the supply of glass 
 for the reason that the glass was made not 
 in Baccarat in France, but in Beaver county, 
 Pennsylvania, the schedule calling for "the 
 best quality cut crystal glass of Baccarat manu- 
 facture." There is no finding that it was not 
 glass, that it was not crystal, that it was not 
 cut, or that it was not best quality, but only 
 that it was not made in Baccarat. I suppose 
 there was some dispute in the testimony as 
 to whether the word Baccarat as used in the 
 contract was a trade name or the name of a 
 little village in a foreign country. I warn you 
 that I am only able to suppose because the 
 testimony and the report of the Audit Com- 
 51 
 
pany of New York, which are the foundation 
 stones of the investigation, have through the 
 whole of this inquiry been kept out of sight. 
 The finding upon this subject furnishes an- 
 other instance of a lack of familiarity with 
 legislation upon the part of these legislators. 
 The Act of March 26, 1895, Sec. 5, P. L., p. 
 24, directs the Superintendent of Public 
 Grounds and Buildings that "In preparing the 
 list or schedule he shall in all cases give pref- 
 erence to goods of American production or 
 manufacture." If the glass was of greater or 
 equal merit it may at least be said for the 
 Board that they pursued the policy of the law, 
 but this fact escaped the attention of and had 
 no weight with the investigators. 
 
 The report in its "General Findings and 
 Conclusions" gives the first and most conspicu- 
 ous place to this proposition : "As the pro- 
 visions of the law contemplate the refurnish- 
 ing and repair of an old Capitol Building rath- 
 er than the furnishing of a new Capitol Build- 
 ing or the making of alterations or additions 
 thereto while the same is in process of con- 
 struction in the hands of the contractors," 
 therefore the construction of the law as inter- 
 preted by the Board of Public Grounds and 
 Buildings is "a clear evasion," and the certifi- 
 cates upon which warrants were issued "were 
 
 52 
 
made intentionally and fraudulently," and the 
 contracts "were illegal and unauthorized by 
 law." I hope you will bear with me patiently 
 while I point out the utter fallacy of this prop- 
 osition. The report miscites the statute. If 
 the word used in the statute were only "re- 
 furnishing" it might be argued that it applied 
 to an old building which had been furnished 
 before, but the words are "furnishing and re- 
 furnishing," and therefore contemplate build- 
 ings which had not been furnished before as 
 well as those which had been so furnished. 
 The words "old" and "new" do not occur in 
 the statute and are interpolated in order to 
 justify the finding. The statute gives the 
 Board "entire control and supervision of the 
 public grounds and buildings, . . . and 
 all the repairs, alterations and improvements." 
 Where does the Investigation Commission find 
 in this language anything which limits the al- 
 terations and improvements to old buildings? 
 How old ought they to be? An act directed 
 the Board to provide rooms for the Highway 
 Department in the Capitol. Where would have 
 been the sense in letting the construction be 
 finished only to be torn out and done over 
 again with the additional expense? 
 
 The Investigation Commission take the po- 
 sition that since it was a new building in process 
 53 
 
of construction, the Board had no authority to 
 make contracts for furniture. If the Board had 
 taken this view the building when completed 
 would have been of no use. If they had insisted 
 upon an interpretation of the law in my judg- 
 ment so preposterous, I do not hesitate to say 
 that I should not have permitted the situation 
 to continue, and as Governor I would have or- 
 dered the proper equipment of the building. 
 In this connection I shall now make a proposi- 
 tion of constitutional and fundamental law 
 which never occurred to the investigators and 
 will probably startle them. It is said that the 
 lenses in the eye of a house-fly are adapted to 
 things so minute that to him the smoothness 
 of a painting of Raphael is a landscape of hill 
 and dale. While the investigators were ex- 
 amining as with a microscope for some flaw 
 in the leg of a chair or some misplaced entry 
 in the books of account, they lost sight of the 
 Capitol, the Governor and the Commonwealth. 
 The Governor of Pennsylvania is one of the 
 most potent rulers on earth. In this respect 
 he is far above the President of the United 
 States, upon whom is conferred only limited 
 power. In defining the power of the Governor 
 of Pennsylvania the Constitution of the State 
 uses the strongest word in the English lan- 
 guage and makes him '^supreme." It is the 
 54 
 
adjective usually applied to the Deity. It 
 means that his authority as executive can be 
 questioned by nobody, and that he is only 
 answerable to his conscience. Like the King 
 of England, he can do no wrong. Like the 
 Pope of Rome, his conclusions are infallible. 
 "The supreme executive power shall be vested 
 in the Governor who shall take care that the 
 laws be faithfully executed." He is the 
 guardian of the laws and to him is given su- 
 premacy. It is through this authority that he 
 has time and again called forth the National 
 Guard, involving life and death to men and 
 the expenditure of millions of dollars. In 
 Hartranft's Appeal, 85 Penna. 433, where the 
 questions arose over the killing of a number 
 of persons under his orders, the Supreme 
 Court decided that the Governor was "the sole 
 judge not only of what his official duties are 
 but of the time when they should be attended 
 to," and that "he must be the judge of the 
 necessity requiring the exercise of the powers 
 with which he is clothed." It would have 
 made no difference if the Court had not so 
 decided. 
 
 While it would not be discreet or wise for 
 
 the Governor to exercise such a power, he 
 
 may, like Richelieu invoking the authority of 
 
 Rome, in case of real necessity, order not only 
 
 55 
 
the furnishing but the building of a Capitol 
 irrespective of the Act of 1895 or any other 
 acts and it would be the duty of the Legisla- 
 ture answering to their oaths to appropriate 
 the money to pay for them. It is idle to con- 
 tend that a State must perish for want of an 
 Act of Assembly and the fact that this 
 thought does not seem to have occurred to 
 investigators, lawyers or courts, illustrates 
 how narrow and imperfect a view has been 
 taken of this whole subject. When the 
 Legislature unwisely put the Governor on the 
 Board of Public Grounds and Buildings it put 
 him there as Governor with all of his power, 
 and the acts of the Board in which he 
 participates are his acts. The efforts of the 
 Investigation Commission, Attorney General 
 and other minor officials to hold the members 
 of the Board responsible on the ground of 
 want of authority, were therefore not only a 
 violation of law but in a sense revolution and 
 treason. 
 
 The work of the Investigation Commission 
 was as defective in what it failed to do as in 
 its affirmative conclusions. It entirely failed 
 to discover, with its expensive expert, that the 
 building and equipment had been paid for 
 without withdrawing the balance in the treas- 
 ury, a fact of overwhelming importance in an 
 56 
 
inquiry involving the skill, faithfulness and 
 integrity of those in charge. It failed to find 
 the fact that the Board had succeeded in get- 
 ting the architect in the contract with him to 
 lessen his commissions twenty per cent, below 
 the usual rate which he demanded, although 
 this fact appeared in the letters before them 
 and the evidence. It failed to find that with 
 respect to the contract with Edwin A. Abbey 
 for art work involving $207,877.50, Sander- 
 son to whom it had been awarded made no 
 profit whatever, although this appeared in the 
 written agreements on file. It failed to find 
 that when the Attorney General and John G. 
 Johnson, Esq., came to draw the agreement 
 with Abbey for paintings they felt bound to 
 put the compensation upon the basis of the 
 "per foot" rule, though this rule figures 
 extensively in its report. It failed to secure 
 the testimony of either Berry, Sanderson or 
 Huston. If the question of the profit of San- 
 derson was material, then it failed to find 
 what was that profit. If it was of conse- 
 quence to know what was the profit upon the 
 erection and equipment of the building, then 
 it failed to find what was that profit. Infor- 
 mation upon this subject would have been 
 intensely interesting, but after all the in- 
 vestigations, and all the trials we are as 
 57 
 
much in the dark about it as we were 
 before. It failed to find what the build- 
 ing and equipment ought to have cost, what 
 they were worth, or whether or not the sum 
 for which they were placed there was reason- 
 able. There is much about detail, and the 
 methods of keeping books, and about sofas 
 and chairs, but these broad and only essential 
 matters are entirely ignored. 
 
