Year: 1859

or H. X. d j. REYNOLDS vs. THE MA YOR


AND CITY COUNCIL.


May itpeaae your Honor ana Gentlemen OF the J,lrv


However much wemav regret, when The occasion
arises, the most agreeable duty counsel can have
to perform is to assist individual in his efforts to
obtain redress for wrongs inflicted by abuse of Off
cial authority. 1t is that duty which am now
called upon to perform, and which trust shall
be able to perform in such manner as clearly to
satisfy you that authority has been abused in this
instance, with great loss and damage to the charac-
ter as well as the property of these plaintiffs. And
In performing that duty, it will be incumbent on
me to speak with freedom which the occasion de-
mands, OF one or two Othe witnesses in this cause of
whom should very much prefer to be able to speak
in terms of cOmmendation.


proceed now, gentlemen of the jury, to discuss
the questions upon which this case has to turn so
far as you concerned. The suit is instituted as
you know to recover damages from the CITY for not
being permitted to perform contract made be.
tween the city and, these plaintiffs contract yio-
lated upon the part of the defendant without cause
as hope to be able 20 convince you and to our
great detriment. The plaintiffs are comparatively
humble men, but honest; naturally intelligent and
enterprisng and, believe up to the period of this
controversy, notwithstanding the very great num-
Der of buildings which they have had to erect within
this city during the last fifteen or twenty years,
costing amounts VARYING from two or three thou-
sand up to forty or fifty thousand dollars or more
this is the first instance in which they have ever had
controversy And it is not only the first instance
W.
but, so far as am advised it is the first instancein
which any complaint has ever been urged against
their integrity or their skill 1t will naturally be
supposed, having reached the period of life which
they haze reached that they have felt great soici-
tude during the whole progress of this controversy
and that that sOlictude, if possible, is the more
heightened at the present period when this contro
versy is about to be brought to a close. They ex-
pect, confidently expect-aud whatever it may be
WORTH it is due to them to say that in that expecta
ton their counsel coincide-that they will now
obtain that justice which their cause from the
first was entitled to receive. The facts are com
paratively few, and L. begin the argument by
calling your attention to such of them about
which there can be serious dispute On the sth
day OF july 1856, the city, by its admitted consti-
tuted authority, resolved upon erecting a new iail
The one they had had was evidently unfit for the
purpose Antecedent to the passage of the resolu-
ton which announced their determination to have
such building constructed various plans had been
exhibited, nd among Others two plans by the
Messrs. Dixon, architects of this CITY designated
respectively plans ga" and "B" One of those
plans (plan 'B) met with the favor of an ante
cedent committee, and was adopted so far as il was
adopted, by virtue of the resolution of july 1856
1t was not adopted, however, as you will see-in-
deed, as you have already seen precisely as it was
submitted. 1t was adopted subject to the contin-
gency of such alterations as the commissioner of
the city should think proper to adopt; and the ex-
tent OF such alterations well the cost of such
alterations, left by the resolution of the 8th OF
July, 1885, to the sole discretion and Judgment of
that commissioner.


His Honor has told you that what passed antece-
dent to that resolution of July, 1885, as to the
probable cost of the Jail desired to be constructed
whatever estimates may have been made as to the
probable cost of any alterations in the plan which
had met with the favor of the committee of 1855,
have nothing to do with the construction of the
resolution of the Sth of July, 1856, since by that
resolutiOn-whether wisely unwsely it is not
for you to decide and it not for these plaintiffs
to decide-whether wisely unwisely, the char
acter of those alterations well the cost of such
alterations, was left to the unlimited Judgment of
the commissioner Nor was it to be wondered at
if we might be permitted to speculate as to the
possible wisdom of such unlimited discretion that
that discretion should have been reposed in the
commissioner in office at that time. He had been
in office for time before. His conduct had
received the sanction of the community; it had
been approved of by the other officers of the corpo-
ration it had received the sanction of the Mayor
also, and had met with his decided approval And
as from the very character of the officer it was
more likely that he would be able to decide properly
upon the question what the alterations should be
than any body else, the city thought proper to
leave that decision to him, and also to leave it to
him to decide the cost in which such alterations
might involve the city.


