Indiana daily times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1914-1922, 1921-07-26

and impartially but one conclusion could
be reached, namely, that che prosecution
Of any claim against MS would not only
be without legal justification nut would
violate as well every standard Of fair
dealing and fair play. and that the State
board OF accounts would refuse TO make
of itself an instrument OF oppression and
injustice.
at is matter Of record that the con
tract in question was entered into by
sthe preceding school hoard By unsni-
nous action. and was continued in force
By the present board wi bout dissent by
auy member thereof
"Furthermore, 1t is conceded by the
present board. and by all who have had
occasion to become informed, that the
Indianapolis school city has received full
value. and more than full value. FOR
every dollar allowed under the contract.
and we do not believe that the State
board Of accounts. or any official Of that
board. Will deny that such was the case.
AS you well know. We have incurred
great expense in carrying out orr Obn-
cations under this contract. The CON
tract has been in effect since Feb %.
1919. and the objection first advanced in
the report you have 6led Is an objection
that manifestIv could as readily have
entered into. as now. Nevertheless. the
State board II accounts. though fully adj
VS. "a 90 .-e -uutrict Stood silently BIZ
throU chout thu period in question and
permitted US To render the services and
incur expense without criticism. or OBJ
tection.
-4,ACT INCLUDES
NOTHING NEW.
Furthermore this contract involved
nothing new We had for several years
previous served in the same capacity as
that provided for by the contract. in con
sequence Of our employment from time
10 time by the hoard; in fact a precedent
I'D been established, long preceding IL
E3igin any relationship between this firm
nd the Board OF School Commissioners
well known to the engineering and archi-
tectural professions Of the city. to the
officials OF the school city. aud the Off
Gals Of the State Board Of Accounts.
The second objection 20 the validity
Of the contract in question involves the
contract of March >. 1920. with Lewis A.
Snider a member of this firm We are
reliably informed that at the time the
contract just referred TO WAS under
Consideration by the board of school
commissioners the then president OF the
board discussed with the state examiner
the proposed contract. and. though fully
informed, the State examiner nude no oh
jection 10 the arrangement proposed but
in effect approved it.
rs 1t equitable under these circum-
sances to raise now the objections YOU
have made in your report: The fore
going considerations are not stated by
way Of defense to the charges made. but
in our opinion should be called to your
attention because we believe that com
mon honesty and fair play should count
as much in this situation as in the ordi-
nary affairs Of men.
FULLY ADVISED
ON LEGAL RIGHTS.
We are fully advised as 70 our legal
srights with reference 70 this contract.
and Such other matters as are embraced
in the report. and are 81 the opinion.
after profound study OF cur part and on
the part Of compefent counsel. Of the
circumstances under which the contract
was made. the terms OF the contract and
subsequent events. that our legal rights
square with cur moral rights.
I'VE. therefore, submit that upon