| Corruption in the House of Correction Summary
On 17 July 1875 the individual members of the Board of Public Works filed suits of libel against Charles C. and Albert K. Fulton, proprietors of the Baltimore American, claiming $20,000 each in damages. The conflict originated in a letter to the editor and follow up published in the American on June 26 and June 28, 1875. Both charged the overseers of the new House of Correction in Jessup, Maryland, with mismanagement at the best, political corruption at the worst.
The June 26th letter to the editor, signed Anti-Monopoly, criticized the poor choice of land without clay or lumber, both needed to build the new structures, but revealed a more questionable action by the Democratic Board of Public Works. Instead of directly buying the land for the House of Correction from the owner, the government allowed it to first pass to a "prominant Republican from Anne Arundel County" for $12,000; only then did the Trustees charged with buying the land for the State purchase the site from this Republican for $13,000. What, asked Anti-Monopoly, happened to that $1000? The purchase became even more disturbing as land records reveal that these two purchases--from Martin P. Scott to George T. Warfield, then from Warfield to Trustees George William Brown, George S. Brown and Robert T. Baldwin--both occured on December 3, 1874. This makes the passage through a middleman, one who had also held political office, seem planned rather than coincidental.
The follow-up piece by the Baltimore American on June 28, 1875, could not answer any of Anti-Monopoly's queries, but divulged an additional misstep of the Board. Mr. Henry E. Loane, Democratic Delegate from Baltimore City's District 2 in 1874 and 1876, received the contract for building the House of Correction. The American affirmed that another person offered to do the work for several thousand less, but was rejected. Perhaps, the newspaper wonders, rumors were true and the lower bidder took instead the superintendent's position at $2500. Either way, some type of party favoritism seemed suspect. "In these days of 'rings' and 'ringmasters,'" concluded the article, "a coincidence like this is certain to provoke comment."
No superintendent has yet shown up in the Board of Public Works Minutes or Paying Warrants of the Comptroller. George A. Frederick was the Architect for the House of Correction--especially interesting since he and the same persons of the Board of Public Works overspent on the State House by $70,000 only two years later. Codling & Loane, the builders, received at least $53,548 in payment for work done and materials furnished for the project. An E.E. Anderson also appears in the Paying Warrants and received $3000 for his work done on the House of Correction grounds.
Forming yet another strange twist in this case, Trustee George William Brown intended to put in a proposal for the building contract, but on May 13, 1875, the Board rejected Brown & Co. because it had failed to present the names of all in the firm and had not substantiated a bond with the bid. Two other companies, J.H. Horton & Co. and Thomas Binyion & Co., also failed in this requirement, leaving Codling & Loane with the contract. Perhaps one of these was the lower bidders mentioned in the American that instead was employed as superintendent.
The Paying Warrants also mentions paying Merrill Addison on December 11, 1875, for "taking depositions in case of Sate v. Royal Ins. Co. of Liverpool and Actner/Aetner? Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, Connecticut as for bill on file," using money from the House of Correction Loan. I have looked through all Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County Dockets, but found no references to the case.
|
