Year: 1859




eXis ence! He has sought to assa the character of
honest men, and has but shared the fate which
Providence reserves for all such attempts in Sc
riously woundng his own. If 1t shall tend to make
him sadder man, | trust it will make him
wiser and better man. | have done with him


"Have we been paid ?" is the next question
What have we got, in the first place? We had
got at the time this award was rendered, on the
10Th OF November, some forty-twO thousand dol
lars; and we have been paid some fifteen or twenty
thousand dollars, balance due us upon that award
w nat Is that award for? Why, there was no au-
o unon.'s W max IT. as was very manifest except


upon account OF work done and materials furnished
! then, at the time these people were discharged
! upon the 1th OF October; so that the award nnon
Its face does not pay us that which we are entitled
to receive, provided are entitled to recaiva tba
profits we would have made had we been narmittod
to perform on contract. My friend Mr. Dulanv
| repeated before you, and commenced his argument
that way, just as he commenced his argument be-
fore the BENCH that there was ''no equity in such
demand" We beg you to understand that we
are not now claiming compensation for anv services
actually rendered to the city, but we are claim
ing the compensation that we would have been en-
tltled TO, II we had been permitted to render the
services; and in such claim there never is ANYTHING
ike justice or equity | shall not attempt to an
swer the argument of my learned brother by any
thing OF my own. Let US see what the Supreme
Court thinks of case of exactly the same kind,
and how far they differ in their notions of equity
an ana justice from my brother upon the other side.
Ihey say that in ''contract like this" which was
contract to go on and do work which they were
not permitted to perform.


And in of contract like this that loss is among
other things the difference between cost of doing the
work and the price TO be paid for it, The difference
inducement and real consideration which


tractor into the contract For this he expends
his tme exerts his skill his capital assumes the
risks which attend the enterprise. And depry him


it. other party has broken the contract and nm
lawfully put end to the work. would he unjust
There is rule of law which requires nict this
injustice n-Ho0ard's SUPREME court Peporis yT ~
Of
Baltimore Railroad C1Rpdry, Ho1Uard.


Therefore there is in the opinion of the Judges Of
the Supreme Court, afoundation for the claim which
we now set up; there is some reason for it, and
there would be Injustice in denying it and permit
ting the defendant to escape the Just consequences
of his misconduct. But then they tell us, ''y0u
have no valid claim against the city, for you have
given receipt" That is singular ground of
objection, in a OF this kind. What was the re-
celpt given for? For the money which was
paid; and what did they pay us for? They
paid us for the work done and the materials
actually furnished: They did not deny
their responsibility for that What did they try to
get rid of? They tried to get rid of the obligation
to pay more and what is the more? 1t is what we
should have made if they, like honest men, had per
mitted US to go on and perform the contract Now
they saw that we have signed receipt by which we
have surrendered claim to that further sum.
And what is that sunni Just forty or fifty thousand
dollars Just what you may find would have been the
extent of the profit which would have been earned





poor contractors had they not been stricken to the
earth by this conduct of the city, and not only de-
prived of their money, but what is still worse,
tempted to be deprived of their character and good
name. And they are supposed on the 29th OF
April, 1855 to have knowingly surrendered ff
ty thousand dollars, upon the citv's agreeing
to pay them that which the city ALWAYS agreed to
pay! That is not sense, even if the facts justified it,
but the court say that before YOU bind these
contractors, to the language OF the books
before you consider them estopped on account
of their having signed that receipt, you must
slider that they had knowledge of their rights:
and what is that? Had they knowledge that they
could make the city paw them for the profits on a
contract which they bad been prevented from per
| forming? Now, gentlemen of the jury, who are
thev? Are they LAWYERS? should rather think not
And in regard to the obligation of the city to pay
the money seeking to recover, what
did the city tell them? What did my brother tell
them, and speak only the authority OF the city,
Why, it was that they had not the shadow Of
right.


Here is the report of the select committee, under
which that 100000 was paid and that committee
tell us that they


Coincide in the opinion of the Mayor and repeat that
it is the duty of the corporation to stop the works
now in progress at the Jail and to provide for It's compile
tion in conformity with the original design nearly
possible doing will act in selfdfence and will vo


late valid contract, Wilt in the opinion of the
mittee land they have the high authority Of the City
Counsellor in its suppor have to fear any action
that may be brought in consequence, incur any
sponsibty in the way of damages


