The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-07-07
THE ATTITUDE OF TAGGART
CONTRACT To BE MADE BEFORE HE
GOES OUT OF OFFICE.
Specifications, Ii Il Declared. Favor
the Home Company-$f. 0O0,-
600 I'm store for Ii.

ton. yesterday fled suit by his attorneys.
Scott Il Rabb. TO onjoln the Board OF Pub
lie Works and Mayor Taggart from award
ing a contract for private. public and COM
mercial lighting. under the present specif-
cations. as advertised by the board. The
members OF the Board OF Works and Mayor
Taggart are named as defendants. The
plaintiff alleges that the board has discrim-
mated against the Indianapolis Light and
Power Company and other corporations
that might desire 10 bid fer the contract In
favor OF the Home Heating and Lighting
Company. Judge Carter. OF the Superior
Court. will hear the application for a re-
strainlng order Wednesday morning, at .
o'clock.
The complaint OF the petitioner AYERS
that the specifications recently prepared by
the Board OF Works. upon which bids are
advertised for and will be received and
opened on July Is. discriminate in favor OF
the Home Heating and Lighting Company
and make fair competition impossible.
WORDING OF COMPLAINT.
The complaint reads: 1.-The plaintiff is az
vised. informed and believes, and upon
such information and belief AYERS that said
pretended specifications are not in sub
stance or effect such as required By Law to.
be prepared and placed on file by said
Board of Public Works in the office of the
Department of Public Works before calling
or advertising for sealed proposals and
bids for such work and contract as are
mentioned and contemplated in said invita-
ton and pretended specifications, and be-
fore the letting of such work and contract,
and entering into the same. that said pre-
tended specifications are contrary 10 and in
conflict with the express provisions OF the
statute in such case made and provided;
that they are so worded as to discriminate
in favor of a certain corporation herein
after named as against all other bidders;
that the same are so Worded that persons.
firms and corporations who may desire 10
bid for the proposed public lighting con-
tract will not be bidding upon the same
basis. and will not have a fair and equal
chance. each with the other, Of becoming
the successful bidder: that the same are so
worded that each bidder will not be re-
CURED TO bid on the same work or for the
same contract or for a contract for public
lighting for the same period; that they are
so worded that bidders cannot determine
whether a contract for lighting only is to
be let. or both a contract for lighting and
a contract for a franchise for the use of
the streets. alleys and public places for
supplying such lighting; that said pretend
ed specifications are SO worded that they
preclude fair and equal competition In bid
ding and prevent determining who is the
lowest and best bidder, and are so unfairly
and ingeniously framed and worded as TO
unnecessarily. unldlIll AIT uIlJuSlls Duf-
den and discourage and possibly exclude all
bidders except one certain corporation
hereinafter named. and so as to permit and
make possible the awarding and letting of
said proposed public lighting contract ar
bitrarily by the Board of Works TO such
corporation for a period of ten years. and
for such unnamed longer period as il may
see fit.
THE invalidity. discriminating provisions
and gross unfairness of said pretended
specifications, as above alleged. are, as
| piatutiff hoiiavas apnarepf from the aY-
press terms and conditions thereof, but the
validity, discriminating character and un-
and ~palpable in view of the additional
facts and conditions hereinafter averred
and set forth"
TWO CORPORATIONS.
The complaint here sets out that there are
two corporations organized in the city for
the purpose of furnishing public, private
and commercial lighting. namely. the In
| dianapolis Light and Power Company and
the Home Heating and Lighting Company.
and that the latter is the company referred
to In the complaint as being discriminate
in favor Of. The plaintiff says that the two
| firms would be on equal terms. and that,
under valid. legal, fair and impartial speci-
hcations both of said corporations might.
and plaintiff believes would, be competing
bidders for the proposed public lighting
contract, and under such specifications
there might be other persons. firms, indi-
viduals and corporations or companies who
would incorporate and would organize and
prepare to and would bid and compete for
such lighting contracts, but that, because
of the character of said pretended specifi-
cations as will still more fully appear from
further facts alleged. If said proposed con-
said pretended specifications, there will, as
plaintiff believes, be no fair or real ccmpeti-
ton for said proposed public lighting con-
tract, and very probably none at ALL"
The COMPLAINT here sets out that the In
dianapolis Light ad Power Company has
had the contract for furnishing light to the
city since 1892, and has in service l,249 arc
grounds. The plaintiff says that the corn
pany has q modern and efficient plant ca
pable OF furnishing the city with light. as
are in general terms required by the speci-
fcstions for the proposed contract. ts
said N thqt within E + t s01t pil sn sqq Me- 4 9 or esss
the company has onduits and dlicts as re
quired by the pretended. specihcations.H
with the exception of depth. the whole un-
derground system constituting about one
third the valuation of the company's plant;
and that the system includes thirteen to
seventeen miles OF conduits carrying cables
and wires. Under the company's franchise
its conduits are two feet deep. as required.
while the specifications for the new con-
tract say that the conduits must be three
feet deep.
FURTHER ALLEGATIONS.
The complaint says that should it trans
pire that the Indianapolis Light and Power
Company was the successful bidder and
should be awarded said proposed new pub
lie lighting contract, it would be required
TO MAINTAIN its present plant and system
for the performance of its present con-
tract so expiring July Z. 1909. and would
be bound by the terms of its new contract
SO awarded to construct and equip an en-
tire new plant and system Of the extent
and character required by said pretended
specifications. with the underground sys-
tenn three feet under ground instead of
two. as now provided by its said franchise
contract. and could not by the terms of
such new contract use any portion of its
| present plant and system, surface. aerial
or underground. under said new contract.
as plaintiff is advised and believes, for that
/ said new contract would in terms and legal
effect require the construction and equip
ment of an entirely new plant and sys-
TEN, regardless of the fact that the said
company already has one in all substantial
respects identical and equivalent To the
one required by said pretended specifca-
tons. That the said Home Heating and
Lighting Company has not yet constructed
and completed and is not now maintaining
and operating a plant and system for fur
nishing public, commercial and private
lighting by electricity in said city. and
has not heretofore acquired a contract
lights and requiring 1t TO maintain and
operate a plant and system for electric
lights as above set forth concerning said
Indianapolis Light and Power Company,
4 and therefore, as a successful bidder for
said proDOSed lighting contract, which htr