 I now approach a subject more specific and 
 even more important. Bear in mind, you 
 citizens of Pennsylvania, that the accusation 
 was one of graft, in other words, that the 
 officials obtained some of that money. The 
 Investigation Commission was given $ioo,- 
 ooo.oo with which to investigate. It had the 
 whole power of the Commonwealth behind 
 it. Every banker could be compelled to show 
 his books. Every clerk could be compelled 
 to tell what he knew. Every one of you, in- 
 cluding the editors, could be dragged from 
 his home to disclose such information as he 
 possessed. The State Treasurer did not pay 
 in cash but by a written paper called a war- 
 rant which had to be endorsed. The con- 
 tractor deposited it in bank and the books 
 showed what became of the money. It goes 
 without saying that the Commission traced 
 these drafts and overhauled the books of the 
 58 
 
banks. It is so reported definitely. What was 
 the result? Listen to what the report says: 
 
 "At no point did it show or appear to show 
 that any of the moneys paid by the State to 
 its contractors in this connection had been di- 
 rectly converted to the credit or use of any of 
 the State officials in the accounts examined." 
 
 In other words, the ascertainment of facts 
 by the Investigation Commission absolutely 
 supported the conclusion reached months be- 
 fore without outlay by Mr. Carson. The pur- 
 suit in all decency ought then and there to 
 have ended. After the members of this Com- 
 mission had thrown out their dragnet for 
 graft and given it the wide sweep which 
 $100,000.00 enabled them to do, and hauled 
 it in and found nothing, they ought to have 
 been strong and manly enough to have resisted 
 the clamor and to have reported accordingly. 
 Instead, while thus admitting their inability 
 to discover any evidences of graft and dis- 
 closing the facts which pay tribute to the in- 
 tegrity of the officials, they recommended with 
 absolute want of logic that suits and prosecu- 
 tions be brought. 
 
 The incoming Attorney General, the Hon. 
 
 M, Hampton Todd, felt that his duty required 
 
 him to comply with these recommendations. 
 
 It is necessary in order clearly to comprehend 
 
 59 
 
the situation at this stage that you should have 
 at least a glimpse of his character. He pos- 
 sesses all the rigidity and severity which come 
 with generations of narrow training, and 
 nothing so delights him as the noise of com- 
 bat. He believes that if Michael Servetus 
 really did accept the doctrine of the Arians 
 and deny the Trinity it is entirely proper that 
 he should have been burned as a heretic. 
 When enlisted in the contest he became de- 
 termined to win, even though the Hittites and 
 the Amalekites were despoiled of the land. If 
 . ""oses and the Israelites could feast upon milk 
 and honey, what difference did it make that 
 Snyder should go to prison, or Irvine to an 
 insane asylum, or Payne to his grave? In 
 his ardor as an advocate, and to him a fact 
 had value not as a revelation of the truth but 
 as an aid to one side of a controversy, he at 
 times forgot the plainest rules of professional 
 propriety. In an address before the Pennsyl- 
 vania Bar Association on the 29th of June, 
 1909, after he had argued one of these cases 
 before the Court, and pending a decision, in 
 the presence of Judges who took part in its 
 determination, he reiterated his view of the 
 law with respect to it, and added : 
 
 "It was but a slight departure from the 
 right path, yet in the end it caused one 
 60 
 
of the greatest scandals of the day. 
 ruined the reputations of men who had 
 been honored l)y high office, and some 
 of whom have gone down in sorrow to 
 their graves. It caused a loss of many 
 millions of dollars to this State and be- 
 smirched its fair fame so that in the 
 presence of strangers we hung our heads 
 in very shame for the disgrace that had 
 been brought upon us." 
 If some obscure attorney-at-lavv had en- 
 deavored in a petty case to influence the 
 Judges outside of the Court he would have 
 incurred the risk of disbarment. Whatever 
 may have been the effect with these surround- 
 ings, Mr. Todd must be acquitted of entertain- 
 ing such a purpose, for he is an honorable 
 though mistaken gentleman ; but how sad it 
 is that a man who fails to keep his own path 
 straight in a plain and simple matter of pro- 
 fessional ethics should show so little lenity 
 toward the supposed lapses of others in a prob- 
 lem as complicated as the building of the 
 Capitol. 
 
 Thirty indictments were prepared charging 
 the defendants with conspiracy, and seven 
 others charging them with the crime of false 
 pretence. It is not my purpose to discuss 
 with you the technical accuracy of the judg- 
 6i 
 
ments which were rendered. There are many 
 questions which arise in life of much more 
 importance than the correctness of pleadings 
 or the admissibility of testimony. I shall ask 
 you to rise with me into the higher atmosphere 
 of justice and humanity, and I shall present 
 to you considerations which appear to me to 
 be unanswerable. A conspiracy is necessarily 
 based upon some motive entertained in com- 
 mon by all of those who take part in it. No 
 man becomes a conspirator merely for the pur- 
 pose of getting himself into trouble. In the 
 l^resent instance the motive alleged was a par- 
 ticipation by the officials who were made de- 
 fendants in the division of the moneys paid 
 to the contractors. That there should have 
 been a conspiracy between the contractors and 
 the officials is rendered so improbable by the 
 circumstances as to be practically unthinkable. 
 It is alleged to have included fourteen per- 
 sons and if it existed must have been known 
 to scores of clerks and employees, not one of 
 whom left the slightest trace of its presence 
 that could be discovered. It included three 
 different sets of contractors, those for the 
 building, the metal cases and the furniture, 
 who had no interests in common and several 
 that were antagonistic. It must have been 
 that never before heard of nondescript, an 
 62 
 
automatically transferable conspiracy. It cov- 
 ered the terms of two Governors, two Auditors 
 Generals and two State Treasurers, and is 
 asserted to have included all of them save the 
 Governors. They came from different parts 
 of the State, strangers to each other and to 
 the contractors, as you elected them. In every 
 conspiracy heretofore known to the law the 
 conspirators, like those who murdered Caesar, 
 selected their own companions upon whose 
 wicked assistance they could depend. It was 
 not so in this conspiracy which was stii generis. 
 When one conspirator disappeared from Har- 
 risburg and went back to his home you elected 
 another conspirator to take his place. They 
 were the highest officials in the State and you 
 were responsible for them. In its essence the 
 charge is one made against your intelligence, 
 and your honesty, and it means that you are 
 unfit for self government. The State Treas- 
 urer and the Auditor General who super- 
 vised the preparation of the schedule knew 
 at the time they did it that they would 
 not be the State Treasurer and the Au- 
 ditor General when the moneys were ex- 
 pended, and who would be their successors 
 they could not tell and you alone would de- 
 termine. What kind of assurance then do you 
 suppose they gave to the contractors, their fel- 
 63 
 
low conspirators? The conspirators who ex- 
 pended the moneys had nothing whatever to 
 do with awarding the contract for the metal 
 cases, or in preparing the schedule for the fur- 
 niture, and therefore had been utterly power- 
 less to pave the way for what is alleged to 
 have been their own connivance and profit. 
 These officials did not even seek their places 
 on the Board of Public Grounds and Build- 
 ings but were put there by legislation passed 
 long before, over which they had no control. 
 
 This a priori reasoning is rendered con- 
 clusive when we stop to examine a series of 
 ascertained and undisputed facts. It is axio- 
 matic in ratiocination that when an accepted 
 theory is found to be in conflict with any cer- 
 tainly ascertained fact the theory must be 
 abandoned. Thus in astronomy if there be 
 twelve points found which indicate a circle, 
 and then one be found outside of the circum- 
 ference, the figure may be an ellipse but it 
 cannot be a circle. In law, if the defendant 
 charged with murder is proved to have ex- 
 pressed an intent to kill and his shoes fit the 
 tracks in the field, and he has thrown his 
 bloody knife into a quarry, and his hands are 
 red, still be must be acquitted if at the time 
 of the crime he was a hundred miles away. 
 
