The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-10-08
WHY THE MONEY WAS DEMANDED
BACK.

| Among other inquiries to which the inter-
ceptor sewer scandal has given rise is, why
did Fulmer and Seibert, the contractors,
demand a return of the IS. 600 paid to Ster-
| ling r. Holt year ago? The common sup
position has been that they did so because
Holt did not carry out his agreement, or, as
some have put it, did not deliver the goods.
Yet as a matter of fact it is known that
soon after he received the $1,000 from Full
mer and Seibert the change in the specih-
cations which they desired, and which pre-
vious to that time had been refused, was
made upon the joint recommendation and
approval of the mayor, the city attorney,
the city engineer and the president of the
Board of Public Works. This being the
case. it could hardly be said that Holt did
not deliver the goods. He undertook for
S., 900 to have the change made, and it was
done. Therefore the theory that Fulmer
and Seibert demanded a return of the
money because Holt had not carried out his
agreement does not hold good.
The true explanation OF the matter is
this: F'ulmer and Seibert are individuals,
while the Fulmer-Seibert Company is a
corporation. The company had the con-
tract to build the sewer. 1t borrowed the
money for the purpose from the Union
Trust Company, of which Mr.. Holt is
director. the trust company taking an as
signment of the contract as it's security.
In the contract between the Fulmer-Seibert
Company and the trust company it was
stipulated that the money was advanced
for the express purpose of constructing
sewer and that no part of it should be
diverted to or used for any other purpose.
When the contractors found it physically
impossible to carry out the contract ac-
cording to it's terms, and that they were
liable to be bankrupted they east about for
some means of relief. In their desperation
they went to see Holt, who, after a
ference with Mayor Taggart, told them he
would see what could be done about it. He
finally told them if they would pay him
S. 900 he could have the matter fixed SO
they would not lose SO much money. He
was told that under their contract with
the trust company they could not do this
that the money they were operating with
really belonged to the trust company, and
pany they could not use any part of it for
any purpose except to construct the sewer.
Holt said all right, it was 5000 or nothing.
In his desperation Mr.. Seibert, representing
the Fulmer-Seibert Company, paid the
$1,000 In accepting the money Mr.. Holt
was guilty of violation of the law as
city official, and of his duty to the trust
company, of which he is director. He ac-
cepted it knowing that it was a diversion
of money advanced by the trust company
for special purpose to an entirely differ
ent and improper purpose. Finally. when
the F'ulmex- Seibert Company became bank
rupt its attorneys determined to recover
the money which had been paid to Holt. In
the eye of the law it was an asset that be-
longed to the Fulmer-Seibert Company or
to it's creditors, because it had been di-
verified from a specific purpose and misap-
piled. The demand upon Holt for the re-
turn of the money was not made in the
name of Fulmer and Seibert, but in the
name of the Fulmer-Seibert Company. The
suit which was held over Hollis head and
the threatened filing of which threw him
into a cold sweat and brought Mayor Tag
CART and City Controller johnson post haste
to his relief, was to have been filed in the
name of the F'ulmer-Seibert Company The
money which has been refunded is for the
benefit of the creditors of that company.
of whom the Union Trust Company is the
largest. Thus it appears that the demand
upon Holt for the return of the money was
not because he had not carried out his
agreement regarding the change in the
specifications. The record shows that he
did carry out his agreement. The demand
was made because the money which was
wrongfully paid to Holt and received by
him with full knowledge of the circum-
stances rightfully belonged to the creditors
of the Fulmer-Seibert Company. If the
suit had been filed all these facts and
others more damaging would have come
out. They may come out yet