The Lake County times. [volume] (Hammond, Ind.) 1906-1933, 1913-02-15
VOICE OF
TIE -
p e O PL e
MIR. WINERY EXPLAINS.

an article concerning the so-called
school board case" in which you
quote Attorney II. b. McAleer as say
ing that he has advised the members
of the school board indi yidually to ig
more the threats of William J. Whin-
cry, representing Contra ctors Caldwt ii
& Drake that he would appeal the case
to the supreme court IL the school
board did not compromise" In reply |
to this article l beg leave 20 say that |
l have not made any threats of any |
kind or character whatsoever against +,
the school board. The only statement |
which have made to any one concern
ing the further conduct OF this case
has been upon request made to me as |
to what, If anything. Contractors Cald- |
well and Drake proposed to do. in re- |
Spouse to which i nave stated that they |
had instructed me to proceed with the
appeal of the case to the supreme court
| Of the United States. and this is true;
but certainly, that is not threat
The article in your paper further
| quotes Attorney r. b. McAleer as say
| ing: 1T would be foolish for US to
| compromise after have won the
| fight in the lower court, beat them in
| the supreme court on appeal. and final
| ly convinced the supreme court that
the case" If Mr. McAleer. as attorney
| for the school board. made the above
statement which the article applies to
him. he surely is mistaken, because the
| record of the case shows the contrary.
| 1t must not be forgotten that this case
| was begun against the school board to
| en5oin it from proceeding to build the
| high school building. and the contrac-
| tors were also defendants in that suit.
The suit was begun by certain taxpay-
| ers to enjoin the school board. The
trial court found in favor of the tax
/ payers and against the school board
and the contractors. and gave judg
| merit enjoining the school board and
| also the contractors from proceeding
| with the work of erecting and con-
structing the proposed building. From
1 this Judgment all OF the defendants. in
| Guiding the school board. prayed an
| appeal to the supreme court. During
/ the time that the litigation was car
ried on in the circuit court, Mr.. L. V.
| Cravens appeared as attorney for the
school board and also as attorney for
Contractors Lewis and Kitchen. Until
this time the school board had stood
shoulder to shoulder with Contractors
Caldwell and Drake and Lewis and
Kitchen, in defense of the case. Then,
for some reason, there was a change
of attorneys. and since that time the
appeal has been carried forward by
Caldwell and Drake. But it must not
be forgotten who made the record
which the taxpayers sought to have
declared invalid. 1t was not Caldwell
and Drake. it was not Lewis and
Kitchen, but 1t was the school board.
In other words. the complaint of the
taxpayers against the school board and
contractors was to the effect that the
school board had proceeded illegally.
first. in attempting to build the school
without obtaining the consent of the
city and falling to give certain notices
of their intention to build the build
ing; second that the contract for the
school building created an Indebtedness
! in excess of the constitutional limit OF
two per cent: third. that the school city
did not have power to build manual
; training and industrial high school
building. Caldwell and Drake and
Lewis and Kitchen came into this mat
ter simply at the request of the school
board upon its advertisement for bids
They bid in good faith and were
, awarded the contract by the school
board, it was presumed. in good
faith. Caldwell and Drake agreed. al
, the request of the school board, to pur-
chase the Central school property a,
an agreed consideration of s143.Oo0
and to accept the same as part pay-
q ment upon it's contract for the cree
ton of the high school building and
gave bond to faithfully carry out their
d contract In this Caldwell and Drake
acted in good faith, and it is presumed
that the school board did likewise L
was after all of these contracts hae
been entered into that the committee
of taxpayers brought the suit to enjoir
the erection of the building. The rec
ord in the case discloses that this sui
was not based upon anything tina
f Caldwell and Drake or Lewis ant
t Kitchen had done. or failed to do, bu
II it was based wholly upon what it wa.
= alleged that the school board had don,
or failed to do. and the court having
enjoined the school board and also tn,
contractors from proceeding with tn.
= work, for omissions of the schoo
board. then, we ask, how can it be fig
ured out that the school board won
as Mr.. McAleer is quoted as saying
!, All that Caldwell and Drake have dom
, has been done by them in defense o
II their rights. which they acquired un
der the contracts which they entere.
a into in good faith. at the request of tn
school board. We ask, what would an,
n other contractor do if they came t
n this city and entered into contrac
3 with either the city a private cor
n poration in good faith? Would the,
rot seek to defend their rights? woul,
s they not expect the city or the privat
ID corporation to live up to it's contract
il Mr.. McAleer is quoted correctly the
&c his position in considering that tn
!, | school board won by it's being beaten
"A amounts to nothing more less thai
- an attempt to repudiate the contract
: which were entered into at its reques
and in seeming good faith. 1t is tru
that certain cities, and even states
have been known to repudiare thei
Of a,,traots ~, te.bpica,it,as So. -