 There are a number of facts in this case 
 64 
 
which show conclusively to any one accus- 
 tomed to the exercise of the rational faculty 
 that no such conspiracy existed. Upon the 
 supposition that it did exist Huston, the archi- 
 tect, was necessarily the central figure in it 
 for the reason that he had general charge of 
 the work, ordered every item of material or 
 work supplied by the contractors and could 
 have prevented any and every bill from being 
 paid by withholding his certificate of its cor- 
 rectness. The Board of Public Grounds and 
 Buildings compelled Huston to accept four 
 per cent, instead of five per cent, for his com- 
 missions in the way of compensation for his 
 services, and it meant a saving of $82,487.89. 
 This fact makes it certain they were not in a 
 conspiracy with him to divide receipts. They 
 could have paid him the five per cent, without 
 criticism for the reason that that was the usual 
 compensation and the percentage he received 
 from the Building Commission. Had they 
 been dividing receipts with him there would 
 have been this very comfortable increase in the 
 amount to be divided. The only possible ex- 
 planation of this fact is that the Board were 
 acting adversely to the interests of Huston, 
 and any possible combination, and were safe- 
 guarding the interests of the Commonwealth. 
 When the Board employed Huston they wrote 
 65 
 
to him in these words : "It is important, 
 nevertheless, that the work should be done as 
 economically as possible. No doubt because 
 of the fact that you already possess such in- 
 formation and of the magnitude of the con- 
 tract including Capitol and furniture, you 
 would be willing to make special terms advan- 
 tageous to the State." 
 
 Before the contract was made with Sander- 
 son, the Board required Huston to make a 
 general estimate of the probable cost and he 
 fixed it at from $500,000 to $800,000. This 
 estimate the Board entered upon their minutes. 
 This fact is likewise absolutely inconsistent 
 with the theory of the existence of a con- 
 spiracy. Lawrence Sterne once wrote: "A 
 dwarf who carries along a standard to measure 
 himself with is a dwarf believe me in more 
 articles than one." It is simply inconceivable 
 that men intending to spend millions in order 
 that they might share in the distribution should 
 write down unnecessarily a record with which 
 to convict themselves. The fact cannot be ex- 
 plained upon any other theory than that it 
 was intended by the Board as a means of hold- 
 ing Huston within reasonable limits of expen- 
 diture. 
 
 The Board at the suggestion of Snyder re- 
 quired each contractor to make affidavit to tlie 
 66 
 
correctness of every bill presented by him be- 
 fore its payment. This fact alone, if there 
 were no others, proves with entire certainty 
 that there could have been no conspiracy be- 
 tween him and the contractors to divide the 
 moneys paid under the contracts. The law 
 did not demand such an affidavit. Imagine 
 one of two men, engaged in a crime in com- 
 mon, saying in effect to the other : "You make 
 yourself liable to a prosecution for perjury 
 in order that I may appear to be innocent," 
 and what would be the answer? Why should 
 he want to throw more difficulty about draw- 
 ing the moneys they were to share out of the 
 treasury? Why should he want to increase 
 the dangers? Why did every one of these 
 contractors and fellow conspirators submit 
 with such docility to this dishonor among 
 thieves? The theory is untenable and will not 
 bear the light. The contractors made the af- 
 fidavits only because they knew they would 
 not get the money otherwise. The man who 
 devised that scheme was dealing with them, at 
 arm's length as the custodian of the interests 
 of the State, and no other interpretation is 
 possible. 
 
 That Snyder insisted upon the preparation 
 by Huston of the Quantities Plans and the 
 Quantities Book is a fact of the same con- 
 67 
 
vincing significance. These plans and this 
 book located every piece of furniture in the 
 entire building and connected it with the bill 
 in which it was included. Had there been a 
 conspiracy, the more confusion and uncer- 
 tainty that could be thrown around the ar- 
 ticles to be identified, the more likelihood 
 there would be of escape from detection. Why 
 should Snyder, as a conspirator, have taken 
 such pains to smooth and make easy the path of 
 the possible Audit Company of New York? 
 Why should he want to make so facile the 
 otherwise difficult task of Mr. Todd? As a 
 conspirator his course is unfathomable. If we 
 adopt, however, the simple explanation that he 
 demanded these plans and book in order that 
 he should be able to hold the contractors to 
 a strict liability, it is entirely comprehensible. 
 Like the eagle of the poet, he has been pierced 
 with a shaft feathered from his own wing, and 
 it has occurred because of the unwillingness 
 or inability of the prosecutors to understand 
 the obvious meaning of assured facts. 
 
 There were three circumstances connected 
 with the awarding and execution of these con- 
 tracts which might properly awaken suspicion 
 and lead to inquiry, and I shall now give you 
 my thought in regard to them with entire 
 frankness. 
 
 68 
 
First. Several of the items in the special 
 schedule required the bid to be made at so 
 much "per foot." Undoubtedly the Board in 
 using this term made a mistake, since a foot 
 may be either lineal, square or cubic, and the 
 terms of the contract ought not to have been 
 open to any uncertainty of construction if it 
 could be avoided. This language could and 
 should have been made more specific. It may 
 be said, however, that this term had been used 
 by the Board in making its contracts for many 
 years. At the time of the award the uncer- 
 tainty of the term made no impression upon 
 me for the reason that I knew of the fact 
 that contracts for the erection of such com- 
 plicated structures as iron bridges were 
 effected upon that basis. One fact in this 
 connection I have never understood. Of all 
 the possible bidders, including Wanamaker 
 and Tiffany and others interested, who spent 
 much time in the examination of the speci- 
 fications, not one of them before the contract 
 was awarded said a word to me about any 
 difficulty in understanding the meaning of the 
 terms used. Had any bidder, or editor, seen 
 uncertainty at that time it could and would 
 have been easily rectified. There are many 
 persons in a community who are much more 
 eager to have an opportunity to find fault than 
 69 
 
they are to have things done correctly. 
 
 Second. On the tenth of January, 1905, 
 
 the Board of Pubhc Grounds and Buildings 
 
 adopted this resolution: 
 
 "Resolved that the revised plans pre- 
 sented by Joseph M. Huston for the 
 special furniture, fittings and decora- 
 tions for the equipment of the new 
 Capitol building as approved by the 
 Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
 December 13, 1904, numbering from 
 393 A 213. 394 A 214, 395 A 215, 396 A 
 216, 397 A 217, 400 A 200 and 418 A 238 
 inclusive, and that the contractor John H. 
 Sanderson was directed to furnish the 
 same under the supervision of the said 
 architect; and the Auditor General be 
 hereby directed to make payment for the 
 same in part or fully upon certification 
 of architect according to the schedule of 
 June, 1904, under which this contract was 
 awarded, and that the prices on any work 
 not provided for in the plans adopted 
 December 13, 1904, shall be fully agreed 
 upon between the said John H. Sanderson 
 and the said Joseph M. Huston, architect, 
 subject to the approval of the Board of 
 Public Grounds and Buildings and Super- 
 intendent J. M. Shumaker before any cer- 
 70 
 
tificate for payment shall be issued." 
 This resolution was treated during all of 
 the trials by counsel upon each side as mean- 
 ing that the bills should be paid without sub- 
 mission to the Board as required by the Act 
 of 1895. The reason that there was a mutual 
 acceptance of this interpretation was probably 
 because the prosecution hoped to gain an ad- 
 vantage by claiming that it violated the law, 
 and the defence by claiming it as authority 
 for what was done. The Courts accepted an 
 interpretation to which no objection was made. 
 Unfortunately in these cases there was more 
 effort to win than to ascertain the truth. The 
 resolution has no such meaning. By no pos- 
 sibility can it be so construed. While inarti- 
 ficially drawn its real significance is that no 
 bill should be approved by the Board without 
 the certificate of the architect and this gave an 
 additional safeguard. There is not a word in 
 it which says or implies that the bills should 
 not be presented to the Board. No resolution 
 could set aside an Act of Assembly, and yet 
 it has been assumed that this resolution did 
 so without saying anything about it or ex- 
 pressing any such intention. The language is 
 directly to the contrary. The resolution closes 
 with the words : "Subject to the approval of 
 the Board of Public Grounds and Buildings 
 71 
 
and Superintendent J. M. Shumaker before 
 any certificate for payment shall be issued." 
 These words qualify the whole resolution, are 
 in exact compliance with the law, and cannot 
 be confined to the extra work which only 
 happens to be the last described. 
 
