The Plymouth tribune. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1901-1911, 1910-09-15

10 the honorable BOARD Oh OOunty
Commissioners.
Gentlemen
Having been invited here to con-
slider the proposition of Mr.. Jacob 5.
Ness for settlement of the litigation
and matters connected with the con-
tract for the repair of the Court
House, aud having considered MIR.
Ness s proposition, | desire to make
the following answer and statement.
In the first place | wish to state
that in making my bids for the work
Of repairing the Marshall County
Court House, / was acting IN the ut
most good faith and in entire ignOr-
anee of any irregularities or defects
in the preliminary proceedings, land
| like Mr.. Ness and the other bidders
placed my bid on the work in the be-
lief that the contract would be legal
and valid no matter who got the
contract.
1t is evident that Ness so regard
ed the matter, for when the bids
were opened the only contention Of
Mr.. Ness before the Board was that
the contract should be given him
because he was the lowest bidder.
But under the law as declared in
the statute and by the Appellate
Court on the appeal, Mr.. Ness could
not have been lawful awarded the
contract, however regular and lawful
the preliminary proceedings might
have been, for the reason that he
did not make and file the non-collu-
sion affidavit required by law, and
the Appellate Court held in our case
that | was the only bidder who COM
Piled with tthe law I'm that regard.
That Ness and his attorneys re-
garded the preliminary proceedings
regular and lawful is certain, for
on the same day he brought the suit
for injunction, he brought another
suit against the Board for mandate
to compel the. Board to let the con-
tract to him as the lowest bidder,
which suit is still pending.
II is lnconceivable that Mr.. Ness
would bring suit to compel the com
missioners to give the contract to
him if he and his attorneys knew OF
believed that the proceedings were
so defective and unlawful as to In
validate the contract when let. L do
not believe that Mr.. Ness or any
other contractor i'm Marshall County
had $140OO.00 to throw away IN thai
manner.
| make this statement of facts be.
cause so much foolish and ridiculous
twaddle and nonsense has been SAID
about MIR. Ness being the champion
Of the. dear people and taxpayer:
IN prosecuting this suit, and he seems
to have forgotten the part he played
in the beginning, and how he tried
in court, and is yet trying, to ge
the very contract that he denOunce
as illegal and unlawful from th'
very beginning.
We must therefore look for som
other notice for Mr.. Ness cOnduc
In precipitating a legal battle tha
has damaged Marshall County great
ly and that threatens to interfer
with the use of the court house for
long time to come
When we examine the decision o
the Appellate court in the case care
fully, it will be seen that the cas-
was reversed mainly for the reaso
that no appropriation had been r'ad
for one small item of the work, name
ly. for the fitting up of surveyor
Office in the basement.
All the other contentious OF Mes
were practically brushed aside, b
the Appellate Court, and work IL
volving more than $l400O.OO wa
struck down because no specific mer
tion of the work on the surveyor
Office was made in the ordinance G
appropriation.
1t will be remembered that .Jude
Larry enjoyed that part of the col
tract and work relating to the decor
ton of the Court Room, and, thel,
fore, that part of the contract wa
not property before the Appellat
Court.
Now in regard to the hair-spil
ing contention concerning appropri;
tions and the practice in this count
In such matters.
II is true that for about eleve
wears we have had law on Il
statute books providing that the cot
ty commissioners could not lawful
enter into contracts or authorize ii
expenditure of public moneys,
certain cases, for public works, e
cept an appropriation had been pr
viously made by the county cOunt
for the particular purpose.
That law has not been compile
with in numerous instances in til
and In other counties of the stat
That law WAS in existance and iu