The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1899-05-16

of the plaintiffs to act as members Of
the board. After the elaborate opin-
ions Of the court, as well ga those con
curing and dissenting, fled at this
term upon questions of title to Office,
but little is now left to be said. Upon
the authority of the cases of States
Prism vs. Day and Cherry-vs. Burns,
both filed at this term, together with
the cases therein cited, we feel com
PEELED to say that members of the
Board of Agriculture are not constitu-
tional IF GERS; and that being Of legis-
lative creation they are equally within
the power of the legislative appoint
ment."
Good lawyers say that the decision
in Wilson va. Jordan will put ex Rail
road Commissioner Abbott (Rep } on
Corporation Commission to succeed
BeddingReId (Dem)
In the Public Printing case, the
| Court decides itself unable to right a
legislative wrong, at least, in this in
stance. The News and Observer tells
the story thus:
THE Joint Committee on Printing,
it will be remembered, advertised in
accordance with an act Of the last
legislature for bidders for the public
printing. Barnes Capital Printing
Co.. was ascertained to be the lowest
responsible bidder; his bond was ad.
Judged sufficient, and the committee
accepted his bid and rendered him a
contract which he refused to sign, in
sisting that it was unauthorized by the
act. Thereafter the committee in pur-
suance of a joint resolution signed q
contract for the public printing with
defendants Edwards & Broughton and
Uzzell. Barnes then claimed that this
contract was void; that the acceptance
of his bid constituted a contract to
award him the public printing; that
the subse quent resolution authorizing
the contract with Edwards & Brough-
ton and UzzeIl was unconstitutional in
that it ignored a vested right of Barnes
under his contract with the commit
tee."
In this statement, the News and Oh.
server suppresses some very import
ant truths regarding this, one of the
darkest acts of the last General Assem-
bly,. It fails to tell it's readers that
after discovering that Barnes was the
lowest bidder, the Printing Committee
, drew or changed the contract in such
a way as to make it impossible for
Barnes to eign it. While the subject
was Under discu ssion in the last legis-
lature, Senator Lindsay Oem.), a
. member of the Printing Committee,
openly protested against this perfdy
on the part Of the other members of
that committee. He had wanted, he
! said, to give the public printing to Ed
wards & Broughton, a Democratic
firm. But a proposition had been made
to give the printing to the lowest bid.
der and a Populist firm, Barnes Bros,
had offered to take the work for sew
> eral thousand dollars less than Ed
wards & Broughton and Uzzell. He
did not consider it just to 80 change
Q the contract 90 that Barnes Bros. could
not sign ito break faith in that way.
Much as he wanted the printing to
90 to Edwards & Broughton, he could
see no fairness in giving it to them
after promising it to the lowest bidder.
But to the average politician what
are the interests Of the tax payers COM
pared with party" interestsG Mr..
Lindsey's advice was not needed.
it In the decision, Justice Montgomery
says:
l. 1T is evident from what appears be-
3. fore US that the policy adopted orig
4 inally by the General Assembly toi
1899 of putting out the public printing
to the lowest responsible bidder was
abandoned when the joint resolution
Id was adopted ~instructing the committee
TO make the contract with Edwards &
D.. Broughton and Uzzell at the price,
o named therein-the same being tn
maximum prices named in the origina
s, bill. It is apparent upon the face o
the record that the contract was no
made with the lowest responsible bid
y der. When the contract as it wa
It, executed lie compared with the bid o
the plaintiff company and the contrac
il, which it rendered, no room is left TO
be doubt that the contract as executec
NJ was made with the highest bidder. Tn
plaintiff company was a reliable estak
1t. lishment, found to be 80 after a full in
be vestigation by the committee, and til
d. bond rendered wes declared by tn
in committee to be sufficient, both i