 The Auditor General and the State Treas- 
 urer took the erroneous view of this resolution 
 which was later accepted by the lawyers, and 
 did not bring the bills before the Board for 
 approval until payments had run up to a large 
 sum. I shall give you my explanation of the 
 reason for such action with the understanding 
 that I have no knowledge of their motives, and 
 may be entirely mistaken, and do them wrong. 
 The Governor and the other two members of 
 the Board were not in entire accord either in 
 experience, views of life or in judgment as 
 to what ought to be done. The fault in the 
 situation is fundamental and arises necessarily 
 from lack of correct principle in the Constitu- 
 tion. These officials were elected by the people 
 and therefore chafed under the thought of 
 control by the Governor. Moreover, they 
 were both ambitious and looked forward to 
 further preferment in the event of the comple- 
 tion of a great work well accomplished. The 
 mere handling of the moneys and control over 
 and contact with contractors and employees is 
 
an element of political strength. Seeing a 
 possible interpretation of the resolution which 
 avoided the Governor they took advantage of 
 the opportunity. If this be correct it was a 
 fault, and grievously have they answered it, 
 but the gratification of political hopes and the 
 effort to work out political plans are very dif- 
 ferent things from the "graft" with which 
 they were accused. 
 
 Third. Before the contract was awarded 
 the architect at the request of the Board made 
 a rough general estimate of the probable cost 
 and fixed it at from $500,000 to ^800.000. 
 This sum was much exceeded. It was not ex- 
 pected to be exact or to be anything more 
 than a guide. I believe the architect had no 
 sure grounds upon which to base his estimate 
 and that to some extent the expenses ran away 
 with him as he groped along. For the con- 
 struction of such a building there was no pre- 
 cedent, and it is not at all remarkable that he 
 could not approximate the cost. It may be 
 said for him with truth that he was less astray 
 in his estimates than were the trained en- 
 gineers who gave estimates for the cost of the 
 Quebec bridge, the tunnel under the Hudson, 
 and the Panama Canal, and many other large 
 ventures which have been undertaken and less 
 successfully completed. These are all of the 
 12, 
 
criticisms I feel called upon to meet. 
 
 With regard to the proper prices of chairs, 
 sofas, desks and bootblack stands, I am unin- 
 formed. In two instances juries have found 
 that some of them cost too much, and it is 
 only fair to assume that the juries examined 
 the matter carefully and reached a correct con- 
 clusion, just as it ought to have been assumed 
 that officials did their duty. The inquiry nar- 
 rowed to this extent is utterly immaterial. If 
 I buy a coat it is useless to prove to me that 
 the tailor made a thousand per cent, upon one 
 of the buttons when I know that I only paid 
 market price for the coat. The only pertinent 
 inquiry in this respect is whether or not the 
 whole thing was secured at a reasonable price. 
 Upon the mural art painting, amounting to 
 $207,877.50, the contractor made no profit 
 whatever. Assuming a reasonable profit to 
 have been twenty per cent., that sum would 
 about offset all the profits shown to have been 
 secured by the contractor in both of the cases 
 tried. 
 
 When the prosecutions were determined 
 upon, there was but one sensible course for the 
 defendants to pursue and that was for each 
 of them to go into Court, tell every fact within 
 his knowledge concerning the matter, and in- 
 sist upon the contractors showing exactly what 
 74 
 
^ ; 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 Q ; 
 
 oo 
 
 oo 
 
 O'O 
 
 O 
 
 -5 
 
 
 
 ^^ 
 
 t-.P 
 
 
 
 
 
 •o 
 
 
 :$ 
 
 "o 
 
 o 
 
 
 O 
 
 O 
 
 QQ 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 
 u; 
 
 n 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 60 
 
 
 X 
 
 Q 
 
 > 
 
 LU 
 
 -n 
 
 >, 
 
 
 z 
 
 c 
 
 ij 
 
 X 
 
 ni 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 UJ 
 
 Q 
 
 
 
 
 
 >i 
 
 o 
 
 
 LU 
 
 (b 
 
 a. 
 
 
 2 
 
 c 
 
 
 
 o 
 
 LU 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 w 
 
 
 o 
 
 ' M » 2 * u S 
 
 0"6Ci 
 
 
 
 H - = s« 
 
 1 sll 
 
 SSI' 
 
 
 ,sS«i 
 
 5 ^ -t £ 
 
 
 Sols "^ 
 
 SifOj 
 
profit they made, whether large or small, and 
 what became of every cent of the moneys, 
 whether in their coffers, or if paid to others, 
 then to whom the payment was made. Had 
 this course been followed the outcome of the 
 prosecutions would have been ridiculous, and 
 the effort to injure the reputation of the 
 State and her officials been abortive. The 
 prosecutors, however, had much to gain and 
 nothing at stake, and the defendants had 
 much to lose, station, money, reputation and 
 even reason and life. It is no wonder that 
 in the face of the clamor the defendants 
 failed to think correctly and ran every which 
 way for shelter. Unfortunately the trials be- 
 came not an inquiry to ascertain the truth 
 but a struggle to secure tactical advantage. 
 In such a struggle the defendants were badly 
 handicapped and almost helpless. The cards 
 had been stacked against them. The news- 
 papers had seen to it that the juries were 
 packed, by telling them for months before 
 they were sworn what conclusion they must 
 reach. Nothing gives a greater sense of ab- 
 surdity than to read in the testimony the 
 repeated admonition of the Judge to the jury 
 before him to be careful not to read a news- 
 paper when both were well aware that this had 
 been their daily mental pabulum since the 
 75 
 
building had been erected. We make a great 
 to-do when some artisan out of a job imper- 
 sonates his busy friend on a jury, which does 
 little or no harm, and we tolerate the whole- 
 sale packing of juries and perversion of 
 justice in trials by the press without a murmur. 
 The immense power of the State was thrown 
 into the scale against the defendants. Not only 
 were $95,981.16 expended upon the investi- 
 gation, but the Act of February 11, 1909, 
 appropriated $40,000.00 to the Attorney Gen- 
 eral "to cover deficiencies" in his department, 
 and $107,961.41 were expended for counsel 
 fees and costs. The Attorney General did not 
 trust these cases to the District Attorney of the 
 county, who is the officer elected by the people 
 to conduct prosecutions, but appeared for the 
 prosecution in person. No doubt he was 
 within his legal authority in so doing but 
 when he did it the act had much more than 
 the ordinary significance. Generally it is the 
 province of the Attorney General to protect 
 officials who are attacked for something done 
 in the performance of their duties. Huston 
 is even now in the employment of the State 
 and in charge of the erection of the Barnard 
 statues and the Abbey paintings under his 
 contract. When, then, the Attorney General 
 appeared he took the responsibility of saying 
 76 
 
that the Governor of the Commonwealth and 
 yon, the people, asked for conviction. There 
 is still more behind. Yon will remember that 
 the Commonwealth filed bills in eqnity suits 
 claiming money from these defendants and 
 answers were made denying the claim. Sup- 
 pose one of you should have a dispute in 
 Court over monej's and you should be con- 
 fronted with a criminal charge, and you found 
 your opponent conducting the prosecution, 
 what hope would you have of getting justice? 
 It makes no difference in principle that one of 
 these parties was the Commonwealth and not 
 an individual. The point is that the power to 
 guide the trial was given to one of the in- 
 terested parties. The Commonwealth was put 
 in this unfortunate and indefensible position 
 that having money to gain by the conviction 
 of the defendants, she assumed and was per- 
 mitted to assume control of their prosecution. 
 Even the virtues of the defendants counted 
 against them, as when Snyder's insistence 
 upon the Quantities plans, which definitely 
 fixed the location of each piece of furniture, 
 resulted in their being used to aid in his con- 
 viction. If the defendants had taken moneys 
 and shared them with the politicians, they 
 would perhaps have had friends wliose selfish 
 
interests alone would have led to support, but 
 they were abandoned to their fate. Both po- 
 litical parties sought to make capital out of the 
 situation — the Democrats through Berry, and 
 the Republicans, intrenched in control, through 
 investigations and prosecutions. The Senator 
 from Dauphin county was retained as addi- 
 tional counsel for the prosecution. Since the 
 record shows that he made no argument and 
 asked no question of the witnesses, his pro- 
 portion of the fees must have been earned by 
 other service. 
 
