Kenosha tribune & telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1856-1859, 1857-01-08
The Lunatic Asylum case decided.

1ne LunaIlC Asylum case decided.
Our readers are not entirely unfamiliar
with the history of the attempt to furnish
this state with a lunatic asylum. Some
three or four years ago the legislature
passed an act authorising the Governor
to appoint three commissioners whowere
to contract for the erection of an asylum
on the plan of the Worcester asylum,
Mass, with such alterations only as the
commissioners might deem essential, not
INDEPENDENTLY however, either in plan
or cost from the model mentioned. Such
building was assumed to cost by the
Legislature some $4,000. The commits
sioners went on and let the work to An
drew Proudfit. The next session of the
| legislature declared that the commission
ers had exceeded their powers, had trans
crossed the law, and it declared the con-
tract of Proudft void. Proudfit feeling
himself aggrieved, of course, applied to
subsequent legislatures for relief, and al
| his solicitation, the law of last summer
appointing I. o. Howe, T. S. Lowell, &
VIM. p. Lynde commission to finally
settle the matter, was passed. This com
mission after thorough investigation
awarded Proudft damages or compensa-
tien in full, in amount of $7,482, which
by the terms of the law creating the com
mission, is final.
The testimony before the commission
ers justified the action of the Legislature
in annulling the contract of Proudfit. 1t
was manifest that the legislature which
originated the matter intended to have a
building on the general plan of the " or
cester Asylum, and at a cost not far from
$23, 700, while it appeared that the bull
ding contracted for was nothing like the
model, and would cost 1898, 45o SO. 1t
was fortunate for the state that the leg
islature interposed when it did.
Proudft also proved before this com
mission that his profits on this job would
amount to the enormous sum of $780,
592 "a; which was the sum he deman-
ded for the abrogation of his contract by
the state. The following, which is the
concluding sentence of the commission
ers' report, gives the ground Of the
award:
Because, therefore, in making the con
tract before us, the people of the state
were obliged to confide in the fidelity
and discretion of agents, because such
agents in agreeing to this contract, dis
regarded the wishes of the people as ex-
pressed.by their Legislature and asknown
to both themselves and the contractor,
because the building contracted for was
vastly larger and more expensive than
the one designed by the Legislature, be
cause the opportunity given to the pub
lie to prepare bids was not such as the
law contemplated, nor as sound discre-
ton would dictate, because on the con-
trary, but two persons from the whole
state appeared to bid for the contract,
and because, although these bids were
sealed in conformity with the law, yet
the contents of the only rival bid were
made known to the contractor in consi-
deration Of sum of money which he
agreed to pay to the author of such rival
bid, contrary to the spirit and policy of
the law, by reason Of all which the con-
tractOrwas enabled to obtain the contract
at, and did exact unreasonable and ex-
orbitant prices, we deem the contract
inequitable, unjust and unconscientious,
and we can award the claimant, there
fore, only such sum will compensate
him for his services and expenditures I'M
der the same.