The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-06
Contractors Charge that He Got the
Plans Changed for Them for
the Sum of $4,000.
WHAT BECAME OF THE CASH?
COMPANION PIECE TO OTHER AD-
MINIsTRATIoN SCANDALS.
Parties Concerned on tIse Administers
ton Side Enter DeniaIs-BOard
VIII Act This Morning.


as the expose yesterday morning of the
scandal that has grown out of the construc-
ton Of the Nhite-river interceptor and the
embarrassing situation in which the disclo-
sure places the administration The most
scandalous feature is the fact that it is
charged that Sterling r. Holt the mayors
bosom friend a member of the Board of
Park Commissioners by virtue Of the may
or's appointment, and the all-round coun-
selor and adviser in affairs municipal, was
paid $1,000 for his influence in securing a
modification in the plans for the sewer that
would make the work less difficult for the
contractors. The suit in which the contrac-
tors expected to make Mr.. Holt dis
gorge was not filed yesterday, but the affi-
davits on which it was to be based were
shown and the facts published yesterday.
over year ago. after the contractors
had proceeded with the work as far as Fail
creek and Senate avenue, they found that
they could not proceed further, as lines
had been struck at such low level that
the work was greatly hindered by the inflow
of water, and they asked City Engineer
Jeup to modify the details of the work so
that the sewer might be raised two or three
feet. Mr.. Jeup would not consent. In such
cases it is customary for the Board of Pub
lie Works to intercede, and on the instruc-
tons of the board the engineer mobiles the
plans. Finding that argument with the en-
gineer was useless. the af1davits made by
Royal Robinson, secretary, and L. A, Full
mer, of the firm of Fulmer & Seibert re-
cite that after many futile efforts to Sc
cure notifications so that the sewer could
be raised, and after two visits to the mayor
who agreed to see what could be done
changes for 5000. 1t is charged that Royal
Robinson drew the check for that amount
and went. with Mr.. Siebert, to the State
Bank and drew the money. He
then went with Mr.. Seibert to the
office of Mr.. Holt, where the latter was
closeted, and the inference is that the
money was paid over A few days later
it is charged. the engineer recommended
that the de .ails of the work be modified
and the board ordered it done, on receiving
letter from the city attorney stating there
were no legal objections.
MR. HOLTS DENIAL.
Sterling r. Holt said yesterday that there
was nothing in the story, and declared en-
phatically that it was not true. He said
that he had helped F'ulmer & Seibert to
get money to carry on the work. He said
that he did not help particularly to get the
plans modified but that it was done by
mutual consent at a public meeting of the
Board of Public Works. He declared there
had never been a financial transaction that
could have been a basis for the hve-thou-
sand-dollar story.
Under the practice that is said to be fol-
lowed in the contract work of the city no
notifications are made by the city engineer
in any plans except upon the direction Of
the Board of Public Works, which first for
titles itself with an opinion from the city
attorney as to the legality of the proposed
change. This system divides the respon-
sibility. In the interceptor case the city at
torney held that the board could order a
modification asked by the contractors, pro-
viding it was simply change of details, y
not a change in the general character of the
work. The papers in the case show that on
Sept "a, 1886, the engineer wrote the city
attorney as follows:
I'm the construction of the White-river
interceptor sewer the contractors the Full
mer-Selbert Company, have found more wa
ter than they expected. The contrac-
tors have appeared before the Board of
Public Works to have the grade OF the
sewer raised. l find that by changing the
method of crossing Fall creek at Mississippi
that the bottom of the sewer can be raised
about two feet without in any way lessen
ing the efficiency of the sewer. Such change
would make it possible to secure better
sewer. / wish to know whether such a
change can legally be made under the speci-
fications. | inclose you herewith a copy of
the specifications for the work"
City Attorney Curtis wrote Mr.. Jeup two
days later as follows:
I'm response to your communication of
Sept. "A, l beg leave to say that if you, as
an engineer, would hold that the change
of grade asked for, in the construction OF
the White river interceptor sewer, IS mere
ly 4 change o. alteration in the detail in
the construction of the work which is made
advisable by the failure of the contractor
TO do the work as shown on the plans, then
the Board of Public Works has the right
to make such change. l herewith return
papers left with me.
on the strength of the city attorneys
opinion as to the legal phase of the case,
it is claimed, the plans were modified some
DAYS later and deduction of some $500
i'm the contract price was made because
with the sewer raised two feet the con-
tractor would have less excavation to do
At the point where the level was raised
TWO feet the bottom of the sewer was
twenty-five feet under the ground.
THE DEMAND ON HOLT.
Robinson charges that last month, about
a wear after the 5000 was paid over to
secure the modification of the plans, he
made a demand on Holt for the return of
the 5000. and that Holt admitted that he
had received the money, but did not see
how he could get the money together
again"
1t is common talk that after Fulmer &
Seibert first asked to have the plans modi-
fed the restrictions placed on them by the
city officials grew more stringent than be-
fore. the evident intention being to bring
them to terms. They had at first demurred
against the demand. After Hollis inter-
cession, it is related, the inspectors gave
but little attention to the sewer.
City Engineer Jeup was quoted as saying
that Mr.. Holt went to him while the re-
quest for a change of the plans was un-
der consideration and asked that the modi-
heations be made if possible, as the Union
Trust Company. in which he was a stock
holder, was furnishing the money for the
work If this is correct Mr.. Holt may have
been violating Section Z of the charter,
which says that no official shall be interest
ed in any contract or agreement with the
city, directly or indirectly. Nj. "A. Down
ing. president of the Board of Public
Works. says that the trust company has
an interest in the work.
Mayor Taggart said yesterday that he
had heard OF the charge against Mr.. Holt
and the alleged payment of 5000 to secure
his influence to have plans modified, last
Saturday, when Mr.. Fumer went to him.
| told him OF the transaction and said that
the firm intended to bring suit. The mayor
says that he replied that he had no objec-
/ 4.