The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-02-25


work, in which they declared not only
that the plans were sufficient but that
if the true intent and spirit Of them
was carried out the State would Sc
cure good job. Net being ourselves
competent to pass upon a technical
point Of this nature, ne knew no high
er or better authority to whom we
could refer the matter. That We had
secured 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 $212, 900, which seemed to
be the price nee ssary 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 it of nearly
$4,000, absolutely preciuded any idea
Of collnsion in awarding the contract.
There is a 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 a 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 or sug-
gested by the legislature when defining
the duties Of the commission. There
being an utter absence Of any mention
of a bond in connection herewith, 1t
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
so1, into vrfth M6Jlvo ~
Unkefer company. We take the posi-
ton that this bond was not at any
F.; time under the control Of the legisla-
! ture, and that it became, according to
| its terms, utterly null and void as soon
as this commission, acting through a
! majority of its members, expressed
| itself as satisfied with the performance
| Of the contract which It secured. The
commission having accepted the work
Of the contractor, the bond given to
secure the performance Of the contract
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 was merely
a ministerial duty done by the gov
ernor and which we are convinced he
| could have been mandamuSed to do
! under the circumstances. We are in
| formed by the members who belong to
/ the legal profession that if said bond
were now in possession of the officers
Of the State unmarried by any endorse
rnent, the plaintiff in interest could
not recover under the facts without
alleging and proving fraudulent col
lusion as to acceptance Of the work be-
! tween the commission, the obligees and
the contra ctors, the obligors, and the
members Of the Investigating commit
! tee have given public assurance that
no such coliusion is even suspected.
Furthermore, at a meeting held SUBJ
sequent to the endorsement made by
| the governor, the attorney general re-
ported informally to the Commission
| that the governor had satisfied the
bond upon his legal advice.
THE OLD IRON AND OTHER JUNK.
/ It was never the intention Of the
commission to reserve to the State
the old iron and other junk removed
from the building. Not only did they
believe that the contractor would al
! low more for it in his bid than they
could get for it otherwise, but QueS-
! tions would have been continually ariS-
/ ing as to the expense, ETC., Of removing
/ this old material, and Of getting it out
! of the way. It cost several hundred
dollars to get the old iron alone down
from the roof. Besides, the approprla-
ton for the work was limited, and the
! commission desired to put in the build
/ ing in value all that the funds at
their disposal permitted. Not only did
/ the architect, as the agent Of the COM
I mission, inform the bidders personally
that the specifications would be so con-
! strued, (See opinion Of the attorney
general exhibit E), but there is abun-
dant evidence that all who fled bid
I! for the work did so on the basis Of
getting in partial payment the old ma
terial that was removed. Mr.. j. 3.
Garfunkel, the man best qualified to
know this fact, the man whom the
+! investigating committee itself sum-
moned to testify in regard to this old
material, swears that he knows of his
own knowledge that the different bid
ders for the work filed their bids upon
the basis that the old material, all Of
it, would go to the contractor. (See
affidavit Of j. B. Garfunkel, exhibit D.
If any further evidence Of this fact was
necessary the reply of ". A. Chester
man, one of the bidders, and Of ]. E.
Burgess, another to the same effect, in
response to telegraphic inquiry that
GIN my capitol bid figured on all old
material being my property" See tel
egrams, exhibit. g. should do so.
No one doubted for an instant that
not only as a matter Of right but under
the strict letter of the law and the
contract this old material went to the
contractor, until over year after the
! contract was let, when Senator Mar
shall filed his protest. An investiga-
ton resulted, when the fact developed
that the contractors had actually al
lowed the State a credit for this old
material in their estimate sheets.
Thereupon the attorney general gave
to the commission this opinion, which
has been completely ignored by the in
vestigating committee, notwithstand-
ing the fact that it was in their pos
session: that not only of right, but Of
law, this material. under the contract.
was not the States. (See opinion at
torney general, exhibit H)
Every member of the commission ex-
cept Senator Marshall believed had
thy attempted to claim this old ma
terial under all the circumstances, they
would have been acting not only un-
fairly, but dishonesty, with the con-
tractor. The contractor had actually
given the State valte for this material,
and the specifica tions had been so con-
strued and made absolutely plain be-
fore the bids were even filed. The peo-
pie of the State do not ask their pub
lie servants to do a dishonest deed. In
our opinion it would have been dis