The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-08-05

kinds OF work. lie was not necessarv for
tnem 70 give an exact estimate OF the
amount TO De done, as much was not really
under their control He did not think.
therefore, there was any force to the objec-
Ton, as the advertisement conformed SUBJ
stantiallv to the ordinance
z. Objection that the work was not
let 10 the lowest responsible bidder in each
tnree classes separately is not important be-
cause the word contract does noe naces-
sarily refer TO the three classes distinctly.
Inc contract let as a whole could not be
illegal tor the terms of the ordinance do
not specify as TO that. 1t is for the COM
missioners to decide whether the aggregate
nlos OF any one party may not be best for
the state Another reason why the ipiunc-
lion would not lie on this head Is that the
plaintlns, in appearing as tax payers, must
SHOW injury, and IL in point of fact the state
pas lower contract In the aggregate, than If
the contract was let separately, then the
plaintiffs are actually benefited.
3. Objection that the commissioners have
a right 70 reject any aud all bids. This claim
Is certainly illegal. They can not arbitrarily
reject bids; but even that is no ground for
an injunction because every man Is supposed
TO know the law. He understands that hi-
oio wnen made is to be respect ed
and be can not, in a case of this kind wait
TILL the BIDS are In and have been opened,
court.
A. That the bid was not let to the lowest
responsible bidder. While tie court does
net feel able before the facts to decide upon
this point, and is of the opinion that a bid
In the aggregate might be the cheapest,
stlll, as the parties are presumed to be
equally responsible, and the interests of the
state require the contract to be let as
cheaply as possible, the demurrer on this
further investigated.
D. objection that two members of the
COMMITTEES were or were to become inter
esteo In the company to which the award
was given. This is hardly OF any force in
law, because the ordinance does not exclude
them on this ground. They might be inter-
ested merely as creditors, and still that
could be as plsusibly urged against them.
o. objections that bids were not opened
puoiicly and in the presence of parties
oidoing, but privately, to the exclusion OF
interested bidders. There is nothing in
TINS Co warrant any injunction, as the law
| makes no provision on that head.
| z. Objection as to alleged fraud and collu-
| snop: While 1t can be OF no consequence
what conversation was had between the
Journal Company and the clerk touching
the contract, as the advertisement specified
allegation that the Sentinel's bid was
changed, would, il sustained by facts, show q
want of power in the com missioners to act. II
Is Intended by the ordinance that there shall
DC no chance for favoritism. The Judge here
referred to Supreme Court decision of Ohio
In mandate case where similar principles
were involved.
| OVERRULED.
| The court, therefore, decided that as there
were two allegations OF much importance
one that the work had not been awarded tC
the lowest bidder, aud another that fraud
and collision had neen used, he thought ii
| expedient to have the case proceed regu
larly to hearing, and would, therefore
Overrue the defendants demurrer. II
will be observed that five of the
seven allegations in the complaint are
thrown out as of no force in law, and the
prosecution will be practically narrowed
down to the two forming the ground of the
ruling of court. The case, thus amended
will now come up in the same court on il.
merits, at which time affidavits will be pre-
seDted and evidence heard. In order to have
the question settled as soon as possible, the
lawyers caucused on the spot, and by mu
tual agreement of court and counsel The
case was set for next Saturday morning at
| o'clock,