Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-03-06
THE PRISON CONTRACT.
Another Motion to Quash the Writ of Man
damus-The Argument Yesterday.

Another Motion to Quash the Writ of Man
damus-The Argument Yesterday.
The supreme court sat yesterday in the
custom house tie continue the hearing in
the case of the State ex rel G. j. Thomp-
son VS.. The Warden and Inspectors of the
State prison. The relator was represent
ed by George L. Otis, ESQ.,, and the re-
spondents by Attorney General Start and
W. P. Clough, Esq.
At the opening of court counsel for
respondents moved to quash the writ of
mandamus. This motion was argued
advisement by the court.
Counsel for respondents argued that the
Prison contract requires the approval of
the governor and State auditor, and until
they have approved it there is no con-
tract. Hence there was no agreement or
contract with Thompson. That where
an agreement for contract is to be en-
bodied in written instrument, until the
instrument is executed by all the parties
none are bound and any of them may re-
cede from the negotiation. The instrument
was not executed in this case. That
mandamus should issue in the name of
the real parties in interest, FOrepaugh s.
Tarbox, for whom Thompson acted
That the court has no Jurisdiction be-
cause the proceeding is in reality against
the State, which cannot be sued That
the mind Of Thompson and those of the
inspectors and warden never met concern
ing the terms Of contract. That the
contract rendered to Thompson and re-
jected by him was fair and proper, the
clauses to which Thompson objected
being necessary for protection of the
State, and that Thompson refused to ex-
ecute the contract because he wanted to
escape from his bid and let the contract
fall back upon the bid put in by Fore
paugh & Tarbox.
Counsel for the relator argued that the
bidder who put up $4,000 in cash to Sc
cure his bid and an unquestioned bond
for $4,000 to secure his contract could
not be regarded as straw bidder. That
Forepaugh & Tarbox had right to make
two bids, and that their doing so was not
against public policy or in anywise injur-
ious to the State. That the advertisement
and bid constituted contract. That the
negotiations were based on Thompson's
accepted bid. That it was not unreasonable
that he should have right to remove
the machinery crowding the shops, and
to use it elsewhere outside the prison
walls. Nor was his demand as to sub
letting the labor an unreasonable one.
That the board did not regard his claim
in these respects as modification of his
bid, but after written notice of his claims,
formally accepted his BID. That Thomp-
sons rights were not forfeited by a re-
fusal to execute the lease rendered him.
That the board was estopped from clos
ing the negotiations, because it rendered
harsh and improper conditions. That if
the board had formally annulled, on the
31st, the acceptance of Thompson's bid,
no other rights intervening, he could
still have come in five days after the
31st, accepted their terms and claimed his
contract. That Thompson was entitled
to notice, and theaftera a reasonable time
for consideration before forfeit
ure of his bid. That Thomp-
sons contract was in when
February 4th), the board resolved to re-
ject all bids. That the so-called Sey-
mour, Sabin s. Co., contract is void be-
cause the members of the board who
signed it, acted not as board but in
their individual capacity. And, finally,
that under the law it is not necessary for
the Governor and Auditor of State to ap-
prove written contract.
Both sides quoted authorities exten-
sively, and cited literally from the volu-
minous evidence taken