 There were commenced thirty cases of con- 
 spiracy and seven of false pretence. The pur- 
 pose of this subdivision was to overwhelm the 
 defendants with a multiplicity of suits, the 
 meeting of which would exhaust their re- 
 sources. If one jury should perchance acquit, 
 they could be brought up again upon another 
 charge growing out of the same transaction 
 until finally success should be attained. This 
 plan had another and great advantage. It 
 enabled the prosecution to pick out for trial 
 anything they found to be faulty and eliminate 
 all of the good work which might much more 
 than compensate. Thus no jury was permit- 
 ted to hear that Sanderson made nothing on 
 the Abbey contract. It is as though you had 
 sold a cart load of potatoes and the purchaser 
 
hunting out one that was rotten should charge 
 you with dishonesty while he disposed of the 
 rest. If a conspiracy existed it was a combina- 
 tion between the officials, the architect and the 
 contractors to cheat the State in the building 
 and equipment of the Capitol, and this was the 
 theory of the prosecution as shown not only 
 by statements but by the indictments. There 
 were not thirty little conspiracies, and the 
 prosecution ought not to have been permitted 
 to gain advantage by such oppression. Both 
 the Constitution of the United States and the 
 Constitution of Pennsylvania provide: "No 
 person shall for the same offence be twice put 
 in jeopardy of life or limb." Huston was 
 acquitted of one of these subdivisions of a 
 conspiracy. He was tried again for another 
 and convicted. Amid this juggling with an 
 alleged crime what became of the constitutional 
 provision ? 
 
 In thirty-two of the thirty-seven cases the 
 prosecution entered pleas of "nolle prosequi" 
 and abandoned the charges. The case of 
 Frank Irvine is especially pathetic. He was 
 a mere clerk in one of the departments. 
 While I was Governor the bills would come 
 before me for approval, often hundreds in a 
 day. They came certified by tlie proper offi- 
 cial. I formed the habit of occasionally select- 
 79 
 
ing one at random and examining the details. 
 On one occasion a bill came for Capitol work 
 and I sent Irvine to make the measurements 
 which he reported. The poor fellow did not 
 dare to disobey. It might have cost him his 
 position to offend his superior. The Audit 
 Company of New York found his name on the 
 paper and the Commonwealth had him ar- 
 rested. Brooding over an accusation which 
 seemed to him unjust and which he had no 
 means of meeting he became insane, and was 
 sent to an asylum, where I believe he is still 
 confined. Then the prosecution went into 
 Court and admitting that they had no evidence 
 against him abandoned the case. 
 
 Two of the cases, being those against 
 Charles G. Wetter, the partner of Payne, con- 
 tractor for the Capitol, were abandoned upon 
 the payment by him of $14,000.00. Thirty- 
 two of the cases were abandoned upon the 
 payment to the Commonwealth of the sum of 
 $1,100,000.00. Deducting the $95,981.16 paid 
 for the investigation, the $107,961.41 for 
 lawyers' fees and expenses and the $40,000.00 
 appropriated to the Attorney General for de- 
 ficiencies, if there were no other expenses of 
 which we are uninformed, the net sum received 
 by the State was $870,057.43. It had been 
 better sunk in the sea. The course pursued 
 80 
 
is simply morally indefensible. If the defend- 
 ants were gxiilty of crime then they ought to 
 have been convicted and punished. If they 
 owed to the State six millions of dollars as 
 alleged in the bills in equity filed, these sums 
 ought to have been recovered. It has been 
 said in an effort at palliation that the payment 
 of $1,114,000.00 was a confession by the 
 defendants. If the giving up of that sum was 
 a confession by the defendants then much more 
 was the giving up of five times that amount 
 a confession by the prosecutors. Where the 
 money came from is a hidden mystery. Ex- 
 tortion from the fears of widows and orphans, 
 from the dread of further publicity and prose- 
 cution, from the timidity of corporations who 
 might perchance lose their substance, it may 
 have been. They had seen that neither the 
 long and meritorious service of Snyder, nor 
 his reputation among his fellow men, had been 
 enough to protect him in the Courts of the 
 land and they might well be in fear. But 
 confession it could not be for the reason that 
 Sanderson, Payne and Mathues were in their 
 graves and beyond confession. When a 
 woman or a man has brought a charge of 
 crime, and for money then offers to withdraw 
 it and have a "nolle prosequi" entered, she 
 or he is properly discredited and disbelieved. 
 81 
 
The deed is no better when done by a State. 
 When the Attorney General settled those 
 prosecutions for money, and went into Court 
 and said officially upon the record that they 
 had been improvidently brought, he dragged 
 the Commonwealth down to the ethical plane 
 of the blackmailer. Proud of the State in 
 which my people have lived for two centuries 
 and a quarter, and of which I have been the 
 Governor, when a man from New York or 
 Chicago, into whose ears have been poured 
 false, treacherous and defamatory tales, 
 points with derision to the Capitol, I stand 
 erect and confute him with facts of which he 
 has never heard. But when a solemn decree 
 is entered by the Court of Dauphin County 
 dismissing a charge of crime against the State 
 for a consideration, what recourse is there save 
 silence? Thirty-four of the thirty-seven cases 
 were disposed of after the manner above nar- 
 rated. In another case Cassel, Huston, Shu- 
 maker, Snyder and Mathues were all acquitted 
 and the jury found that the costs should be 
 paid by the prosecutor, which means that in 
 their judgment the suit ought never to have 
 been commenced. In only two of the thirty- 
 seven cases did the prosecutors succeed. I 
 have read with the utmost care the 1403 
 printed pages of testimony in the one case 
 82 
 
and the 962 pages in the other, and the one 
 immense, overpowering and overwhehning 
 fact that appears in this testimony is that 
 there is not a word of evidence anywhere 
 that either of the officials received a dollar 
 from the contractors, and there was not the 
 slightest attempt to offer such evidence. The 
 hurricane of graft which blew around the 
 editorial chambers was not even a zephyr in 
 the Court room. Mr. Carson, the Investiga- 
 tion Commission and the Court all alike failed 
 to find any trace of its existence. I have a 
 copy of the evidence bound and shall present 
 the volume to one of our libraries so that it 
 may be seen hereafter upon what kind of tes- 
 timony men in our day were imprisoned. You 
 will probably ask me, if this be correct, how 
 did it happen that they were convicted. Evi- 
 dence was given that certain articles cost too 
 much, that certain measurements were incor- 
 rect, that certain charges which ought to have 
 been made under one item of the schedule 
 were made under another, and from such facts 
 the jury were left to guess at, to infer the 
 guilt. You may at various times have paid 
 too much for a ton of coal and it may even 
 have been short in weight, but I take it you 
 never understood that you were in consequence 
 guilty of a crime. 
 
