The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-07
AN ARRESTED ARGUMENT.

Developments in the White river sewer
business have reached a point where Mr..
Sterling r. Holt stands before the public
charged by Fulmer & Seibert, contractors
with having received $1,000 for his efforts
or influence in securing from the Board of
Public Works a change in the specifications
of their contract which they greatly de-
sired The vital question is not what Mr..
Holt did with this money, if he received it,
but whether he received it. If he did re-
ceive it the public, taking cognizance of his
relations to other city officials, and of the
quarters in which he must have used influ-
ence to bring about the desired change in
the contract can form its own conclusions
as to what he did with it. These conclu-
sions may be conjectural, but they will be
interesting. Among the admitted facts in
the case are:
First-The desired change in the specif-
cations, after being at first and for some
time refused by the city engineer, was final
ly made by the Board of Public Works
his recommendation. If the change had not
been made the charge that Mr.. Holt
ceived 5000 for his influence in having it
done would be absurd on its face. The fact
that the change was made gives color to
the charge.
Second-City Engineer Jeup admits that
Mr.. Holt came to him to urge that the
change in the specifications be made, and
that as a result of such visit he changed
his mind and advised the Board of Public
Works to make the change. We quote from
nv Tau,sc cTatap1apt in the
Mr. Holt came to me once and requested
that the modification be made if possible,
as the Union Trust Company, in which he
was stakeholder, was furnishing the
found that a modification of two feet would
not jeopardze the value of the work in the
least. This set forth in letter to the city
attorney. after a consultation with the
Board of Public Works.
If Mr. Holt visited the city engineer to
urge a change in the specifications it is
fair to presume that he visited the presi-
dent of the Board of Public Works for the
same purpose Before Mr.. Holt took hold
of the matter neither the board nor the city
engineer had shown the least disposition to
maketshe desired change. After his visits
they evidently agreed that if the city at
torney would say it could be done legally
they would do it. Hence the correspond
ence between the city engineer and city at
torney, following which the change was
made
Third-Mr. Holt does not deny that he as
sisted in bringing about the change in the
specifications, though he treats his services
as of little Importance We quote from his
interview in the News:
did you help to secure change in the
specifications in the severe"
Not particularly. 1t was done by mu-
tual consent at a public meeting of the
Board of Public Works
Mr. Holt says he did lot help in the mat
ter particularly" He is too modest. He
should not put so small valuation on in
fuence that was promptly effective. He
says it was ''done by mutual consent at a
public meeting of the Board of Public
Works" Mutual consent of whom? Evil
IDENTIFY of himself. the city engineer and the
president of the board, who is the board.
Fourth-It is in evidence that the Union
Trust Company, in which Mr. Holt is a
| stakeholder furnished the contractors with
the money to do the work. If the trust
company lost by the contract Mr.. Holt
would be a loser and if it made anything
he would share in the profit. He is also
city official being member of the Board
of Park Commissioners, appointed by
Mayor Taggart. The city charter says:
No officer of such city shall, either direct
| ~ or indirectly be a party TO or in any
manner Interested in any contract or agree
ment either with such city for any matter,
cause or thing. or by which any liability
| or indebtedness is in any way or manner
| created or passed upon authorized or APP
proved by any officer, board or employe of
such city.
! Violation of this provision is made
penal offense. 1t is matter of public no
toriety that Mr.. Holt is both an officer of
the city government and a stakeholder in
the Union Trust Company. In working to
save the contractors from loss he was
working TO save the trust company that Is