The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-07-11
MR.. williams LOOSE
HE SAYS HE WILL MAKE THE CITY's
ATTORNEYS UNEASY.
Light Injunction Suit-JOhn Banks
Freed-Other Cases.

Judge Carter. of the Superior Court. yes
terday heard argument on the suit of
Arthur n. Dwyer against the Board Of
Public Works and Mayor Taggart to en-
join them from letting a contract for fur
nishing light TO the city under the specifl-
cations now on file in the office OF the Board
of Works. The contract, as advertised, is
10 be let July 10. Dwyer brought suit as
a taxpayer. but IL is understood it is on
behalf of the Indianapolis Light and Power
Company. The complaint all the way
through sets out that the Indianapolis
Light and Power Company is discrimi-
mated against in favor of the Home Heating
and Lighting Company In the plans and
specifications prepared and filed by the
Board of Works. The answer to the COM
plant AYERS thai the Indianapolis Light
and Power Company would not be required
TO construct a new plant and system If II
should be the successful bidder, as set out
in the complaint, and that the reason for
letting the present contract is TO enable
the successful bidder, if it should have no
plant, TO install one.
Deputy City Attorney Bell and John B.
Elan appeared in behalf of the Board Of
Works and Mayor Taggart and J. f. Scott
and j. c.. Williams for Dwyer. Attorneys
Bell, Elan and Scott spoke yesterday,
taking up the entire day, and Mr.. Williams
will finish the argument this morning.
The defense Of the city and Board of Works
as presented by it's attorneys was that the
schedule submitted by City Engineer Jeup
showed the indianapolis Light and Power
C~ompany's conduits TO be from three 70
five feet deep and that the company would
not be required TO put in a new system
and plant should 1t be the successful bid
der. II was commended by the citys attor-
neys that provision was made Tor the city
10 purchase the plant at the expiration or
its franchise. because municipal owner
ship is a tendency of the age. The con.
f~iscation of the c~ompany's conduits. should
no contract be renewed, was construed to
mean that the company's underground
work would be taken by a decision of a
hcations do not mean that the company's
private lines would be molested.
Attorney Scott argued that because the
specifications allow the bidder to name the
duration Of his proposal there is no oasis
for comparison. Under this method. he
said. it would be impossible TO determine
the lowest bidder. as all the bids would not
be on the same basis. He took exception
10 the specifications that require all bid
ders TO be Incorporated. and said there Is
nothing in the law that excludes unln-
corporated concerns from bidding on pub
lie contracts. Under the provisions. he said,
all the bidders that are eligible are the
indianapolis Light and Power Company
and the Home Heating and Lighting Com
pany. The argument throughout was along
the line of allegations set out in the COM
plant. Attorney Williams spoke a few
minutes before court adjourned and in
dicated that he would say some things
about the Board of Works and the deputy
city attorney that would not be pleasant.
He said the Board of Works is a body
created to serve the people and taxpayers.
and that the city attorney is designated
TO assist the board in carrying out the
purposes for which II is established. OBJ
~jections were made TO some of his state
ments by Attorney Elan. to which Mr..
Williams replied: Just wait until to-mOr-
row. when / get into my argument, Mr..
Bell and Mr.. Elan, and I'll make you more
uneasy than you are now