The resolution of the Sth of JULY as YOU will re-
member, gentlemen, was passed, furthermore at a
time, when as far as the plan of the MesSrs Dixon
which received the quasi approval of the councils in
that resolution, adopted it existed only in the





panylng the plan No working specifications had
been furnished; no working specifications were sug-
gested by the City Council. On the contrary, with
nothing before them but the plan itself, that was
exhibited on the drawing, and nothing before them
but the general specifications giving the general
character of the building about to be erected, the
council made it the duty of the commissioner at once
-lbeg you to bear that in mind-torth,cih to ad-
vertise for proposals to erect Jail according to those
plans and specifications then on file; not such as
should thereafter be demanded. And the CITY Com
missioner, therefore, was acting in the clear and
obvious discharge of his duty, and would have fol-
lowed both the spirit and letter of the resolution
by which the duty imposed upon him. if he
had not waited day for his proposals until he
could call for other specifications The language
OF the resolution, repeat made it his duty forth
olh to advertise in the papers of the day for pro-
posals to construct Jail, according to the plan and
specifications then file.


My brother, who spoke first on the other side
yesterday supporting, as far as his authority could
support, the opinion of the Mayor, told YOU that
the true Interpretation to be given to that resou
tiOn was, that no contract should be made br the
City Commissioner with contractor for the building
of this Jail, until the actual estimated cost of the
alterations should have been ascertained In the
first place, gentlemen such is not the language of
the resolutions; in the second place, such was not
the Interpretation given to it, not only by the CITY
Commissioner, but by the Mayor; and, in the last
place. and above all, such is not the Interpretation
given to it by the learned and accomplished coun-
seor for the city. The contract made the Ith of
August, in the very words of the resolution of the
8th July, approved of by the Mayor, has met
the sanction, and was properly sanctioned by,
the judgment of nv brother across the table
(Mr. Dulany). What did that contract
provide? Following the previous resolution,
it provided that if the City Commissioner
should think proper to adopt alterations in the
Dixon plan to improve the ventilation and enlarge
the cells, and such alterations should embrace the
expense, that additional expense to the contractor
over and above the Sl02,750 which he had estimat-
ed would be the cost of putting up a building ac-
cording to the mere naked plan, was to be paid by
the city, be it five dollars or be it five hundred
thousand dollars The contract is made, gentle
men; but the alterations were not then determined
upon. They were not required to be determined
upon. The City Council had said it was not necessa
ry to determine upon them, and the Mayor of the
city had given his approval to the contract without
their being determined upOn and it necessarily fol-
lows that those alterations if there should be any,
were alterations thereafter to be decided upon by
the officer whose duty it was alone to decide upon
them-the City Commissioner. And what does
that much injured officer tell you he did, gentlemen?
He left his office in the city of Baltimore Secretly
Why, did not everybody down in that building
know that he was not there? Did not his clerk
know that he not there? Did not his assistant
commissioner know that he was not there
Did not the Mayor for the time being know that he
was not there? Where had he gone and for what
had he left the city? He had gone to examine
other iails For what purpose ? To carry out the





8th of July; and, among other places, he went to
Boston, and there he some four or five davs,
the contractor being with him, and properly with
him. The commissioner took the contractor with
him to aid him in determining upon some of these
alterations, and in order that he might avail himself
of the great experience which the contractor had
had in every variety of building in the city of Bal
timore, as well as his strong natural capacity in his
particular department While in the CITY of Boston,
becoming satisfied that the Jail which he found there
in all respects such this city should have
he under what he honestly believed to be
the authority devolved upon him by the resolution
of the Sth OF July, to incorporate into the plan of
the Messrs. Dixon such alterations as would make
that plan, he could make it, like the Jail
which he thus approved of upon examination in
Boston. And then he engaged the services of the
architect of that jail Privately? Contingentlv i?
Promising to pay only provided he able to con-
ceal from the corporate authorities of the city of
Baltimore what he was doing until he should so in
vove them that they would be obliged to be at the
expense of employing that contractor? No. gen
tlemen he promised to pay him one thousand dol
lars for giving him the drawings which would ena-
BILE him to construct Jail upon the Dixon plan with
the alterations that he had decided upon, and for
the drawings with specifications which would enable
the wOrkmen to go on instantly with the construc-
tion of the jail How the money paid Pri-
vately2 No, gentlemen, but by drafts drawn
upon of your own banks, upon two sepa-
rate occasions, the money being paid at his in
stance by the contractor, and refunded by an
order in two three days afterwards-in conse-
quence of which order from that time to the present
he has been out of pocket that thousand dollars
What did he do directly afterwards? Here in the
city of Baltimore, on the 26th of August, 1885, he
writes-not private letter to the plaintiffs; he re-
sorts to no subterfuge to deceive the city, but be
writes official letter. and spreads it upon the re