The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1904-02-25

cure SOCu 1OD. NOC DelNS ourselves
competent to pass upon technical
point OF this nature, we knew no high
er or better authority to whom we
could refer the matter. That we had
secured q most desirable contract un-
der sufficient specifications we felt con-
vinced and satisfied when the other
bids submitted under them ranged up
as high as $4,000, which seemed to
be the price necessary to justify that
contractor in engaging to erect the
work according to the accepted re-
quirements. The difference in the low
est bid and the one next to 1t Of nearly
1000, absolutely precluded any idea
Of collusion in awarding the contract.
There is general impression fos-
tered by this report, If not created
thereby, that the act creating the com
mission for the completion Of the State
house directed that said commission
should require bond from the con-
tractor. It will, therefore, be ta sur
prise to most members Of the general
assembly and the public to be Informed
Of the fact which is now stated, that
no such bond was required dr. sug-
gested by the legislature when defining
the duties Of the commissions. There
being an utter absence Of any mention
is clear that the bond actually taken
was one required by the commission
solely upon its own motion and IN or
der the better to aid them In enforc-
ing the performance Of the contract
which they entered into with Mcnvain-
Unkefer company. We take the posi-
ton that this bond was not at any
time under the control Of the slegisla-
ture, and that it became, according to
it's terms. utterly null and void soon
as this commission, acting through q
majority Of it's members, expressed
itself as satisfied with the performance
Of the contract which 1t securedY The
commission having accepted the work
Of the contractor, the bond given to
secure the performance of the cQntract
to the satisfaction Of the commission
became ipso facto cancelled and an
nulled, when the commission expressed
itself satisfied with the job: and the
endorsement upon the bond wasamerely
a ministerial duty done by the goY-
ernor and which we are convinced he
could have been mandamuSed ito do
under the circumstances. ZWeAare in
formed by the members who :he1onSGt
the legal profession that II said bond
were now lin possession Of the SoMcers
of the State unmarried by any endorse
ment, the plaintiff in interest could
not recover under the facts without
alleging and proving fraudulent coli
lusion as to acceptance Of the work be-
tween the commission, the obliEees and
the contractors, the obigors. and the
members of the investigating commit
tee have given public assurance that
no such collusion is even suspected.
Furthermore, at meeting held suh-
seQuent to the endorsement made by
the governor, the attorney geueral re-
ported informally to the commission
that the governor had sasJaled the
bond upon his legal advice.
THE OLD IRON AND OTHER glgK.
It was never the intentseH the
commission to reserve to tt state
the old iron and other junk e1HDyed
from the building. Not only they
believe that the contractor W0nld al-
low more for it in his bid fhyn they
could get for it otherwise, but ques-
tions would have been coatihuat arts-
ing as to the expense. etc, OF fenDvang
this old material, and Of getnu& 11 out
Of the way. It cost several aAlndred
dollars to get the old iron aiune down
from the roof. Besides, the al0pria-
ton for the work was limited And stne
commission desired to put in 4he build.
ing in value all that the fuDQs at
their disposal permitted. Not only did
the architect, as the agent COM
mission, inform the bidders HQnally
that the specifications would be g1f-
strued, (See opinion Of the 40tney
general, exhibit D. but there
dant evidence that all who Aled ~ bid
for the work did 80 on the rs OF
getting in partial payment the ma
terial that was removed. j..
Garfunkel, the man best Quau4ed TO
know this fact, the man Wh6a the
investigating committee ITSELF sum-
moned to testify in regard to TITS Old
material, swears that he knoWafaf his
own knowledge that the dinefeNt bids
ders for the work fled their big upon
the basis that the old n1ategiaH al OF
1t, would 60 to the contracto eSee
affidavit Of ]. B. Garfunkel. !.
IF any further evidence Of this fdct was
necessary the reply Of w. A. 1Egfef-
man, one Of the bidders, ands0f5 p.
Burgess, another to the same HeeS I'm
response to a telegraphic inQu5$E nat
("In my capitol bid figured p1al OLD
material being my property. tel
egrams, exhibit g. should do
No one doubted for an instant that
not only as a matter of right bqE under
the strict letter Of the lawand the
contract this old material vent ~ the
contractor until over a. year axEeffne
contract was let, when Sen9td Nx-
shall filed his protest. An 8.
ton resulted, when the fact CA ped
that the contractors had acfAA1 AJ..
lowed the State credit f0E Old
material in their estimate Esfs.
Thereupon the attorney gene14 8ave
to the commission this opini0uS g1ieh
has been completely ignored by Inc.
vestigattng committee, notWttl{ a41S
ing the fact that 1t was in thex PCS.
session: that not only Of right OF
law, this material, under the f89fact,
was not the States. (See opin33n at.s
torney general, exhibit H.)
Every member Of the commieef4nex-
cept Senator Marshall believed mad
they attempted to claim this nR ma,
terial under all the circumSta fney!
would have been acting NO oil uu-,
fairly, but dishonesty, W sthe& con-
tractor. The contractor Slad aGlnauy
given the State value for his ma RAJ
and the specifications had been Cd con-
strued and made absolut ely pIz pe.
fore the bids were even died. Th4s speo-
pie of the State do not 4sk theiH puo-
lie servants to do dishonest dec IN
our opinion it would have bee4 0ls-
honest to have attempted to take from
the contractor that fofl which he nad
paid. s,u....
If demand is made that the ssslate
shall attempt to dishonesty SelaKe
from the contractor thu value m prop.
erty sold by the Statel for fuiIe9nsid,
-eration,- this nd-fssss1 meg
+h,o,,ot otbor oHic}aT raSeH&N&k -