The Brookhaven leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1883-1891, 1886-03-18


sipdi Penitentiary Lease" which we
ask shall be taken and made part of
this report" (See Minority Report,
page s.
They state that in referenceto the
sharply defined issue raised, they will
endeavor to give the facts, and dish out
the true inwardness of the thing.
They find various charges in the
form Of accounts, or bills, in favor
Of. lessees against the State, beginning
March 10, 1888, and ending October %,
1884. for materials, repairs and inn
provements, aggregating to SIS, 1872,
which seems to have been made
monthly.
That 50 far as the face of these papers
is concerned, there is no sign or sigma
ture of approval of the Governor or
Superintendent on any of them.
They find next a memorandum of
contract between lessees and Super
intendent for repairs amounting to
$500, with no approval of the Cover
nor ON its face; and then a contract
between the lessees and Superintendent
for the building of the blacksmith
shop, with estimate of material used
approved by three local contractors
and builders and by the Superintend-
ent, and an itemized bill for 1850,
neither of which show any approval
on its face, but in the statement of ac-
count. which is found on page 80 of
the minority report, we find every bill
or account, above mentioned, begin
ming March 'S3 and ending October 'S4,
aggregating the sum of So, 343.39, en-
dorsed as follows:
The foregoing amount of S27, 343.39,
for the years of 'S3 and '84, up to the
Goth November, l approve.
ROBERT LOWRY, Gov,
II. J. INCLUSION, Supt.
They find also numerous bills or ac-
counts, which are for the most par, APP
proved by James Swan, architect, and
which show no approval of the Cover
nor OH their fact. But on page 37of the
Minority Report, a statement contain
ing all the amounts, aggregating the
sum of ,254, to which we find the
following:
approved"
T. J. INCLUSION, Sup't,
ROBERT LOWRY, Governor.
They find that the law does not re-
quire that the contracts or the approx
al shall be in writing, and they think
it would be too rigid construction of
the law to require each little item to be
drawn up and approved in writing,
and they think that the approval of an
itemized account was sufficient.
That it is clear from acts they men,
ton that contract made by the SUI
perintendent for repairs or improve
ments required the approval of the
Governor, and that such approval
might have been written or verbal.
In order to arrive at the facts in re-
gard to the approval of these contracts
they requested Gov. Lowry to approve
before them and in response to ques-
tons he stated that the contracts
for the erection of the blacksmith shop
and three other contracts amounting
in all to about "a 900, were all submit
ted to him when agreed on by the Su-
perintendent and Lessees, with state
ment of architects that the price was
reasonable. Maj. T. J. McQuiston's
testimony corroborated these facts.
The committee are of opinion that
the law, in the matter these four prin-
ciple contracts, has been substantially
complied with.
With reference to the difference be-
tween the estimates made by architect
employed by majority and minority
of the committee as to whether or not
the charges of lessees for work done,
were exorbitant or not, they secured
tie services of prominent contractor
from Holly Springs and another from
Natchez.
These gentlemen were duly sworn
and made complete and careful esti-
mates of the most done, and the conn
mittee state that they afforded lessees
every opportunity to have AUST valua-
ton laid upon the work, and the esti-
mates are returned as exhibits to this
report:
By reference to the various estimates
made by L. Scully, and published in
the Majority report, it will be seen that
his estimate foots up (S14, 235, ~ four
teen thousand two hundred and thirty
22-1OO dollars-being (SS5.2O,) thirty
five 2O-10O dollars less than the amount
reported as finished or completed by
Messrs. Palm and Davis, as shown by
their estimates herewith, which are
$40, 1877 .O4 less than the estimates made
in the minority report. They state
that they cannot enter into details by
comparing the various items, and they
recommend that the act of March Is,
1884 be amended as follows:
| Insert after the word .scontracto in