Daily globe., 1881-02-18
The AnsaUer.

In accordance with the above order the re-
spondents,F E. 6. Butts, John De Laittre
and L. e. Reed, inspectors, and ]. A. Reed,
warden of the State prison, filed their answer
to the complaint of relator, of which the fol.
lowing is an abstract:
In general terms the answer denies each
and every allegation in the alternative writ
contained, save as hereinafter admitted or
qualified.
It admits the official character of the re-
spondents as alleged; that the State Is the own
and that certain prisoners and convicts con-
fined in said prison as alleged in the writ.
That they advertised for sealed proposals
for the rental of such shops and convict labor
as alleged.
The respondents further allege that in re-
sponse to their advertisement they received
only three bids, one from the relator, who bid
47H cents per day for the labor of the convicts
and s., ,OlO per year for use of the shops and
ground; one from Forepaugh & Tarbox who
bid 42x cnts for convict labor and 81 300 per
year for shops, and one from ]. II. Edward
who bid 40 cents for labor and nothing for use
of shops.
The answer further alleges and
charges that, the relator's bid was
not bona .fde, but was made
to avoid fair and honorable
cOmpetlOn anu WIN Lne lnten
to cheat and defraud the State of Minnesota;
that in making the bid the relator acted as the
agent and attorney of the said firm of Fore
paugh & Tarbox, SO that in case any other
person bidding for said convict labor and use
OF said shops should make a bid higher than
Forepaugh & Tarbox, then the said firm was
to have the benefit of relator's bid and in case
no other bid than relator's should be made
higher than that OF Forepaugh s. Tarbox, re-
lator was to refuse to enter into any contract
in pursuance to his bid, was to seek for
that the contract might be awarded to said
Forepaugh s. Tarbox under their bid; that i'll
pursuance of this said intent the said re-
lator, after discovering that there
was no bid higher than the said Forepaugh &,
Tarbox, the relator served the following notice
upon the warden and commissioners of the
State prison:
Gentlemen: To avoid misapprehension it is
proper for me to state before the award is
made my understanding of the scope of ry
bid for use of machinery, etc., and for prison
labor under your printed notice.
/ regard it as embracing not only the use of
shops, but the right to the Legitimate use of
the machinery anywhere in the State, or even
out of it, with full right to sub-let. Also the
right to sub-let the prison labor in the prison
to different parties if desirable to me.
u q. N.
The answer fnrther states that the reiator
was notified of the acceptance of his bid,
and further, that the respondent did not assist
to the reator's construction of the advertise
ment and proposals made In response thereto,
as indicated by the above letter.
The answer also alleges that respondents
were willing to modify the contract with re.
lator so as to permit him to remove any Of
the movable machinery, and store the
same on the prison grounds;
but objected to his removing the same from
the prison grounds and sub-letting the same,
as demanded by relator.
That the relator, then and there, declined
and refused to execute any contract unless the
right to remove and sublet the machinery,
and also to sub-let the prison labor was ac
corded him.
That thereupon the relator having refused
to execute the contract under his bid, and the
respondents deeming the next bid, viz: that Of
42X cents per day by Forepaugh d Tarbox,
too low for such shops and labor, the re-
spondents rejected all bids, and subsequently
and before the service of the alternative writ
of mandamus herein, let the prison shops
and prison labor to Seymour, Sabin q Co. at
IS cents per day and 81 800 per year rental for
use of shops.
Another allegation of respondents is in the
form of eneral jurisdiction of their acts, in
which it is set forth that the contract made
with Seymour, Sabin & Co. is for
more beneficial to the State than the bid of
Forepaugh & Tarbox, the only one left to con-
slider after relator refused to justify, it being
claimed that the proposed change OF business
and management would seriou sly endanger
the safety of the prisoners and cause great
loss to the State in the urging and destruc-
ton of the State machinery rendered useles IS
by the change