The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-02-12
A HALF MILLION CLAIM
w. b. HOWARD. CONTRACTOR OF IN
DIANA's CAPITOL, SUES THE STATE.
Alleges He Lost 100000 Caused by
Arbitrary Changes OF the Archi-
tect and Commissioners.

William Il. Howard yesterday filed suit
In Room l, Superior Court, against the
State, asking damages in the sum of $780,,
OO0 This amount is to cover his loss in the
construction of the Statehouse, which he
claims was occasioned by arbitrary changes
in the plans and specifications by the COM
missioners and architect without proper
compensation to him for the increased cost
occasioned by the changes. The whole
complaint is based upon the charge that
the requirements of the commissioners in
the work of building the Capitol were not
in accordance with the specifications and
plans submitted to bidders for their
guidance.
The complaint recites the fact of the pas
sage of a law March IA, 1877, for the build
ing OF new state capitol and providing
for commission to superintend the work
and also providing that the building should
not cost to exceed $2,00OOOO. This commits
sion was appointed and an architect was
selected. The plans were drawn up and
specifications We're prepared on which bids
were asked. The successful bidders were
Kanmacher & Denig, whose bid of $780,
t2l.O5 was accepted In August, 1S7S
The contractors were required to give a
bond of $4,000 for the successful compile
ton OF the work, and William Il. Howard
the plaintiff, became their bondsman.
In October following the letting of the
contract the work begun and con-
tinued until the fall of 1879, when the part
ners had a disagreement and were about
to throw up the contract, thus leaving their
Dondsman to pay the loss. Denig was not
a moneyed man, but Howard made ar
rangements with the commissioners TO pur-
chase Kanmacher's interest in the contract
and proceed with the work with Denig as
his partner
1t Is claimed that the architect at all
times failed TO furnish specifications for
the work as rapidly as they were needed
and that TO prevent loss and serious inter-
ruption of the work the contractors had to
proceed at times on the general plans and
without the detailed specifications. Some
OF the work thus done had to be torn out
a1terward, causing a great loss. Large
quantities Of material were ordered In &C.
cordance with the general specifications to
be worked up according to the details after
1T reached the grounds great deal or
this material was rejected and material
that was much more costly was substituted
ThiS was after the material was on the
ground. Protests were filed against all Of
these charges, but the plaintiff was COM
PEELED to so on with the work In 1884
Denig withdrew from the work. leaving
Howard to complate the building which he
9ld' ne says, at a loss OF S25l, 80, which
ne was compelled to pay In excess of the
amount received from the state
Ihere is a general claim that the architect
IN submitting the pl&asl and specifications
Tor the building also furnished a large
amount of data to cost CT labor material
ana otner items which was incorrect and
misleading. The plaintiff claims that If the
contractors Lad known Of the changes thai
were to be made in the specifications the
bld would have beeI, Sdlly S50c, 600 more than
it WIS.
The complaint sets out large number
OIL the principal changes i'm the specifica-
t ts which caused the loss. They are as
August, 1s79-Change in basement. ASHER
to rock-faced work, S17, OS4
Feb. ~. 1SN-Change of rock-faced asher
in basement. $739. 20.ses
Nov: 20. 1sS0-Change in. outside cut stone
NV: 20. 1SS0-Change in marble columns
and plinths in corridors. $50, 900.
Nov 90 1Ss0-Change in granite columns
in dome. $1,000.
Aug. q, 1ss1-Changing rivets in Orders
ana work on cornerStOnes 81 323.2S.
Sept. rs. Exchanges in cut stone over
main entrance, additional doors, trusses
etc, So 423.03.
May 10, 1SS3-Changes in woodwork and
plastering, $37212.20.
July 3. 1ss3-Changes in lathing, s4,22625
July 3, 1SS3-Seventy-two alterations in
steps, cut stone. floors, attic. Stairways
brickwork, ironwork, copper inside finish,
etc. sf1,7Oi.14
July 3. 1ss3-Changes in plumbing and car
Rejection of material which conformed
to the specifications and plans which
bid was made, $4,000
Rejection of cut stone after having been
accepted before cutting, $4,000.
Cement used in excess OF amount usually
required in mortar, $4,000
Rejection of brick which were claimed to
be equal TO best sewer. brick, $25, 900.
Refusal of the board to allow contractor
io dee of bu dTdkeleF $1,000 % na'hs material
Compelling contractor to raise walls even
ly all around and refusal to permit the
walls to be built higher ut one point than
another during construction, entailing
constant moving of machinery and men,
$4,000
April s. 1sS5-Subsutution of hollow tile
for brick arches in ceilings, $500.
April 20. dissatisfaction of hollow tile
for brick in second-story ceilings. sll.5OO.
Aug. 6. 1SS5-SubstitutiOn OF iron for wood
lath i'm many parts. $f,62S.M
Aug. IA. 1sS5-Chapges in partitions, ST.
Oct. 10, 1sS5-Increase in size of gas pipes
Oct 10. disclosing doors and windows
not provided in contract, $500.
Dec. H. 1SS5-Substitution of marble for
slate treads in stairway, $3.50.
Total, $360114l1. sf
Following this is a claim for $500 600 on
account of loss in having money tied up
which should have been paid to the con-
tractors long before it was 1t is claimed
that the provisions of the act providing for
the payment of all but 10 per cent. of the
value of the work done on the architects
estimates perverted by arbitrary
rulings of the commissioners that there was
a great loss. Instead of making actual esti-
mates of the work done the board set an
arbitrary value on the stOnework in the
basement first. second and third floors and
basement and first floor were>very much
undervalued thus compelling the contrac-
tors TO do a great deal more work than
they should have done TO earn an estimate
equai to the annual receipts of the special
tax for the first two or three years. COM
pelling the contractors 10 invest money in
material and work that could not be col
this account the contractors had to borrow
large sums of money and pay interest or
it, The loss on this account is estimated
at 100000
The building was completed within a few
thousand dollars of the amount appro-
priated.
Why POttage Wants Divorce.
Edward Pottage yesterday filed suit for
complaint shows that the man is a much
abused husband. He says his wife calls
him vile names. curses and swears at him,
and at one time threatened to shoot him.
She has recently, on divers occasions,
says the complaint. driven him from the
house. She struck him in the face MAX
ing his nose bleed on one occasion, and
backing his eye at another time. Twice,
III