The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-03-10
The Senate Committee on Peniten-
tiary and Prisons.

3 That if they had the power to con
ract, no contracts were, 10 fact, made;
nd
3. That the prices paid under the
.lleged contracts were exorbitaut.
All else is matter of inducement.
This report Is endorsed by Messrs.
Boone (chairman), Powell and Morris.
A minority Of the Committee-Messrs.
Binford and Casey-have offered sub
,titute for the Committees report, in
which they say ~ that the Governor
md Superintendent were authorized to
contract; (2) that contracts were made,
and (3) that the prices paid were rea-
,onable and just.
To settle the differences between the |
majority and the minority, a special |
committee has been raised, on the
motion If Chairman Boone.
This represents the attitude Of the
question before the Senate
at this time
The report Of the Committee, which
we will call the majority report, bases
its conclusion that the Governor and
Superintendent are without power to
contract, on the repeal Of section Of
the Act Of January 81, 1877, which au-
thorized contracts for Improvements not
to exceed in the aggregate the entire
amount paid ly said lessees during said
lease, together with the amount now
them authorized by law (the amount
authorized by law" at that time being
s25, 000); and they find no warrant for
such contracts in the Act of March 10
1884, saving that said Act only "author
ICES The Superintendent to contract for
repairs and does not authorize any con.
tract to be made for Improvements" The
language of the Act of March 10, 1884
thus construed by the majority, is as fol
lows:
SEC. Z. BE it further enacted, That
in case of an accident to the penitentiary
| buildings, or any necessary repairs o.
improvements actually nee ded, the Su
perinteudent of the Peniteutiary may
contract for such repairs, with the
approval of the Governor. Upon the
| presentation Of an itemized account OF
such expenditures, approved by the
Governor, to the Auditor of Public
Accounts, it shall be his duty to draw
his pay warrant upon the Treasurer fOI
The same, which shall be paid out of the
funds derived from the lease of the Pen
itentiary.
The minority construe this Language
to authorize contracts for Improvements
Attorney General Catchings and Messrs
Nugent & Melville ald Judge s. 5
Calhoon so construed it. it seems to u
too plain for argument that they ar
right, and if anything we're necessary t
confirm us in this view it is found il
the fact that the Legislature, by the Ac
of March II, 1884, having repealed al
laws authorizing expenditures for in
proyements, on the 10Th day of the sam
month passed the Act in which the Ian
guage quoted is found.
Admitted that the Superintendent ha
the right to contract, with the approya
of the Governor, and the conclusion Q
the majority that no contracts wer
made, is entirely too technical.
We believe that no written agreement
in the usual form of contracts, approve
by the Governor, were presented to tn
Committee; but the Superintendent
verbally authorized many of the smalle
items of the expenditures; and the build
ings and walls, for the price of whic
credit was given to the lessees in thei
settlement, were constructed substaI
TALLY according to written estimates an
specifications, and no credit was Above
of any kind, not approved by the Super
intendent and the Governor. 1t is no
material whether the contracts weT
made by the Superintendent and az
proved by the Governor before th
work under them was commenced, o
whether the Superintendent made th
contracts before the Improvements wer
commenced and the Governor approve
the contracts after the improvement
were completed. The important que'
ton is, Did the Superintendent and th
Governor concur that the repairs wer
Unnecessary and that the improvement
were actually needed?' Further
NAV be said that verbal contract is 9
binding as a written one.
The most serious point OF ditierenc
between the majority and the minorit
is the value of the more important in
provements, the majority finding tina
the prices paid were exorbitant. The
base their conclusions en- this point o
the evidence of one J.. Scully, an arch
tect and builder who resides in Meridian
Mr.. Seully examined and valued til
blacksmith shop, the center tower an
wall, the dining-roon and the north-eas
tower and wall, for all which the lessee
were allowed S30,44211, while he say
they are worth S13,l7S.36.
The minority refuse to accept tn
statement of Mr. Scully, but rely ol
the statement of Messrs. II. M. Taylor
F. w. DIN, James Swan and Frank B
Hull, all of whom are familiar with tn
particular Improvements above specified
and say that they are worth what thu
State paid for them.
We do not know Mr. Scully, and have
but limited acquaintance with Mr.
Swar, who is known to be an expert
enced architect and builder, but Messrs
Taylor, Hull and DIN, have been citi
zens of Jackson for many years, and
their statement here on any matter
would outweigh that of any one citizen
of the State. They are truthful and
honest men, and they are competent
Judges of the cost of sucn buildings as
that referred to. In fact Mr.. Taylor j:
carpenter and building contractor. Mr.
DIN, a bricklayer and building con-
tractor, and Mr.. Hull a building
contractor of more than ordinary expe
rience.
Until the contrary is clearly shown
We shall believe that Mr.. Scully is mis-
taken.
There are many differences between
the majority and minority which we
have not time to notice. Our object
now is simply to show that there are two
sides to the question, and that as to the
most important matters referred to in
the report of the majority, their conclu-
s;ons are scarcely warranted by the law