Nashville union and dispatch. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1866-1868, 1867-05-10
APPENDIX.

line.
APPENDIX.
Peff0n Of Rees W. Porter, a Bidder for
the Lease Of the RenItensiary. Filed
In She Chancery COurt at Nashville.
PETITION AND OATH.
To tie Hon. David Camp5eH, ,oho presisies IN
the ChdHcsTF Court at NdskUils Your COM
plainsnt, Rees W. Porter, citizen Of Davidson
county. in the State of Tennessee, would show
to your Honor, that on the 18th day Of May 1866,
the Legislature Of the State of Tennessee passed
q law for leasing out the penitentisry, and BY
the second section Of said act, three directors
were 70 be appointed oy the aoyernor, and con-
bill provides that said directors sbOuld take fall
and complete control Of the prison with all its
property and effects, and that they should pro-
coed at once to make publication for thirty days
in such newspapers in this and the States as they
may deem advisable, for sealed proposals to EN-
plOy by him the labor of all the conyicts
in said prison; which advertisement it was pro-
yided should set forth In full the conditions up
on which said labor was to be hired. Said sealed
proposals were 10 be filed in the Office Of the
Secretary Of State as they were presented, and
after the lapse of two months frOmthe end of the
thirty days. the seals were to be opened by said
directors. in the presence OF the Governor, and
then theeontract WAS to be awarded to whoever
had made the highest and best bid. all cireum-
Your complainant charges that Samuel Hare
A. b. Shenkland and " lillian Mills were APP
pointed directors under said bill, and they pro-
ceeded to take entire charge of the penitentiary,
and to give notice in the newspapers for sealed
proposals; and your petitioner, among Others
became bidder, and the contract was awarded
to him, the facts about which are as follows:
Complainant, upon the terms and con-
ditions specified, bid for the hire of the
convict labsr sixty-fve cents per day for
each convict, and when the time came
for the bids. or sealed proposals. to be opened,
complainant sent man to see and learn what the
result was; The commissioners declined to tell
him, but he ascertained enough to know that
petitioners bid had got the contract and came
back and told complainant that his bid was the
highest, as he believed, but that complainant
was not going Is. get the contract; that there
was triggering going on. Complainant at once
sat about looking into 1t. Said commissioners,
or directors. informed him that his bid took the
contract, that be just did get il, that there was
another bidder who was very lttle-Only few
cents-under complainant; and in fact, com
plainant has been Informed that there was an
other bidder at sixty-three cents.
One of said commissioners Immediately com
menced trying to discourage complainant, saying
il was very heavy contract and he bad better
look well into it before he took il, that il was
very dangerous business. Another one OF said
commissioners, or directors. sent for q friend of
Compliments and talked with him about IL. as
complainant has been informed. and told him
that complainant would lose money, that IL
would be a ruinous business, &e This was all
done by men who had been appointed directors
and specially charged vita the interests of the
State. and directed 10 do the best they could for
the State, all things considered. Complainant
became fully satisfied there was something
wrong. and made up his mind that he would
serupulOusly comply with all the requirements.
so as to give them no advantage over him, know
ing that he had the contract he did not intend TO
lose it by any neglect on bis part.
Complainant learned that said parties were
m damanH fhnugaph n no
paid down in the transaction, but what was, as
complainant believes. simply TO defeat COM
plainant, believing he could not raise
the money. He at once made an ar
rangement with u friend who had the money,
to give check for ten thousand dollars il il
should be demanded, and therefore. complainant
was fully prepared 70 meet any such demand as
that.
Complainant asked about the bond. and they
gave him reasonable time to get his securities.
seeming not TO be particular about time. He
but was told by one of the directors that they
were not exactly ready, and for him to come
back in two hours. Complainant looked
at the clock so rs 10 be certain, and went back
ten minutes before the time was out. but the
director. who was present. told complainant 20
see Mr.. Shankland, another director who was
close by, and bring him in This complainant
attempted. but did not find him, and after some
talk, said director took the ground that com
plainant had lost the contract upon the question
of time; that he had lost it by one minute "
demonstrated, but II did no good
They persisted in saying he had lost it BY ''One
mitt1te."