The City Counsellor thought we had no right to
sue; my brother made an argument of some four or
five hours in length, to show that had no right
to sue, for the city had done nothing wrong, and
had entered into contract which they had VIC
lated-the contract being to put up building upon
the Dixon plan, and the work having been done
upon another plan which the city did not acknow
ledge, and hence that there was no ground at all
upon which the plaintiffs could recover in this suit
That being the state of the case, it is stretching
credulity beyond all reasonable bounds to suppose
! that my clients, the Messrs. Reynolds knew, on the
Goth of April, that they had right to sue the city


and could recover forty or fifty thousand dollar;


from the city on the ground that they had violated


a contract which they had right to put stop to


My brother referred to the counsel that the Messrs
! Reynolds had consulted. How came that counsel
| to me, should like to know =? He brought this
suit in the month of July he takes it into Consders
tiOn after the receipt. There nothing to show
the counsel was consulted upon the receipt and he
was not. The city them on the 29th of April takes
advantage of this mans necessity, he under
heavy liabilities to the subcontractors pressing him
to the very verge of ruin; they tell him they will
not pay him dollar, unless he gives them a re-
ceipt in full Why, gentlemen, the original Ordi-
requires no receipt in full and they paid him
only the amount required by the original Ordi-
nance and the court say, it you believe that that
was done without knowing that he had right TO
demand from the city larger sum, which he did
have right to claim that receipt in full does
not stand in the way of the justice of the Gc-
mand.


am getting exhausted, gentlemen, and l have
no doubt you are still more so. Now, what is our
claim? Mr. Swami says, and the committee saw,
that the Messrs. REYNOLDS were willing to mpete
the building for S350,000 Well we have got SlO2,-
600; that leaves of the original $3.50 900 the of
S24S000 and, you NAV give the rate of profit
upon that. will be the amount to which we are
entitled. At twenty-five per cent, it will be about
S62 900; at twentyper cent, it will be little less
than $4,000, and so on, varying from twenty per
| cent. down to fifteen. We claim theretOre-aud
is In say m wi he IL
! supported-we claim the per centage which you


will find stated upon that paper, which now place
! in the hands Of the foreman.


Now, as to profits the court states that the sub
contracts are to be thrown aside and the opinions
of the witnesses are to be thrown aside; but still
! there is the evidence. A contract to superintend
! generally, without being contractor cannot be
made in the city of Baltimore for less than five per
cent. The superintendent escapes all risks it is not
necessary that he should give onethird even one
! twentieth of his time, he superintend fifty
buildings at the same time and of course make fifty
times his five per cent in the amount aiCh the fifty
! parties would give him. Mr.. Nelson told you that
five per cent upon building like that was, in his
| opinion, better contract than twenty per cent.
would be to contractor who was to put up build
ing OF this description and Tor reasons which are
very obvious and which it is unnecessary to fatigue
| you with suggesting. Everybody knows that a me-
chanic could not live and support himself BY build
ing, if he receives only what it really costs him ;
for in that he is not in possession of a dollar
from day to day. Ifhe has to pay out every collar
| he has until the building is erected, then his
money is all gone, and the building belongs
to the owner. Then he needs to get something
more, and what is that? 1t is reasona-
Bile compensation, in the language of the
Supreme Court for his time and skill-a reasonable
compensation for subjecting himself to the rik of
building. That may be fifteen, twenty or twenty
five per cent, just the jury may agree. Mr. Du-
shane, selected by the city, fixed it at ten per cent
! Mr.. Emery, selected by the contractor, fixed il at
twenty five per cent; while Mr.. Sangston came to
a result which at least seemed like singular CO
incdence he just exactly struck the difference, and
gave 171% per cent. 1t seems like singular coin
cidence, but how he managed to make his figures
come TO that result, do not know. All | can saw
is, the fact is he gave l71%. You, gentlemen,
will consider from all the evidence what YOU think
we may be entitled to receive.


A word or two more, and shall have done; and
it is to say to you that is at end 50
far concerned. 1t remains only for YOU
to pronounce the verdict which its Justice involves
That it will be such a as your cOnscences will
ever approve, and the public judgment will sane
tion have an assurance, to conviction. Such
verdict, gentlemen will do even more than vindi-
cate the character of these plaintiffs and make good
as far possible, their pecuniary loss 1t will
as precedent hereafter to those who may be in
power amongt u.s. It will warn them that however
potent for a time they may be-whatever contilvan-
ces they may adopt-whatever they may choose to
forget or choose to remembeT-hOWever they may
for period crush the individual citiZen-wha tCver
temporary success they may have in creating and
pervertiug public opinion, there is a Providence
| above them which will in its own good time surely
frustrate all their efforts lay bare all their arti6ces
expose their shame to just public ceusure, and Sc
cure full and ample redress to the victims of their
ai,p nrif md thArGh tha