The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-03-06

report, IN which they say u that the
Governor and superintendent were
authorized TO contract p that con-
tracts were made, and OBJ that the
prices paid were reasonable and Just.
To settle the differences between
the majority and the minority a
special committee has been raised on
the motion OF Chairman Boone,
This represents the attitude Of the
penitentiary question before the SEN
ate 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 10
contract, on the repeal Of section 3 OF
the act of January 81, 1877, which
authorized contracts for Improvements
not 10 exceed in the aggregate the en-
tire amount paid by said lessees during
said lease, together with the amount
now them authorized by law" 1.-THE
amount authorized by law at that
time being 5000; and they find no
warrant for such contracts in the act
Of March 10, 1884, saying that said act
only authorizes the superintendent
TO contract for repairs, and does not
authorize any contract to be made for
improvements" The language of the
act of March 10, 1884, thus construed
by the majority, is rs follows:
Sec. Z. BE u further eidcted, That in
case OF an accident 10 the penitenliary
buildings, or any necessary repairs or
improvements actually needed, the
superintendent Of the penitentiary
may contract for such repairs, with
the approval of the Governor Upon
the presentation of an itemized ac-
count of such expenditures, approved
by the Governor, TO the Auditor OF
Public Accounts, il shall be his duty
To draw his pay warrant upon the
Treasurer for the same, which shall be
paid out OF the funds derived from
the lease of the penitentiary.
The minority construe this Language
10 authorize contracts for improve
ments Acknowledgement Catchings
and Messrs Nugcnt q Melville and
Judge 5. s. Calhoon so construed il. IL
seems to us too plain for argument
ttat tsey are right, and ii anything
were necessary 10 confirm MS in this
view, ii is found in the fact that the
Legislature, by the act OF March -,
1884, having repealed all laws author
izing expenditures for improvements,
on,the 10Th day Of the tame month
passed the act in which the language
quoted is found.
A1,.stN.I thnN Nkn
had the right to contract, with the APP
proval OF the Governor, and the con
clusion of the majority that no con-
tracts were made is entirely too tech
nical.
We believe that no written agree
ments in the usual form OF contracts,
approved by the Governor, were pre-
sented TO the committee; but the
superintendent verbally authorized
many of the smaller items OF the ex-
penditures, and the buildings and
walls, for the price of which credit
was given to the lessees i'm their set
Element, were constructed substan-
tally according to written estimates
and specifications, and no credit was
of any kind not approved by
the superintendent and the Governor.
1t is not material whether the CON
tracts were made by the superintend-
ent and approved by the Governor be-
fore the work under them was COM
menccd, or whether the superintend-
ent made the contracts before the inn
provements were commenced and the
Governor approved the contracts after
the improvements were completed.
The important question is: Did the
and the Governor con-
eur that the repairs were necessary"
and that the improvements were "aN.
ually needed?" Further II may be
said that a verbal contract is as bind
ing as written one.
The most serious point OF difference
between the majority and the minor
ity is the value of the more important
the majority finding
that the prices paid were exorbitant.
They base their conclusions on this
point on the evidence of one H. Scully,
m architect and builder, who resides
in Meridian. Mr. Scully examined
md valued the blacksmith shop, the
center tower and wall, the dining-room
md the northeast tower and wall, for
I'll which the lessees were allowed
.30,442 II, while he says they are worth
Sl3, IFS 80.
The minority refuse to accept the
statement of Mr.. Scully, but rely on
he statement of Messrs. III. Nj. Taylor,
!. w. Olin, James Swan and Frank b.
Iull, all Of whom are familiur with the
particular improvements above speci-
led and say that they are worth what |
he State paid for them.
We do not know Mr.. Scully, and |
AVE but limited acquaintance with
Mr.. Swan, who is known TO be an ex-
architect and builder, but |
uessrs. Taylor, Hull and DIN have |
,een citizens of Jackson for many |
'ears, and their statement here on any |
natter would outweigh that of any |
me citizen of the State. They are |
ruthful and honest men, and they |
ire competent judges of the cost of |
uch buildings as that referred TO. In
act Mr., Taylor is a carpenter and |
lullulnE CONTRACTOR, ana MT. HUH q |
contractor of more than or
linary experience.
Until the contrary is clearly shown,
We shall believe that Mr.. SCully is
mistaken.
There are many differences between
he majority and minority which we
nave not time to notice. Our object
low is simply to show that there are
wo sides TO the question, and that as
o the most important matters referred
o in the report of the majority, their
conclusions are scarcely warranted by
he law or the facts as we understand
hem.
The judgment of condemnation
lgainst the Governor, the superin-
and the lessees, which the
majority seem to invite, should be
withheld until the report OF the spe-
,ial committee has been received.
Throw Away Trusses
And employ our radical nav method,
guaranteed to permanently cure the |
worst ceses of rupture. Send 10 cents |
in stamps for references, pamphlet
and terms. Worlds Dispentary Med. |