Jasper County Democrat, Volume 3, Number 29, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 October 1900 — COMMUNICATED. [ARTICLE]

COMMUNICATED.

Reply to the Apollglst Organ. The Apologist editor of Rensselaer which has taken upon itself the responsibility of championing B. D. Comer’s administration of public affairs in Union Ip., eaysiu the Apologist of last week:“There is no better trustee in Jasper county,” also, “a meaner or dirtier fight was never made against any man on nny ticket.” We wish we could say rts much bht we can’t and tell the truth, and when you make the charge you not only

make it against me, but you make it against at least 200 citizens cf Union who are your peer and equal in truth, veracity and law-abiding fellow creatures. You are evidently misformed or else you do not know what you are talking about, for at least onefifth of the 200 voters who are making that ‘‘mean, dirty fight” against B. D. Comer hail from the good old law and order league of Union. Again you say “no real fault is found in Mr. Comer” in the matter of building that new now famous school house. Travel about Union township and investigate for yourself, and then you will know better than to meddle with the public administration of Union which is none of your concern, in order to help bolster up a dying cause and a political loss. Please do not attempt to connect me with the first letter signed ‘•Union tp.,” wherein you make it say that when the contract was let the advisory board was not present and was ignored in toto. We never made such erroneous statements either in print or verbally, neither did the author of said, letter. The aforesaid letter was only an interrogatory direct to the board, to elicit information the voters and taxpayers of Union were legally entitled to, and no one knows it better than yourself. Again you say “Mr. Comer’s actions were perfectly right and in clear accordance with the letter and spirit of law.” Our answer to this. Mr. Comer admitted to one of the advisory board of Union substancially as follows: “I guess I have violated the law in letting thextou tract to build that school house and I will have to consult my attorney.” “My attorney” was consulted and gave advise: Again, “the law requires that the trustees before letting contracts which amount to over SSOO to advertise in two papers.” Now we agree that the law requires that trustees must advertise the letting of contracts in the two leading papers resresenting the two leading parties before contract is let where the contract calls for an expenditure of SSOO ok more. You say “over $500,” and for what purpose did you say that, when you know as well as we do the law says*ssoo or more? The only logical deduction is you are better enabled to bolster up a defence your protege’s direct vio- 1 lation of the statute law in making that contract. You admit that your protege did not advertise for bids; you admit the law requires trustee’s to advertise contracts calling for more than *SOO, so you practically admit your protege DID violate the law when you say the house “cost $565.15.” Again, you say “the advisory board was satisfied with the bid of $565.15 and accepted it. You are begging the question. You mighty just as well say they would have been satisfied with a bid of $lO,(XX) as to say a bid of $565.15 was agreeable to them, for it would have suited your purpose fully as well. It is not the mere matter of fact that the building cost SSOO, SI,OOO or SIO,OOO that the people are fighting your protege for, but the real and ultimate object the republican trustees and other officers of Indiana have towards what is known as the reform laws. It is not the question of a few dollars and cents in this instance that is at stake in Union; but shall a wholesome law governing township improvements be carried out in letter and spirit or shall it be violated with impunity those in authority? The excuse you give for your protege in not advertising that contract as prescribed by statute law is so thin and wattery it does not merit an intellect answer, but I will take notice to one passage more. “You say, “to have neglected the bids would have delayed th e house too far past the tune of opening of the school.” If you had investigated the matter and not rushed to tbe defence of your protege like a spring chicken into n fight, and also not challenged the veracity and motives of everyIxxly who can not abide you and your protege’s dictum, you would have found that the plans were deposited three full weeks in advance of its letting in Harriott A Grant’s store at Parr. So you can see by a positive statement, personally made to me by one of the advisory board, that jour protege could ha'. e advertised ns law directs and then Let the cc - tract two full weeks sooner than ho did. Fn'NK J. Ga\”.