Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1842-03-01
Vol. H.

piet.on
The other lettings at Andersontovn md Mobiles
vile, were made 20 give contractors two
years time 10 complete their lo5s and but small
payments were made upon them during my ot1cla.
existence Hall the work let and prosecuted under
my direction, had been finished, ] should have let
beyond the appropriations by the board some ninety
one or ninety two thousand dollars; and as an eX-
cuse for 50 dong, Of an excuse were wanting by
me- ! could urge that the work required such let
tlngs; IN which opinion ! was sustained by the
gineers, and when reported the to the board.
] have 10 recollection OF any member thereof hav-
ing or expressing different opinion. The board
never appropriated cent for any OF my work at
ter | came INTO office, and much work must have
ceased the northern division of the central canal,
had not under the concurrent opinion OF all class
IS OF the community and eminent public function
ares, proceeded " tn the work. Indeed 1t con-
sldered that the State would complete this northern
portion Of the central canal soon the work
could be executed affair prices, and on examination
OF the prices at which made the lettings, it Will
be seen that they averaged less than the estimates
made by the engineers and so low they that
no contractor able TO make more than bare
living from his lob. seek To evade no respOs bill
" on charge of Overctting, for the reason that
the amounts previously appropriated by the board
were merely copjectural amounts, and If found too
small, were invariably extended, and all eXpend
lures covered 10y additional appropriations" Mr..
Morrison then proceeds 10 draw an argument IN ia
vor OF the wisdom of his lettings, from the fact that
Hov. Noble subsequently prosecuted them vlgor-
Ously, up to the time when the State suspended
payment on the public works. After recapitu-
latng these reasons for his conduct, by way of
general summary of the grounds OF his defence,
Dir. Morrison proceeds to state that these Overlet
tngs, they were called, were referred to the Lee
glsature OF 1899 and 4O that the Legislature made
no oil Jectons TO them, but on the contrary empOw-
cred Messrs. Noble and Williams still to prosecute
them. &c
This : Mr.. Morrison avowa and defence lie
acknowledges having exceeded the appropriations of
the board, some 81 or $1,000 dollars. His argu-
mcnts in his defence various, and in the judy
meut OF the committee untenable IN whOe or IN
part. Your committee conceive, that the discre-
uonary power Of determining the amount oflettlngs
To be made, were vested IN the whole bOard, not IN
Mr. Morrison. And it would be sufficient answer
10 all OF Mr.. Morrsons reasoning on the eXpeden-
cy OF larger appropriation, to say that 1t not
made by the board and be had right make it
himself. The board prescribed the limits of his OPP
eraGons, and your committee conceive, that the
power delegated to him, was on the condition of
his not transcendng those limits. His doing
was breach Of the trust confded TO hun, and vo-
lation Of law. Your committee cannot countcn-
ance the doctrine that single member of the board
had right TO arrocate himself, the powers given
by law To the whole body. The committee do not
conceive that llr. Morrsous offence is any degree
mitigated by the opinions of his subordinate en-
gneers, or by what he calls the concurrent opn-
ion of all classes of community and of eminent pub
lie functonaries.' The community had spoken to
HIN IA the Jaw creating his Office, and until that
law was repealed or amended, he cannot plead IN
his Justification that they held TO him n different
language from that apparent IN the letter of the
statute. The eminent public functiOnares alluded
TO, are not specified but If they were, Your
mlttee cannot conceive that Their opinions could
Justify or excuse manifest violation of law
these overlettngs were. Ii is not alleged by Mr.
Morrison, that the lettings advertised by his pre-
deceSsor would have exceeded the appropriation,
al hough il Is mentioned that large lettings
advertised. Mr.. Morrison distinctly states that he
proceeded TO make The lettings advertised, and 9th
ers which had not been advertised by his predeces-
sor. ID his predecessors inccptIve acts would have
led 20 violation of the orders of the board 4 of
winch We have 10 evidence twas his duty not 10
have followed them out. The eXpedleucy of these
ovcrettings may also be Wen questioned. 1t is
well known that the of the State, for the
prosecution of these works, were limited by the
amount Of money annually obtained by the sales Of
her bonds. Ii was the business OF the board to take
into cons liberation the probable amount of means
10 bee thus realized within given period, and TO
regulate the expenditures the several lines that
the lettings should exceed the ability of the
state to pay. Mr.. Morrison was limited by the
board, and without due regard 90 the ability Of the
state TO pay, indicated the order OF the board
proceeds To make unauthorized lettings, to the
i
of the board had acted in the manner, the
cess OF lettings, over and above the probable
Of the state, that short period of SIX months dur
ing which he acted, would have amounted 10 SS2S,
coo or Sl,1J6 OGO IN one year. rs To the plea set
up by Mr.. Morrison, that the amounts appropriated
oy the board were conf ectural, 1t may well be
sWered, shat conjectural positive, they de-
signed TO fix limit To his operations.
II the excess had been small, this plea might have
availed hun, but the amount overlet large
a 10 leave reason 10 believe, that Mr.. Morrison
designed To have proper regard TO the bounds pre-
scribed for HIM BY the board. These lettings were
not harm ss IN their consequences, as the" added
80 the amount of the Indebtedness OF the Sta;e to
contractors, and resulted IN increased emission
OF treasury notes, winch stopping the sources of
state revenue, and operating injurious on the
rency OF the country. We can by no means admit
Mr. MORRISON last plea of the subsequent tacit
sent Of tine board and the Legislature, TO his Illegal
acts ; wrong act "a mot always be undone. and
the Legislature and the board might well feel
pugulucc 10 repuGiate the contracts made, by
accredited agent Of the State, with her citizens.
Your committee feel we'll assured that the state
would even now be pleased 10 be relieved from the
o5. CATION of those contracts, could be done with
a cue regard 10 publ.c faith, and the honor OF the
State.
Your committee believe that these acts have re-
suited Inluuously 10 the interest Of the State
that heavy damages could not fail to be assessed
against the commissioner, and therefore recommend
that his official bond be put IN SUIT.
GENERAL LONG.
One of the charges against this gentleman, is that
Of overlettng.
The following is a copy Of the first order Of the
board under which he acted
Under the proceeding of the board Of Internal I'm
provclneut, Of 10Th March. le36, Is The following