 83 
 
I wish to be entirely respectful to the learned 
 Judge before whom the case of Snyder was 
 tried, and I entertain for him personal and 
 professional regard, but there are some feat- 
 ures of its conduct to which reference must 
 be made. The very foundation stone of 
 English and American criminal law is that 
 the defendant is presumed to be innocent. 
 He who asserts that his fellow has committed 
 a crime must prove it. The presumption 
 in favor of innocence must be overcome by 
 proof. There are some Judges who take 
 care that no case be tried before them, not 
 even that of the most hardened offender, 
 without the jury being made to understand 
 this attitude of the law. There never was a 
 case tried where it was more important that 
 this principle should be explained and empha- 
 sized than in that of Snyder. He came into 
 Court condemned by newspaper trial and re- 
 quired to disprove a conclusion reached in 
 advance. Every juror knew that should 
 Snyder be acquitted he, too, would be attacked, 
 recklessly accused of having been bribed, his 
 face put in the morning's papers, and if ever 
 any of his second cousins had killed a sheep 
 or begotten a bastard, the fact would be printed 
 over the land. 
 
 Never before in the history of jurisprudence 
 84 
 
had this kind of pressure been equalled. In 
 the very midst of the trial, one of the Counsel 
 for the prosecution had two interviews with a 
 member of the jury in his office, an arrest re- 
 sulted and five newspapers proclaimed the fact 
 saying among other things that sleuths had 
 followed the juror for days and that four other 
 arrests were to follow. Then when the atten- 
 tion of the Court was called to the matter by 
 the defence, the prosecution admitted that a 
 mistake had been made, that the man arrested 
 had been discharged, and that no juror was 
 suspected (Testimony, page 1091). Never- 
 theless the Judge did not even refer in his 
 charge to the fundamental principle of the law 
 that the defendant was presumed to be inno- 
 cent. 
 
 There is another wise legal provision 
 founded upon experience and never anywhere 
 disputed. Public officials in the performance 
 of their work are presumed to have been 
 faithful to their duties. Had the jury been 
 informed that this is the universal law always 
 invoked it might have saved Snyder. The 
 charge of the Judge was silent upon the sub- 
 ject. 
 
 An experience of nearly fourteen years on 
 the bench leads me to say that in the trial of 
 causes, which are disputed and supported by 
 85 
 
testimony, there are always certain facts dis- 
 closed which, when read in their proper rela- 
 tion, point inevitably to the truth of the con- 
 troversy. This case is no exception. I shall 
 now go over with you a series of events occur- 
 ring in this trial which illustrate what I mean 
 and the deductions from which are unanswer- 
 able and conclusive. No analytical and 
 trained mind can escape their significance. 
 
 In his opening address to the jury in the 
 trial of Huston, his counsel, the Hon. George 
 S. Graham, said : 
 
 "We will show you that our attitude 
 has always been the same and that when 
 this matter first came up before even the 
 first case was tried (Snyder's) we went 
 to the Attorney General of the Common- 
 wealth of Pennsylvania and his dis- 
 tinguished associates who sit at this table 
 and told them the stors^ of that letter and 
 that it was a lie, at a time zvhen under 
 the promise extended to us Huston had 
 no expectation of ever being tried for this 
 offence." (Testimony, page 484). 
 If this statement of Mr. Graham be correct 
 the Attorney General made a bargain, under 
 the terms of which Huston was not to be 
 prosecuted, and he failed to keep his compact. 
 If Mr. Graham be not correct, nevertheless it 
 86 
 
is certain that some such arrangement either 
 avowed or tacit was made. In the Snyder case 
 Mr. Graham on behalf of Huston asked for 
 a severance, and much to the surprise of all 
 who watched the scene the prosecution as- 
 sented to the proposition. This was followed 
 by the appearance of Stanford B. Lewis, the 
 man of afifairs for Huston, who had charge 
 for him at the Capitol and was in a sense a 
 partner, as a witness for the prosecution. 
 Incidentally you will observe that since Huston 
 was the central figure in all of the Capitol 
 transactions the prosecution never would have 
 assented to his escape save from a knowledge 
 that the evidence in their hands did not prove 
 their case. It makes no difference whether or 
 not the statement of Mr. Graham accurately 
 narrates what occurred. Huston and Lewis, 
 who was likewise indicted, believed that if 
 they helped the prosecution they would avoid 
 the trials which threatened them. The con- 
 sideration given for the testimony of Lewis 
 was either promise or hope. He took the 
 stand for the prosecution. He assumed re- 
 sponsibility for the preparation of the letter 
 from Huston to Carson, he came into collision 
 with both Carson and myself, and he testified 
 that Sanderson once said "he had to put up 
 a big wad for other people." These state- 
 87 
 
ments shovr his willingness and eagerness to 
 earn his reward. He never Avas tried. We 
 may feel sure that we know whatever he and 
 Huston were able to tell. He did not pro- 
 duce a letter, or a check, or a memorandum, 
 or a paper of any kind which disclosed a con- 
 spiracy, nor in the hundred pages or so of his 
 testimony did he give any fact more serious 
 than the uncertain and vague statement hereto- 
 fore attributed to Sanderson. It is plain then 
 that Huston knew of the existence of no con- 
 spiracy and since he did not know of it there 
 could have been no conspiracy. 
 
 When the Snyder case went to the Supreme 
 Court this was the result: "A majority of the 
 Court are of the opinion that the judgment 
 appealed from should be affirmed on the 
 opinion of the Superior Court." It was 
 whispered among the bar that three of the 
 Justices were in favor of sustaining the con- 
 viction, that three of them were of the opinion 
 that there was no evidence whatever of a con- 
 spiracy, and that the seventh concluded that 
 the charge of the Court below was inadequate, 
 but that since counsel for the defendants did 
 not ask for fuller instructions the judgment 
 ought to be afiirmed. Counsel were weary, 
 principles had been forgotten, and therefore 
 Snyder properly suffered. Certain it is that 
 88 
 
ihe minority of the Court were decided in their 
 views or an opinion would have been written 
 in this the most important case that ever 
 came before them, involving the liberty of men 
 of high standing in the community and the 
 reputation of the Commonwealth. 
 
 In the other case the conviction of Huston 
 was secured with painful difficulty. He had 
 already been acquitted upon one of the sub- 
 divisions of the supposed conspiracy and should 
 he be again acquitted it would make the pun- 
 ishment of Snyder an absurdity. After the 
 trial the prosecution secured affidavits of eleven 
 of the jurymen detailing what occurred during 
 their deliberations. According to one of these 
 affidavits, only four of the twelve, according 
 to ten of the affidavits only five of the twelve, 
 voted in favor of conviction of conspiracy. 
 
 Evidently the jury then made a compromise 
 because they brought into Court this verdict : 
 "We find the defendant guilty of defraud- 
 ing the Commonwealth." The indictment did 
 not charge him with defrauding, but with con- 
 spiracy. This conversation then ensued : 
 "The Court : Gentlemen, do you mean 
 by this that you find the defendant guilty 
 of the conspiracy charged in the indict- 
 ment? 
 
 The Foreman : No, sir. 
 89 
 
The Court: You must determine. 
 The question for you to determine is 
 whether he is guilty of the conspiracy 
 charged in the indictment. You mean by 
 this, you find him guilty of the charge 
 contained in this indictment? 
 
 The Foreman : It is changed, don't 
 you see? 
 
 The Court : You say the defendant 
 is guilty of defrauding the Common- 
 wealth. We ask you whether you mean 
 by that whether you find him guilty of 
 the charge contained in this indictment. 
 Is that what you mean? 
 
 The Foreman: We let the conspir- 
 acy off, we agreed to let the conspiracy 
 off. 
 
 The Court : The question to deter- 
 mine is whether he was guilty of the con- 
 spiracy. 
 
 The Foreman: That is what we 
 would not agree. 
 
 The Court : Have you considered 
 that? 
 
 The Foreman : Yes, sir, and we 
 agreed that there was no conspiracy; we 
 have agreed on that." 
 
