AN OLD CLAIM FOR LIGHTNING RODS.
Mr. CARTER, from the Committee on Claims, reported on the claim for $5,128.32, presented by David Munson, for lightning rods attached to the Insane Asylum. The Committee, after full investigation of all the facts, have unanimously agreed that this claim is strictly a just one, and recommend that the Committee on Ways and Means be instructed to include this amount in the specific appropriation bill.
Mr. NEFF said, if the report is concurred in, it would be absolutely necessary to place this amount in the specific appropriation bill. He was of the opinion that the House ought not to direct the Committee to insert that amount in the specific appropriation bill, as there was no law authorizing the putting up of these lightning rods for which the claim is made.
Mr. EDWINS said that the gentleman appointed on Legislative Committees heretofore to investi- gate this matter fully in all its details have re- peatedly refused to allow this claim. He did not believe it a proper and just claim.
Mr. CARTER--This House had a Committee appointed to consider the claims referred to them. They took the evidence and recommend its allowance. The Committee unanimously agreed that it was a just claim and should be paid. The judgment of the Committee ought to be respected, otherwise, the House should discharge them altogether. The Committee says there was a fair and square contract made by parties who had the lawful right so to do. The first part of this work was done three years ago. This work was done with the understanding that the money should be paid when the work was finished. This contract was a fair one. It was not an excessive price. The evidence shows that the price paid is a deduction of twenty cents on the foot from the regular price charged. The State is in honor bound to pay this now. The only reason that it was not paid then was that the appropriation was exhausted, and it is but just that we should stand by the honor of the State at this late day and pay the claim.
Mr. THOMPSON--According to the act of 1875, the State built a Female Hospital, where Dr. Evarts was appointed Superintendent. The question is, whether the contract of Dr. Everts is valid or not. These men put up these lightning rods under the direction of the Trustees and the Committee recommend it as an honest debt and one that should be paid.
Mr. EDWINS--Admitting that Dr. Everts was Superintendent of the Female Hospital, and he should make an expenditure of $1,500,000 on the Institution, would it be the duty of the State to pay for the expenditure? The claim had some demerit in it, or the Board would have allowed it long ago.
Mr. MOODY--The Committee, in accordance with their duty, have fully inquired into the circumstances and submitted a report to this House favoring the payment of this claim. It seems to me that unless a better reason can be given by the gentlemen opposing the adoption of this report than simply that some other legislative body has not seen fit to make this appropriation that it is a very poor reason. Another reason why I think this appropriation should be made is that this work was done with the knowledge of the Superintendent of this building, who was authority on this question. It is unquestionable this contract was made by the State of Indiana, and I would like to know why it ought not to be paid. Is there any question that the rods were not furnished--that the work was not done? It seems to me, gentlemen, that we ought to concur in this report at once, and without any further investigation.
Mr. BENHAM--The evidence shows that the men who consented to the putting up of those rods had different specimens laid before them to select from, and that the work was done under the direction of the architect. The evidence shows that the work was done to the entire satisfaction of the Investigation Committee sent to the Institute, except Governor Williams. Governor Williams seemed to have prejudice against lightning-rod men in general. While I do not recommend lightning-rods, I think, under the circumstances, this is an honest claim and I am not in favor of referring it to the Committee on Ways and Means except as the resolution directs. This question will come up again on its final passage, and then will be the proper time to discuss it.
Mr. EDWINS moved to lay the report of the Committee on the table.
The motion was rejected--yeas, 23; nays, 57.
The report of the Committee was concurred in.
On motion by Mr. BUSKIRK, the further consideration of the bill [H. R. 3] concerning interest and usury was postponed until Wednesday, February 16, at 9 a. m.
