The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1894-10-19
CONTRACTS HELD UP
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MADE CO.
DEFENDANTS IN THE SUITS.
John VI. Kaehn and Other Citizens the
Observation-Disclosures of the Day
Gibson Case Continued.

The revolt OF the taxpayers against the
high-handed methods OF the County Com
missioners in their utter disregard of law
and every consideration of right and JUS
tice has come at last. 1t came yesterday
in the way of a suit filed by four citizens
and taxpayers to enjoin the two bridge
companies recently awarded contracts from
proceeding with the work under the con-
tracts secured from the disgraceful Board
of Commissioners Of Marion county. The
revolt has been so long coming that the
commissioners riot in the license which
they assumed in their official acts. The
climax was reached by them in the letting
of the contracts for the bridges over White
river at First street and Pleasant run at
Washington street. In this instance the
Journals expose OF their illegal letting OF
the contract to bidders who were not the
lowest responsible bidders is still fresh in
the memory of the taxpayers whose money
is to be expended in building the bridges.
The bids showed for themselves that other
firms bid lower than the ones TO whom the
contracts were let. The statutes specific
ally require that the County Commission
ers should let the contract TO the lowest
responsible bidder. There could be no
doubt about the responsibility of the
Brown-Ketcham firm, which was 5000
lower in its bid for the First-street bridge
than the firm which received the award.
In the face of this Specific statute the
commissioners awarded the contract to
their especial favorite, the wrought lron
Bridge Company of Dayton, O.. The grand
Jury should have investigated the case
Now four taxpayers ask the courts to In
tervene and compel the commissioners TO
perform their duty aCcOrQlHR 10 the
statutes defining them. An injunction suit
was brought yesterday to prevent the
Company and Toledo Bridge Company from
further proceeding with the execution Of
the contracts entered into for the erec-
ton OF the two bridges named. Two sepa-
rate actions were begun, one against the
Toledo company and the other against the
which the commissioners were Joined as
defendants. The complaints were filed in
the Circuit Court. but no temporary re-
straining order was issued. The complaints
took the course of ordinary actions. and
summonses were issued for each of the
defendants. When the case comes for a
hearing there may be enough evidence to
furnish a grand jury Indictment.
John NJ. Kaehn, Peter Gruner. Henry A.
K%lintworth and Henry Stumph are the
graph of both complaints, to show the
interest of the plaintiffs in the matter,
AYERS that the plaintiffs are residents and
taxpayers of Marion county, and then al
leges that they make complaint in behalf
Of themselves and the other taxpayers of
In fS fGu fhe publicstion of the notice of the
commissioners intention TO let the con-
tract. This publication was made On Aug.
Is, and announced that the commissioners
would receive sealed proposals for the con-
struction of the two bridges, contracts for
which were afterwards let, and specified
that each bid must be accompanied by suf-
fcient bond with at least two resident
s~ureties. The notice announced that the
bids would be received on Sept. q, and
A. 41A~ 49, 49, ~
fact, received on such day and opened.
The plaintiffs then allege that the 10Th day
of September was not a day during the
and that the September term OF the court
interviewed between the time Of publication
were received. Tren the complaints several
ly allege that bids were submitted by the
Toledo company and the Wrought Iron
pared by themselves; that on Oct. 5 the
commissioners pretended to accept the bids
of these companies and, signed pretended
contracts with the companies.
II the second paragraph of each of the
complaints, after the usual formal aver
ments, it is alleged that. the commissioners
did not have plans and specifications for
either of the bridges prepared and on file
in the auditors Office, and the statement
to that effect in the published notice of in
astounding allegation that between the date
of publication of the notice and the time
set for receiving bids, numerous persons
who contemplated offering bids on the
work applied at the auditors office and
could not find, nor were they shown the
plans and specifications said to be on file in
the office. The complaints then aver the
pretended acceptance of the bids and pre-
tended signing Of the contracts: Each of
the complaints concludes as follows:
said plaintiffs allege that said proceed
ings Of said Board of Commissioners, with
out plans and specifications, prepared and
presented Icy said board. and in receiving
said bid from said Wrought Iron Bridge
Company Cor Toledo Bridge Company as
aforesaid, and in entering into said con-
tract with said Wrought Iron Bridge Com
building OF said bridge were in all things
wholly Illegal and void"
The plaintiffs ask that the contracts be
annulled and set aside, and that each Of
the bridge companies be enjoined from pro-
ceeding with the work of building the
bridges.
At 4 o'clock yesterday afternoon Com
missioner Reinecke said the summons had
not been served upon him, though he had
been about the courthouse all day. He said
he did not know the allegations contained
in the complaints. He had seen the publi-
cation in the Journal announcing that the
suits were to be fled. but did not know
that they had been filed. A Journal re-
porter told Mr.. Reinecke that the COM
plants alleged that no plans and specifca-
tons for the work had been prepared by
the commissioners and left on file In the
auditors office as announced in the notice.
He was asked If this was true.
81 have nothing TO say about It," was the
answer.
Afterwards Mr.. Reinecke denied the truth
of that allegation, and said he did not care
to talk about the cases till they were
called for trial in the court.
|