 It would appear as though the Court had 
 pushed the inquiry to the end and secured a 
 90 
 
definite statement by the foreman of the find- 
 ing of the jury with respect to the crime 
 charged. A jury cannot all talk at once. The 
 foreman is their spokesman. If he states the 
 finding inaccurately any one of the jury may 
 object and counsel have the right to have the 
 name of each juryman called so that he may 
 answer. Neither event occurred and the fore- 
 man had stated that the jury agreed that there 
 was no conspiracy. It will be further observed 
 that the Judge in pressing these queries re- 
 peated three times in almost the same words 
 this thought : "The question to determine is 
 whether he was guilty of the conspiracy." 
 That was not the question they were to de- 
 termine. There was another alternative. The 
 defendant might perchance have been innocent. 
 This possibility does not appear to have been 
 in the mind of the Court. The newspaper 
 presumption even in Court overpowered the 
 legal presumption. The situation shows how 
 important it is, if we are to maintain our sys- 
 tem of government and law, that some means 
 should be found to prevent the influence upon 
 trials of irresponsible publication. The Court 
 then continued : 
 
 "The question for you to determine is 
 whether the defendant is guilty of the 
 conspiracy charged in the indictment, 
 91 
 
being party to the conspiracy charged in 
 the indictment to defraud the Common- 
 wealth. That is what you mean?" 
 You will again observe that only an inter- 
 rogation point, an intonation of a voice which 
 can no longer be heard, saved this from being 
 an absolute finding by the Court against the 
 defendant. 
 
 "The Foreman : They all agreed. 
 That is the only way they would agree. 
 The Court : We will have to send 
 you back and you will ha\'e to determine 
 the question before you. This indict- 
 ment charges the defendant with having 
 conspired vrith the other persons named 
 in the indictment with the conspiracy to 
 cheat and defraud the State by means of 
 the false bill set forth therein. That is 
 the question you are called upon and you 
 are sworn to determine. If you have not 
 considered that or reached a determina- 
 tion upon that you may retire and con- 
 sider that question. The charge is that 
 of conspiracy, with having acted in con- 
 cert with the other persons named in the 
 indictment to cheat and defraud the 
 Commonwealth in the manner set forth 
 pursuant to an understanding between 
 him and the others. 
 
 92 
 
Mr. Graham : If they are not guilty 
 of the conspiracy they are not guilty of 
 anything. 
 
 The Court : If he is not guilty of the 
 conspiracy, if he is not guilty of the 
 charge in the indictment, then you say so 
 by your verdict. If he is guilty, if you 
 are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt 
 that he is guilty of conspiring with the 
 others to cheat and defraud the Common- 
 wealth by means of the false bill set forth 
 therein, you say so by your verdict. 
 Suppose you retire and consider that. 
 You understand that the charge is that 
 the defendant passed this bill, that he 
 passed this bill set forth in the indictment, 
 knowing that it was false, with intent to 
 cheat and defraud the Commonwealth and 
 did so pursuant to an existing understand- 
 ing between him and the other persons 
 named in the indictment who also ap- 
 proved and certified and caused the bill 
 to be paid." 
 The jury retired to their room, yielded, and 
 
 brought in a verdict of guilty as indicted. 
 
 The Supreme Court affirmed this judgment, 
 
 likewise without an opinion, and by a divided 
 
 Court. 
 
 In his closing address to the jury in the 
 93 
 
Huston case, the senior counsel for the prose- 
 cution said : "Every guardian selected by the 
 law to protect the Commonwealth was faith- 
 less to his trust." This language accurately 
 expresses the theory of these prosecutions 
 that all of the men whom you elect to respon- 
 sible office are given to iniquity and proper to 
 be condemned. The theory is false, conceived 
 in mental narrowness and obliquity, and is 
 contrary to human nature, and contradicted by 
 all human experience. 
 
 In the evidence in the case of Snyder 
 (page 851) appears this letter, written by him 
 to Sanderson, July 10, 1905 : 
 
 "Replying to your request as to whether 
 advances will be made on goods which 
 have been partly completed or wholly 
 completed and not yet delivered into the 
 possession of the State, I desire to say 
 what I have repeatedly said to you here- 
 tofore, that no advanced payment either 
 wholly on in part will be made on account 
 of your contract of June, 1904, designated 
 as special furniture, carpet, fittings and 
 decorations schedule at the new Capitol 
 in Harrisburg, Pa. No payment will be 
 made on account of the contract until the 
 goods are delivered and in possession of 
 the State, and then only upon goods and 
 
 94 
 
items under the special schedule, of which 
 you were the successful bidder and for 
 which the contract was awarded to you 
 by the Board of Public Grounds and 
 Buildings in June, 1904. Before any 
 payment is made, even after delivery of 
 the goods into the possession of the State, 
 the architect must certify by certificate 
 designating the item in the special 
 schedule under which these goods were 
 made, and certify further the amount you 
 are entitled to receive, and that the goods 
 had been made according to plans and 
 specifications and at the price you were 
 awarded the contract. The Superintend- 
 ent of Public Grounds and Buildings 
 must further certify that the goods had 
 been delivered and are in the possession 
 of the State. And your bills must be 
 specially itemized and show in what 
 rooms these goods are placed, and the 
 correctness of your itemized bills must 
 also be certified to by the Superintendent 
 of Public Grounds and Buildings. And 
 I wish further to say that a warrant will 
 not be drawn for the payment of any 
 item, part or parts, cither in whole or in 
 part, unless it was awarded you under 
 )'Our contract of June, 1904, and that it 
 95 
 
has been made according to the plans ap- 
 proved by the Board of Pubhc Grounds 
 and Buildings. Any deviation will be 
 considered a just cause to withhold a war- 
 rant until the bill has been corrected and 
 properly certified as hereinbefore stated.'' 
 In any ordinary case where the jury were 
 permitted to form their own conclusions from 
 the testimony offered, this letter in itself would 
 have resulted in the acquittal of Snyder. 
 Written to the contractor at the outset, at a 
 time when no one knew how much money 
 would be expended, it is entirely inconsistent 
 with the thought of the existence of a con- 
 spiracy. 
 
 The same counsel for the prosecution de- 
 scribed Huston as a man "endowed with 
 genius to coin forms from leaf and star and 
 cloud, entrusted with the fame of his State, 
 respected by all who knew him," and then 
 declared that "he had received his meed of 
 ill gotten gain without what seemed to be 
 the grime and the crime and the dirt of 
 the hands that thrust it upon him." He was, 
 therefore, at the same time both an angel 
 of light and an imp of darkness. The char- 
 acter is too complex to be accepted as prob- 
 able. The artist has made his contrasts too 
 bold and glaring to be natural, and we m^ay 
 96 
 
rest assured that he has handled his brush 
 too carelessly to be accurate. For one part 
 of the statement the proof is the Capitol 
 standing on the banks of the Susquehanna, 
 where all the world may see, but the expendi- 
 ture of over two hundred thousand dollars 
 failed to result in the discovery of any trace 
 of "ill gotten gain." The lack of proof was 
 supplied by the vehemence of the editor in his 
 office and of the advocate in the court room. 
 
 I have already called your attention to the 
 report of the Investigation Commission upon 
 the information secured by them that "at no 
 point did it show or appear to show that any 
 of the moneys paid by the State to its contrac- 
 tors in this connection had been directly con- 
 verted to the credit or use of any of the State 
 officials." In the trial of Snyder the Court 
 found as follows : 
 
 "The uncontradicted evidence in the 
 case and the admissio?i of the Covitnon- 
 ivealth is that every piece of furniture 
 charged, billed and paid for was delivered 
 to and received by the State from San- 
 derson, one of the defendants." And 
 again : 
 
 "The uncontradicted evidence in the 
 case and the admission of the Common- 
 zvealth is that all the furniture and every 
 97 
 
article charged, billed and paid for was of 
 the quality which Sanderson, one of the 
 defendants, was required and had con- 
 tracted to furnish." 
 
