The Shasta courier. [volume] (Shasta, Calif.) 1852-1872, 1853-04-16
State Prison RepOrt.

The most OF our readers will recOllect that,
some months since, the action of Gov. Bigler in
this matter made the subject of the most
bitter and violent animadversion on the part of
certain newspaper editors. At the assembling
of the Legislature a Joint Committee was APP
pointed to make thorough examination into
the whole thing That committee, composed of
Cofroth, Kurtz, McKibben and Snyder, of the
Senate, and Hoff, Carney, McCandless, Con-
ness and Snyder, of the neutrality-suspicious.
members Of both parties-has made repor
from which we take the following extract, and
which, it will be seen, completely exorerates
the Governor from all blame. Col Bisler may
well bear the most virulent abuse with calmness
when he is able thus, by simple facts, to make
the slanderous charges TO recoil upon the heads
of their orginators aud his vindictive personal
enemies. 1t must indeed be agreeable to those
editors, whose personal ill.will induced them
to make public the charges of corruption. dis
honesty, &C.. against the Governor, to publish
this report now. 1t must afford them vast salts
isfacton thus to repair wrong. But they have
done it. And there the report stands in their
colums-a lasting monument of libeous accu-
sation.
"Under sections a. 5 and of the law, the
Commissioners were assigned the duty of APP
proving the plan determining the size and the
material to be used in the erection of the build
ing; to advertise for proposals for forty days,
and then award the work. The several propo-
sails, and award upon them, We're presented as
required by the 9th section to the Governor for
RET mi On he he
Governor placed on file statement setting forth
the approval of the award, the work having been
given, required by the act, to the lowest bid
der Two bids We're presented, one offered by
Mr.. T. Vassault and one by Mr.. Isaac Suffrance.
Your committee have examined these bids, and
find the proposal of Mr. Suffrance at least 90 per
cent. CHER than Mr.. Vassaults proposition, and
consequently the acceptance of Mr.. Vassault's
bid proper and the assent of the Governor
to the award under the law correctly given. On
the 9th of the same month the contract for the
erection of the prison building was executed on
the part of the State, by the Board of Commits
siOners; but upon examination ace find that u necer
receced the approval Of tie Gouernor, that officer
contending (and correctly too, as we believe)
that the law required him to examine the propo-
sails and the award, and decide whether the
work had or had not been awarded to the lowest
bidder The 9Th section of the act, it is true, has
been construed to require the approval of the
Governor to give effect to the contract, but your
committee of opinion that the section refer
red to required him to examine the work after
complexion and if executed according to the
provisions of the contract, he to approve the
same before bonds could issue in payment to
the contractor. We base this opinion upon the
concluding clause of the Sth section of the prison
act which directs the issuance of bonds upon
approval of the completion of said contract by
the Governor, in accordance with the conditions
of the contract made by the commissioners
In view of the fact that misrepresentation
have gone forth in relation to the acts of the Ex-
ecutive under this law your committee cannot
do less acting justly i'll the premises, than state
that the acts Of The Executive i'll this matter ap-
pear to have been characterized by desire to
comply strictly with the requirements of the face
of the law, and to guard carefully the interests
of The State"