Weekly commercial herald. (Vicksburg, Miss.) 1884-18??, 1886-06-11
QUESTION fcrM %. CatohIngs

Questions fer Mr. Ca~tohlngs."
JACKSON, MI8s, june 2-suit was
instituted to-day ia the Circuit Court
against the lessees of the p~enitentiary
for $50. 400 due the State on lease Of
the p~enilentiaTy for 1885. Col. Ham
ilton on the part Of the lessees, refused
to make payment in money, but is
willing to settle as is required by
lesses' contract, and as the settlements
have been made heretofore. There is
considerable dispute between the au-
thorites and the lessees as to the terms
of the contract, and therefore the At
torneY- General brings this suit to set.
lie the controversy. This lease was
entered into in 1880, and the lessees
have annually paid any balance found
due after deducting for mac linery and
improvements. There will be a long
litigation before the suit is decided. :
Special to Commercial Herald.
|. Did not the Legislature of 1884,
by ACT passed March IL, 1884, say that
the lessees of the penitentiary then
owed the State $S9,400?
2. DidnOt the Act require the Attor-
ney- General, who was then MI. Catch
ings, when notified by the Governor. to
sue for this sum unless it was paid?
3. Did not Mr.. Catchings say in a
card, that the Governor notified him of
this Act, but that he did not sue be-
cause there was no necessity for it?
4. Did not the last message of the
Governor show that only $4,000 of
this debt was paid in money, and the
balance in Improvements, at a rate
which a committee Of the Senate SAID
was exorbitant?
5. Did not the lessees of the peniten-
tiary make the same claim then that
they do now, and was there not as
much necessity for a suit to settle the
question then as now?
6. Did not Mr.. Catchings know that
his card deceived the people into be-
lieving that the lessees had paid in full
the debt which he was directed to sue
for, when he knew they had not paid
what the Legislature said was due, but
only what the ~lessees admitted to be
due? INQUIRER.
The above appears in the Post of
June 5th, and each question is so easy
that any citizen who has paid the
slightest attention to the legislation on
the subject, or is at all familiar with
the current legislation, a furnish the
answers. Now let us see.
LIST. The legislature did not shy act
in 1884" or any other gear, say the
lessees "owed the State $39, 400 90" OF
any amount whatever. The act OF
March 18th, 1884, only transferred the
1924 80, deposited by the lessees in
cash, now in the State treasury to the
credit Of the penitentiaTy improve
ment fund" to the general fund OF the
State.
2nd. The "act of 1884" did not re.
quire the Attorney-Genera to sue for
this sum" or any other specified sum
but required the Governor 10 notify
him if the lessees failed or refused tC
make payment of what might be due
under their contract.
Bird. Mr.. Catchings did say, in his
card, that the Governor notified him
and that the settlement and payment
was made without suit. Is there any
objection to that? If suit had beer
instituted, the settlement and payment
could not have been made earlier thar
it was, but possibly delayed.
4th. The amount of payment would
not have been changed if suit had beer
Instituted, as contracts for work haC
already been made, and work Was be.
ing done under those contracts. This
is shown by the report of the Senate
committee referred to, and "the rate
was fair and reasonable, so says anoth
er committee who were not influenced
by spite or Gny political schemes.
9th. There could have been no ne
cessity for suing the ~lessees when
fair and proper settlement was nade
and no matter what the lessees claim
ed, they made a legal, fair and satisfac
tory settlement with the authorities a
that time, and as for the necessity O
suit now, that remains to be seen
The result will best INDICATE the wis
dom, legality and necessity of th,
proceeding. There is evidently taOt
very large sides t. the question.
9th. Mr.. Catchings' card stated tn,
precise fact and truth at the time
1t was given. The settlement to which
the Governor called his attention, hnC
been properly made under the law anC
the money due paid in cash, and NJ
other settlement could have been
made, nor could any judgment beer
had for any other amount than tht
sum paid. He was not directed to SUI
for any sum aOhGte0er but that ascer
tanned to be due on settlement, if tn,
lessees failed or refused to pay. They
did neither. The Legislature reveI
said GRy amount "was due" by tn,
l%essees.
Inquirer proceeds upon a false theory
perhaps in ignorance of the law ant
facts. If so he may be ,excusable
But would it not be well for thosI