The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1857-02-12

argument of the question would be a waste
of time. They are to all intents void, on this
ground, and should be so treated by the GEN
eral Assembly. There is another question
connected with these two sections, growing
out of the same act of the contractors, 10
which we deem it proper 10 call attention. II
it had not been for the buying off of these
two bids, it is but fair to presume, chat SecE
ton No. would have been awarded to j.
& w. Dckey y Co., at S94, 300. To pre-
sumo otherwise, would be to take it for grant
ed, that the Board would not have done their
duty. The State would then have got the
same service for 81, 100 less per year than
has been paid to Young & Co.; and it is but
fair and honest for the State to get that sum
back for the year 1856, and proportionate
amount for the rest of the time that he may
have it under his contract He should reap
no profit from his wrongful act We have not
had tim to examine this question, as law
question, and hunt up authorities, but GER
tainly the manifest justice of the suggestion
would seem to render argument and author
ity unnecessary.
Indeed, it appears to us that he should have
no more than his lowest bid, put in in the
name of John G. Allen e. Co, and withdrawn
by himself, after he had secured the with
drawal of the bid of j. & w. Dickey & Co.
and if this be SO, he should have but $24,-
600 year.
The same reasoning, applied TO Section No.
9, would enitle the contractor to receive at
the rate of $3.50, the sum bid by o. White.
One tling is clear ; that is, neither Of these
contractors got their contracts in way to
have any claim upon the State, by virtue OF
the contracts made by the Board with them.
These contracts, as we have elsewhere shown
at length, were obtained in such way, that
they were absolutely and utterly void from
the beginning. The conduct Of the bidders
was such as TO vitiate both the contracts
They do not stand then in the light of con-
tractors, who have a legal or equitable claim
on the State, for a stipulated sum nor ind ed
for any sum, strictly speaking but as they
have rendered service to the State, from which
it has received benefit, we presume the Leg
isiature will not hesitate to pay them what the
service is reasonably worth. On the plainest
principles of justice, this is all they are enti-
tied to, or should have. 1t will not strength
en- the opposite position any TO say, that they
should have the sums stipulated in the con-
tracts-because, as we have shown, these con-
'ldClS MtIt HSNCI COntIhClS' II COutl dCt 10 All
agreement entered into, between two compe-
tent parties, founded on a sufficient consider
alton and if there be fraud on either side,
the agreement is a nullity. A stipulation in
void agreement is no stipulation. If these
MN had gone on and rendered service yalr-
able to the State, which was received by it,
or its agents, without any pretence Of an
agreement as TO the price, every one will
readily see, they would only be entitled to
whatthe ser,ic rendered was reasonbly wort
And certainly they who, by bad faith towards
the State, have obtained written agreement
from the States agents, which was void from
the start, on account of this bad faith, can
claim no more than an honest man, who should
render the State service, by procurement o.
any of its agents, without stpulating the re-
muneration. If he who Las been honest, ear
obtain only justice, certainly he who has no
been SO, would claim more with very poo
show of rea on.