Indiana State sentinel., 1848-03-30
Veto of the BiiI for the relief Of Jesse
BEARD, and Elias l.. Beard.
To the Senate 4:


body, entitled An net for the relief of Jesse Beard
aud Elias L. Beard" is herewith returned. My sig
nature it has been withheld for the following
The preamble states that one Joseph Rener entered
into contract the 18th of June, 1S39 with the
Board Of Internal Improvement, for the construction
OF section five of The Wabash and Erie Canal-that
Rener, with the of the acting commissioner Of
the canal, transferred the contract to the Messrs
Beards-that by the contract the State was bound to
pay for the work in par funds and that the Boards
undertook IT under that expectation-that under the
general suspension, their work was stopped-tbat on
the resumption of the work. they, by the advice of
William ]. Ball, engineer Of the canal. prosecuted
1t under the expectation that the State would comply
with the contract-and that the State having no par
funds, the Boards received all their pay in canal
scrip, which had become deprecated.
The bill then requires that the Governor shall ap-
point a commissioner to try the claim, who shall ap-
point day for the commencement OF the trial in La
fayette-that he shall witnesses. and examine
them touching the matters to be inves,igated-thnt
the Governor shall appoint person to act as counsel
for the State the investigation, the amount of
whose fee shall be fixed by the decision Of the
missioner-that upon the commissioner awarding
against the State, and in favor of the claimants
he shall certify to the Auditor Of State and the rea
surer shall pay IT, An appeal is allowed to the cir
cult court, or to the new y organized court OF COM
pleas of Tippecanoe county.
Stripped Of all irrelevant matter, the complaint in
Drlet the contractors State unable,
In consequence of her PROSTATE credit, to pay them
for their work in par funds, required by their
ruct-that instead Of abandoning IT, and giving the
State opportunity of employing others, they
might have done, they went on ald finished it, re-
ceived the States Promissory notes for the amount
and passed them awny, while the State has since
either taken them up at par, or has made ample
provision for doing so.
And now the question is, shall the State besides
redeeming her paper at its face and according to its
terms, be required to pay the contractors the loss
they sustained by bargaining 1t away at less than
par!
Is an individual debtor required by law to do so
And If not, ought the State, struggling she now is
to pay her debts, to be held TO a strcter rule
Surely not for the receiving the scrip under pro-
test even If made-a protest made to State officer,
who could not change his in consequence, but
was compelled by law to pay it over, protest
protest, cannot alter the Nor can the advice
OF Mr.. Ball TO the contractors, TO proceed with their
work-nor can his opinion given TO them, that the
State would pay them in par funds, (if such opinion
was ever given,) make the State liable.
lSince the above written, Mr. Ball authorizes
direct denial that he ever gave such an opinion
EDS.
Such an opinion even il given, at that dark period
Of the States ml>forunes, could not have been De
eved and even if believed MIR. Ball had author
ity thus To bind the State.
But decisive as regard the above objection to be-
the precedent be established by the passage Of this
bill. makes q far greater one The same reason
would require the State to make up the difference to
every other contractor who has received scrip for his
claim.
Efforts have been made TO convince that there
distinction between the present claim, and others
where deprecated scrip has been received but with
out effect. can difference in principle and
the slight difference in form would be with
far less stride hereafter than that taken to pass the
present bill. But if the amount of this depreciation
is made up the of all the other contractors,
what will be the result! To answer this question, it
Is necessary to the amount of scrip issued.
The amount Of 50 aud $50 scrip paid to contract
ors on our public works. when the system was broken
down and the credit Of the State gone, 81 800,
600. The scrip issued on the canal east of Lafay-
ette S42l, ,76l %, and that issued on it
of that place, to SSl9 9S0-making in all S2,-
TAI TAI %. am informed from reliable source, that
the first description of scrip deprecated a
ter its issue, from 53 to 60 the dollar, and
the second and third description 10 about 40 cents
the dollar. This makes a total of depreciation, of
about thirteen hundred thousand dollars, which the
State (besdes meeting the scrip at par,) would, by
carrying out the principles of the present BILL be
obliged hereafter TO pay out of her exhausted trea-
surY.
But even this is not all. BY the same principle or
easy consequence from it, a heavy and still n-
creasing amount of interest," would also have to be
/ paid OH that depreciation.
/
ers on the public works. the farmers, and others who
received this scrip from the contractors it only
eves those who received it from the Sate-the con-
tractors themselves.
The only way in which the aborer and the rest Of
the community will be affected by it, (after having
suffered their own share of the depreciation) will be
to be taxed to make up the loss sustained by the
wealthier contractors-and that, too when is be-
eved that in nearly all the contractors paid off
this very scrip to the real sufferers al par and
quenty suffered loss whatever. Those who really
suffered (Or at least who suffered the most) will be
injured not benefited, by the principles anctoned by
this bill. while the others who paid off their debts
with the scrip, and at par, will reap all the advan-
tage. Is this Justice!
But why is an investigation necessary! Not 10
settle the facts. The nature of the contract, the
amount Of scrip paid to these claimants the extent
! OF Its depreciation, &C., are well known. The i'm
portant facts, whatever they are susceptible of
Office or record proof Nothing remains to be decid-
ed, but the principle referred to- viz: shall allow
ance be made by the State to contractors for deprec-
aed scrip! On this question, | have frankly ex-
pressed my opinion and if the Legislature should
dissent from H. 1t Is far BETTER in my judgment, that
they calculate the difference, and to make the allow
at once from the Treasury. than 10 incur the heavy
expense of protracted investigation, the OF
long trial. for the purpose Of ascertanng facts al
ready well known.
Another objection to this bill, have already re-
marked upon in another communication. So many
bills have already passed. yet before the Legis-
lature contemplating heavy disbursement from the
Treasury for individual claimants, that there is great
danger of its disabling the authorities of State from
meeting other indispensable engagements and espe-