The Indianapolis journal., 1883-02-05
ARE WE TO HAVE REPUTATION.

ARE WE TO HAVE REPUTATION.
A subject deemed of sufficient importance
to be referred to by the Governor in his
message to the General Assembly was
claim against lie State that is liable to be-
come cause celebre by reason of the scam
dalous manner in which private rights and
the credit of the State have been imperiled
by the action of the representatives OF the
Democratic party. What Governor Porter
had to say with respect to the John Martin
claim was greeted with applause, but the
claim itself has been thus far treated with any
thing but justice by the States representatives.
The facts in relation to the matter are as fol-
lows: Martin entered into a contract to fur
nish the brickwork Of the new Insane Hos
pital according to a certain specified manner
of measurement This manner of measure
ment was chosen by the board, was set out
in the advertisements for bids was again set
out in the specifications for the work which
were submitted to the bidders and was
then set forth in the contract. Martin
was paid on monthly estimates OF
the work made by the architect as the work
progressed. When the work was finished,
the last monthly estimate was given Martin
and he was requested to receipt as in
full payment He refused to do so, because
he said the architect had not estimated his
work according to the rule specified in the
contract. After a delay of three months
Martin was paid the amount of the last esti-
mate without being required to receipt in
\
full payment, and the board of commission
ers passed an exparte resolution that Martin
had been paid in full.
| Martin requested full and final measure
ment of his work. The board refused it. He
then measured the work himself, according
to the plans and found that there was due
him $67 805.67. He presented an account
and demand for this amount, with interest
amounting in all to $80010.72 This ac-
count was, on Dec. II, 1880, by the board re-
ferred to the State Architect, Adolf Scherrer,
with instructions to estimate the number OF
bricks in the wall according to the rules OF
measurement adopted by the claimant
On Feb. s, 1881, Mr.. Scherrer reported find
ing due Martin SAC, 73646. The claimant
then agreed to take $45000 if it were paid
him without further delay, and the board
| sent a memorial to the General Assembly of
1881 stating the facts The claim was put in
the specific appropriation bill and passed the
House, but the Senate failed to act upon the
measure. Martin then demanded warrant
for the amount due him: It was refused,
mandate on the board to measure the work
according to the contract and audit his claim
and issue a warrant for the amount due.
| The record shows that several sue
cessive demurrers of defendants were
overruled, and that they were ruled
to answer. Pending this rule to
answer the board issued its warrant
to the plaintiff for SAG, 1856 46, and by agree
ment the cause was dismissed
There is no money in the treasury that can
be applied to the payment of this warrant
legally drawn according to law, and the
claimant asks an appropriation for that pur-
pose. He has established his claim in the
legal manner before the proper tribunal, the
board appointed by the act of March IL, 1875
He holds the certificate of the State indebted
ness. He could have no more rights if he
had the judgment of the Supreme Court He
is creditor of the State in good faith. He
has given the State an honest job of work 1t
now remains for this Legislature to
say whether it will honor the warrant which
it authorized its servant the board, to draw,
or whether it will repudiate it. John Mar
tin is Democrat and an employer of nearly
1000 men. The board which issued this
warrant was composed of five Democrats and
one Republican. Three Democrats and one
Republican voted for the allowance of this
warrant Will the Democratic majority of
this General Assembly repudiate the acts of
its own partisans?
If the Democracy contemplate career of
reputation in this State, now that they
have the CONTROL we recommend that they
begin on some one else than a workingman
who has mortgaged his property to furnish
bricks to the State. 1t might not be amiss
to further suggest that if the State expects
honest dealing in the matter of public build
ings, it had better set the example of carry
ing out the contract deliberately made.
=------
THE judiciary committee Of the Senate
took the same view of DR.. Fletchers bill as
did the Journal-doubted its constitution