Complainant had security with him, which was
ample and which could not be disputed, and
which was not objected to-: The only question
made being the question Of time, "eHs intimate"
The truth is, complainant had prepared him
self so as not to be defeated upon this question,
and had made his arrangements wlta several
other gentlemen TO 60 on the bond II = should
become necessary, but no such question was
made. Respondent didnot tender the bond be-
cause the directors were to prepare tho bond.
After declaring that complainant was not
entitled to his contract, because he had
failed by one minute Of time. without
again Offering the biddings, or without
publishing for new proposals., the contract was
awarded to Briggs and Hyatt as complainant
learns not knowing their first names, at forty
three cents per day for each convict. This was
twenty-three cents per day less on each con-
yict's labor than complainant had offered, and
the next day, In several Of tue city papers,
glowing accounts Of this excellent contract were
which complainant believes was done
1t the instance of said directors.
By said directors deciding that complainant
lost his contract by one inmate. the State lost
ust ST., 12320 The probabilities are, from |
present indications, thatthere will soon be two
Ir three times as many conviets as there now
ire; and, in fact. il IS almost certain the State
would be the looser by this new contract, and by
his mishap Of one minute. from one hundred |
md fifty thousand to two hundred thousand /
dollars.
This transaction. when all the parts are /
Inown, speaks for itself IL is q most palpable,
downright. and in point OF hardihood, une-
lualled fraud. Complainant believes some Of i
he directors are interested in it. and that il is
combination 20 make money for themselves. and Il
hereby defraud the State. The truth IL. a few 4
uch contracts as this will bankrupt the State.
Respondent has made his calculations. and |
made them close, and he can make large /
mount Of money on his contract sc sixty L
'ents. There is in compliments opinion, more
money TO be made at the contract Of Briggs and /
1yatt than at any public contract which was
.ver let out in the State. and by II the State L
must lose very large amount Of money. The
nd clothe the eonvicts and pay all i
Ulcers Of the PenitentiaIy their salaries. The Il
tate doing this and receiving only forty three
ents per day for the labor, would be compelled
o have great deal Of money. and the said
irsc tors must know IL. The complainant sub
ats TO the honorable court, whether the hon
rable court Will not interfere, as we'll 20 pro
ect the State as TO do complainant Justice.
Certainly il is time the people should have |
lille respite from the clutches Of their own
rryants, because all who are Interested with
be public business. are but the trustees Of the
e0ple
Complainant further charges. that he was |
dVised by his counsel, that the writ Of mdHda-
ms was the proper remedy, and he caused
T the Code, and presented 10 NJ. M. Brien. |
udge Of the Circuit Court, embracing the city |
( Nashville where the Office Of said directors |
kept; but said NJ. NJ. Brien. Judge. wrote
pom the petition that he denied the writ.
rough the facts were set forth substantially a. |
hey are in this bill. This was a refusal 10 |
How the question 20 be investigated, and
snal of the eouFt. 50 far as It could be done.
Though il has generally been the policy 10
eep the courts opened. Said order being
Iade out Of court. there could be appeal
ON Il; and before the petition could be pre-
nted in court said parties viii have taken /
DssessiOn Of the PenitentiaTy and property.
1ne without knowing that complainant i as
rting his legal rights. Complainant u advised |
lere is no wrong without a remedy, and there
re- he comes into your honorable court, to ask |
dress, there being none elsewhere, and 10 ask
stice as we'll for the State and people, as for
mself
The premises considered complainant prayS
at said Hare, Shankland snd Mills. all
tizens Of Davidson county. and said Briggs and
yeti. who are nov residents, as complainant
ans. and whose given names are not known
him, be made defendants. that process issue,
I'd especially that complainant have an in
notion against said Briggs and Hyett. 70 en- Z
IN them from taking possession OF the Peni-
ntiary under any contract they Elay claim 70 [
I'VE made with said Directors; that all the
rites answer. but net upon oath; and that
II Directors discover and make known the
ds. not only of complainant and said Briggs |
d Hyett. but 0f all other parties, who did BID, a
d especially the bid next highest % complain
4, and finally q Rpeei6c performance OF the I
ntraet. GA the part Of said Directors. giving
mplalnant the privilege Of king such bond Z
mag be required. And if b. chance, the SAID !
1898 and Hyett should get in possession be Z
-e the injunction. or before the bond e Given.
them be made finally u account to CON Y
linant for the profits scared or made. or re-