The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-12-13
THE HAssELMAN CONTRACT.
County Attorney WOollen's Stsstement Of the
Misunderstanding Between the Firm
and the Commissioners,

W. H Morrison, of the job-printtng establish
ment of o. H. Hasseman, has been endeavor-
ing to persuade the county comm issioners
to take the sos worth OF supplies
which that body claimed had been
sent in without order from them and without
warrant or contract. Mr.. Morrison exhibited
contract dated in April last and terminating in
April, 1854. This the board held not to be a
contract, because contracts, according to the
law, must be made at the December sitting of
the court. The discussion was warm, but the
commissioners remained firm, Mr.. OstermeyeF
as spokesman, saying that nobody but the com
mlssioners had any right to order goods, and that
the paperheld by Mr.. Hasselman was under the
ruling of three conrts, not contract. LET me
give yoI a brief history Of The Hasseman con-
tract" said County Attorney Woollen. "Alopg
in November, 1882, John c. Shoemaker filed a
proposition to furnish stationery for this county
for less than $1,000, and to give a
bond that he would do it. He
claimed at the same time that
this extension OF HasselInan's contract
was in violation OF law, and that the act of 1875
was an existing law of this State. Tie board
of commissioners referred the question to me-
and after careful examination of the evidence,
advised the commissioners that it Law,
and that they ought TO proceed to advertise and
that law. They were about to act upon my ad-
vice, and so gave it ont. Hasselman hearing of
the fact, came and protested. They were dis
posed not to heed his protest, and at once he
went into the superior Court and commenced an
action by way OF injunction to enjoin the board
from viola ting his contract. An agreed case
was made, The only question being in issue was
whether the law of 1875 was an existing law of
the State. The hTiefed ny Mr.. A. G.
Harris for Hasselman, and by myself for the
board. and the court sustained the law, holding
1t to be valid, and that Hasselman had no cause
of action. From that Hasselman appealed TO
the Supreme Court In the meantime / found
that there was case from Madison county
Older than ours, involving the very same Ques-
ton. By agreement of counsel that case was
the Superior Court of this county, and held the
law to be valid. Now, that being so, there is but
one thing for the commissioners to do, and that
is to observe the law. The highest courts in the
State have held that Mr.. Hasselman's is not
contract. Now, this printing and stationery con-
tract has been costing the county from 80 900
to S11 900 year for the last three years. The
superstition is that the county can save from
$1,000 TO 1000 year, and they intend to try
TO do so. am told the contract can be taken at
less than SIS 900"
The commissioners agreed to let Mr.. Hassel-
mans bill for S703 lie over until after the relet-
ting, which Will take place on Saturday.
Mr.. Morrison explained to the reporter yester-
day as follows: During the year when the CON
tract amounted to about the figures given by Mr..
Woollen, the large amount was caused by the
Legislature making an entire change in the sYs-
TEN of probate books and blanks, compelling the
clerk to buy about thirty-five new forms of
blanks and from seven to eleven new records
board of health laws, and causiL an additional
and unusual expenditure at THAI time of nearly
$1,000"
Mr.. Hasselman declined saying anything