The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-10-08
ALL COMPETITION is BARRED
HOOsIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY'S
ALLEGED CINCH.
Specifications for Block Call for a
Mysterious Concoction-Sensn-
tionaI Charges Made.

preventing the Board OF Works and the
city authorities from proceeding in paving
with wooden block Temple avenue from
Washington 10 New York streets until
further hearing by the court The order
was issued on petition filed by William a.
Ketcham on behalf of resident property
holders on Temple avenue.
The suit is not only a legal proceeding,
but also an exposure of the alleged method
employed by the city administration in
barring ali competition i'm the letting of
contracts for creosote block paving and dis
eliminating against contractors for the ex-
elusive benefit of the Hoosier Construction
Company. The complaint alleges that the
specifications prepared by the city engineei
for block paving stipulate that blocks must
be prepared with "<reodone or Republic
creOsote paving OIL. which is manu-
featured by the Western Creosote Com
pany and its exclusive sale limited to
the Hoosier Construction Company. The
petition states that no other com
pany or contractor can purchase "kreo-
DONE" that il is not on the market, and
by collision of the Western Creosote
Company, the Hoosier Construction Com
pany. the city engineer. the Board of Pub
lie Works and Mayor Taggart all other
bidders other than the Hoosier Construc-
ton Company are precluded from securing
contracts and competition is barred.
THE PLAINTIFFS.
The plaintiffs in the suit are Charles
Wittoft and wife. William C. Atkins and
wife, Goldie Hiatt. Mabel Lashley, Mary E.
Wiley John Schumacher, John A. L. Bogg
and wife. Charles L. Cowgirl and wife and
David f. Matthews, and the defendants the
Western Creosote Company, Peter c. Reilly,
Bernard j. T. Jeup, the Hoosier Construc-
ton Company, Clarence A. Kenyon. the
Board of Public Works. Albert Sahm.
Charles a. Mcguire. the city of Indianapolis
and Thomas Taggart, mayor The COM
plant says that on July 10 John Reidy and
petition with the Board of Public Works
for the Improvement Of Temple avenue
from washington TO New York street, with
wooden docks, ana II was approved by the
city engineer On Aug. 10 the city engineer
filed with the Board of Works his estimate
of the improvement, estimating the same
TO cost Sll,JCO. and the board took final ac-
On Sept % the plaintiffs, with other prop
erty holders, filed a remOnstrance with the
Board of Works. which was turned over to
Sept. 30 the city engineer filed his report
with the Board of Works. stating that there
We're twenty-five resident property owners,
STRANGE
The complaint says that Cowgirl and his
wife did not appear in the report of City
Engineer Jeup as demonstrators for the
reason that their title was not of record in
the office of the assessor of Center town
ship. 1t is set out that Cowgirl and his wife
purchase their property of the Interstate
Building Association upon payments, and
they were the equitable owners of the prop
erty and residing there although they
would not receive their deed until the last
payment had been made. 1t is set out that
in the list submitted by the city engineer
was the name of Laura Hiatt and without
her name being included in the list there
would have been but twenty-four property
owners.
a DEED EXECUTED.
Concerning the property of Laura Hiatt
it is alleged that on July Is Michael F. Gill.
one of the petitioners for the improvement,
had the East End Improvement Company,
owner of one of the lots. execute a deed to
Laura Hiatt for the purpose of having it
appear that a majority of the property
owners were in favor of the Improvement,
although she does not live upon the prem
ises. 1t is further alleged that Gill was
the owner of real estate abutting on the
avenue. which he conveyed TO his brother,
William III. Gill, one Of the petitioners for
the improvement, and that he only holds
the property at his brothers option Ii is
cOntended that neither Gill nor Laura
Hiatt should be counted as petitioners for
the Improvement but that because of the
equitable title held by Cowgirl and his
wife their names should appear as remOn-
strators.
The complaint. continuing, says that the
specifications on file in the office of the
Board of Works, among other things spec-
ifies that when the blocks are thoroughly
dry and while the cylinder is under vacuum
OF ntteen 10 twenty mches or mercury
heavy creosote oil. of the grades known as
kerodone or Republic creOsOte paving oil.
especially prepared for paving purposes.
shall be admitted into the cylinder and
pressure. added until the pressure in the
cylinder shall be al leass sixty pounds TO
the square inch" The complaint here SAYS:
NOT IN THE MARKET.
Plaintiffs aver that there is no such
article in the market as kreodone or Re-
public creosote paving oil. nor is such an
article known to science or chemists, and
that it is impossible for persons engaged
in contracting for and the building of street
improvements to comply with the specif-
cations for the reason that said article of
kreodone or Republic creosote paving oil
is, as aforesaid, not known TO the market
and not obtainable in the market: that the
defendant the Western CreosOte Company
is engaged In the manufacture or in deal
ing in appliance of creosote and pur-
ports and gives out that il manufactures
an article known as kreodone or Republic
creosOte paving oil. the sale of which is
exclusively limited by the terms of It's
agreement or understanding between the
defendant, the Hoosier Construction Com
pany and Clarence a. Kenyon. 10 said last
named parties in this city. and they will
not sell 10 any other person or corpora
ton engaged in the business of street i'm
prOvement in the city of Indianapolis upon
any terms conditions whatsoever: that
the defendant Reilly and certain persons
now or heretofore connected with the gov
eminent of the city of Indianapolis whose
names are 10 these plaintiffs unknown. but
whom the plaintiffs pray they NAV have
leave to make parties defendant when their
names are discovered. have combined, con-
spired and cOnfederated tOgther with the
Western CreOsote Company the HoosieI
Construction Company and Kenyon. q
preclude and prevent the possibility OF any
competition in the making or letting OF
and 20 limit the same exclusively 10 said
HOOsier Construction Company and said
Kenyon and TO prevent the use OF any 9TH
er form of CreOsOte in the preparation OF
block paVements for street improvements
than what they call kreOdone or the Re
public creOsote paving oil and by reason
thereof. property holders are denied the
privilege of competition I'm connection with
the streets that are TO be improved with
wooden block pavement and these plain
tbs will be preCluuCd and prevented frOrg
having any competition whatsoever in re-
spect 10 the Improvement OF said street
a. heretofore set forth.
OTHERS PROHIBITED
plaintiffs aver that in numerous in
stances heretofore in the city OF Indianap-