The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1902-09-14
LINCOLN co.
OFFICERS IN
BAD LIGHT
County Attorney Airs Trans
actions in Court
IN BRIDGE CONTRACT CASE
Mysterious Secrecy Connect
ed With Their Actions.

Chandler, o. T, Sept. 1S.-County At
torney Robertson has filed in the dis
trict court an appeal from the action of
the county commissioners in entering
into contract on August % with the
Leavenworth Bridge company and the
Missouri Bridge and Iron works for the
purchase OF eleven steel bridges. The
contract with the FORMER company pro-
vided for the purchase of seven steel
bridges, with piers, for a consideration
of $780, while the contract with the Mis-
souri, Valley company was for four steel
bridges with two bulkheads and ap-
proaches, for $500. County Attorney
Robertson took this action upon the petit
ton of taxpayers, two petitions being
fled, one in regard to each contract. The
nrst petition was signed by H Z. S.
Strengthen, A. Z. Mascho, r. 3. Holland,
G. 4. Smith, ". c. Hoover and J. F.
Collar, while the second was signed by
thesesame gentlemen and in addition by
Strobe & SchneIl, A. c. Schnell and A.
E. Stutsman.
In his appeal the county attorney states
his reasons, which are twelve in number,
briefly as follows:
% The matter was not legally before
the board at the time that the contract
or the alleged contract was entred into.
(2) The contract relates to the interests
OF the county and the action was taken
without notice TO anyone and while the
board was not in session and before the
hour when by law the board is allowed
to hold its sessions, ard no notice of the
letting of the contract was ever published
as by law required. 90 The board never
employed the county surveyor or any
other competent engineer to make a
proper survey of said bridges. or TO make
plans estimates or specifications for any
bridge or bridges. and no such plans or
specifications are on file in the office
of the county clerk. % The bridges con-
tracted for are for the principal stream
of the county, and no advertisement or
call for bids was ever made as required
by law. o. The contract calls for the
erection and completion of bridges with
out competitive bidding and without no.
tee. as required by law. ca The con-
tract is vague and uncertain and incapa-
bic of being construed in any other way
than against the county and would put
the county in a position to be greatly in
jured and defrauded of large amounts Of
money. 81 The purchase and contract
is void and not according to law for the
reason that the county commissioners did
rot advertise for bids and had no COM
petitive bids and were not in position
to judge as 10 whether they were saving
the county money or not. 90 The price
to be paid is exorbitant. excessive ana
90 No motion was ever
made or seconded. put or carried whereby
these contracts should be accepted or en- /
tered into and no record on the journal
shows that the commissioners ever said
they would buy these bridges OF had the .
natter under consideration. Cd The ac- /
ton is wholly contrary to law O2) The
contract was secured by fraud. misrepre-
and is oppressive and fraudu-
lent. G5) No bond was ever given by
he parties of the first part to guarantee
The faithful performance of the contract,
nor was any required OF them by the
The charges made in this case are of a .
very serious nature, and the people CT
The county who are paying the $1,000
which was to have been spent under the
erms Of these two contracts VIII await
with interest any additional information
n regard to this matter The unusual
manner in which these contracts were let
calls for some action.