 Never before in the history of the world, 
 so far as I know, were criminals imprisoned, 
 not even William Penn and Robert Morris, 
 who were likewise sent to jail by the foolish 
 of their day, with such astounding certificates 
 on record of their integrity and of their 
 efficiency. 
 
 I have now told you the story of the dese- 
 cration of the Capitol and have given you my 
 reasons for the belief that it has been an ex- 
 hibition of egregious folly, sordidness and 
 wickedness. No doubt I should have been 
 more comfortable if I had gone along to the 
 end of my life leaving this wrong for the future 
 to redress, but I have endeavored through- 
 out my career hitherto never to flinch from 
 what I conceived to be the performance of a 
 duty and I do not propose to begin in a mat- 
 ter of such moment in which I have been con- 
 cerned. It is due to Huston, Snyder and 
 Shumaker that I should bear my testimony to 
 the merits of their achievement. It is due to 
 the Commonwealth that some one, with a sem- 
 blance of authority and the power of speech, 
 should raise his voice in protest against the 
 98 
 
harm done to her and in answer to the re- 
 proach which has been cast upon her and 
 which she httle deserves. The hypocrisy 
 which claims praise for the Capitol, for the ef- 
 fectiveness of that which is useful, the beauty 
 of that which is ornamental, the paintings of 
 Abbey and Violet Oakley, the tile floor of 
 Mercer and the statuary of Barnard, and gives 
 no credit to Huston who secured them all for 
 us, whose genius designed and whose energy 
 completed the work, is a disgusting thing, to 
 be held aloft for condemnation. 
 
 The results of the investigation and the 
 trials, imperfect at every step as I have shown 
 them to be, have been both sad and baneful. 
 The reputation of Peimsylvania through the 
 erection of a public building massive and or- 
 nate, with such promptness and skill and 
 within the revenues, would have been strength- 
 ened over the world if a perverse stupidity had 
 not intervened to prevent. Hereafter what of- 
 ficial will dare to undertake any important task 
 for the welfare of the State, with the knowledge 
 of the fate which befell Snyder confronting 
 him? What architect of reputation will risk 
 its loss in your service ? What contractor will 
 not want compensation for his work and also 
 for the danger he runs of losing his payments 
 and being accused of crime by some future 
 99 
 
Berry looking for office and encouraged Ijy 
 this example? Edwin S. Stuart, genial, good 
 hearted and worthy, had in mind one import- 
 ant work with which he hoped to signalize his 
 administration. On the stump and in many 
 public addresses he urged the construction of 
 a great highway to span the State from Phila- 
 delphia to Pittsburgh. In deference to his 
 opinion and his wishes the Senate and House 
 passed a bill providing for its construction. 
 He vetoed the bill. He did not do it for the 
 lack of money. If a Capitol could be con- 
 structed from income so could a road. He 
 found over eleven millions of dollars in the 
 treasury left by his predecessor. It was be- 
 cause he thought it wiser and safer for him- 
 self and those around him not to undertake 
 what he believed to be for the benefit of the 
 State. After the route should be selected 
 there would be many towns through which the 
 road could not pass, after the contracts should 
 be awarded there would be many contractors 
 whose bids were not accepted, and all over 
 the State there would be ambitious and insin- 
 cere politicians ready to take advantage of the 
 situation. He saw before his eyes and learned 
 from his own legal adviser the kind of re- 
 ward which had been meted out to men who 
 accomplished important tasks in aid of the 
 
 100 
 
public, and he declined to support his own 
 proposition. For the next hundred years Penn- 
 sylvania will reap the crop which has been, 
 sown for her and will pay with substantial 
 losses for the indignities which have been 
 heaped upon the officials you elected to your 
 highest offices. One such loss irreparable in 
 its character she has already suffered. Edwin 
 A. Abbey was one of the contractors for the 
 decoration of the Capitol. Born in Philadel- 
 phia, he had attained world-wide reputation 
 for his wondrous skill in art. When employed 
 by the architect he expressed his intention of 
 doing the most important work of his life upon 
 the Capitol of his native State. Then came 
 the scandal, bruited in London as elsewhere, 
 with its demoralizing results, with its uncer- 
 tainty as to whether he would ever be paid for 
 his labors, and his activities temporarily ceased. 
 Now he is dead, with his task but half com- 
 pleted, and Pennsylvania has lost forever the 
 treasures themselves and the opportunity of 
 signalizing the genius of one of her sons. 
 And consider the wickedness and cruelty which 
 were a part of this degradation. Sander- 
 son, Mathues and Payne were driven to their 
 graves and Irvine to an insane asylum. A 
 fiendish malice gloating over their misery 
 has suggested that they died and became in- 
 
sane because of a wrong they knew they 
 had done. In the days of our barbarous fore- 
 fathers, when the Hghtning struck and con- 
 sumed the hut and meager possessions of some 
 peasant, they assumed that he had committed 
 a crime and that the Lord was angry with him. 
 The leper lost his reputation as well as his 
 life. We are not yet very far removed from 
 barbarism. Who ever knew a thief to die of 
 remorse? Men perish because the burdens 
 laid upon their shoulders and their brains are 
 too heavy for them to bear, and the imagina- 
 tion can conceive of no load more grievous 
 and more likely to crush humanity to the 
 earth than the consciousness of having labored 
 faithfully and attained success only to be fol- 
 lowed by persecution and ingratitude. John 
 Fitch, after inventing the steamboat and run- 
 ning it for three months upon the Delaware 
 before a people too dull to comprehend, went 
 out to Kentucky and hanged himself. 
 
 Huston, Snyder and Shumaker, knowing 
 the good they endeavored to do and accom- 
 plished, need have no sense of shame and do 
 not require your sympathy. The shame is on 
 those who misused the power of the Common- 
 wealth. Let those who fanned and fostered 
 the scandal take the responsibility. When in 
 future ages the curious delver turns from the 
 
beauties of the Capitol to dig among the for- 
 gotten records of these trials it will be with 
 strange wonderment that such events could 
 have happened in the twentieth century, and 
 to write the names of these persecutors along- 
 side of those of the Council who clamored for 
 the execution of John Huss and of those 
 Judges who burned Joan of Arc in the market 
 place of Rouen. 
 
 It is well that manners soften as the world 
 grows old. France in the wild days of her 
 revolution cut off the head of Roget de Lisle, 
 who had written for her that most inspiring 
 of lyrics, La Marseillaise. We have treated 
 the architect who created and adorned the 
 Capitol for us in a milder and more gentle 
 fashion. We have only robbed him of his 
 earnings, blackened his fame and sent him to 
 prison to meditate upon the vicissitudes of for- 
 tune and the rewards of public service. 
 
 A poet has written that time turns the old 
 days to derision. The frettings and contro- 
 versies which agitate the souls of men disap- 
 pear with the morrow. In the lapse of a few 
 summers the dreariest bank of cinder and ashes 
 becomes clothed with verdure and fragrant 
 with flowers. The blackest of clouds bear 
 with them the waters that give life to vegeta- 
 tion. It is a comfort to know that there are but 
 103 
 
few of the efforts of men, even those that orig- 
 inate in their baser instincts and are conceived 
 in iniquity, that do not in the end result in 
 some benefit. The winds that blew for a 
 time with such threat and fury have sunk into 
 silence in the far off wild woods of Broceliande. 
 It may w^ell be that the Capitol on the banks 
 of the Susquehanna, through the coming cen- 
 turies, meeting the needs of the Common- 
 wealth, and gratifying the pride of her people, 
 will be the more appreciated because of the 
 fierceness with which it has been assailed, and 
 that its granite walls will glisten in the sun- 
 light of the future more brightly because of 
 the murk and fog which followed its con- 
 struction. 
 
 <; 
 
 <Xhv LO. 
 
 104 
 
II VI 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 
 
 1 h 
 
 11 1 
 
 
 1 ', 
 
 11 111 
 
 i 1 
 
 012 607 214 4 Q