The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-02-24

plans, specifications or written contract
of the use or ownership of the ''old ma
/ terial'' in question is TO be found in
the Specifications. in the following
words: The successful contractor Will
De permitted to use all old material
that is now on the ground, ana such
i parts Of the present roof that conform
ITO these plans and specifications: but It
! is understood that the marble now on
j the grounds is not included. This only
covers the granite columns. baluSters,
Old iron. bracns. granite. etc, in the
roof that is suitable. and the proper
size that is called for. # in doubt con-
! suit the architect on this subject be-
: fore making a bid
! 2. Before bidding on the work Nc
| Twain company. as we'll as
! other competitive contractors. called
upon The architect. +. P. Milburn. for
an Interpretation OF the clause quoted.
concerning which they We're in doubt.
| 3 The architect informed the con-
/ tractors that the contractors bidding
; for the work would get such old ma
i terial,' and would be permitted to use
such old parts as would conform with
! the new plans and specifications. y
| (See Ailburn's letter, July 81. 1901
I. Acting upon the Interpretation
F.; given by the architect, McIlvain-Unke-
F: fer company, after making allowances
/ for what was conceived to be the
! value of the "old material to them,
put in their bid for the contract, and
! was duly accepted by the commission
5. One My. Garfunkel, a junk dealer
submitted to the commission a PROPOSE
] tion to buy the copper and old iron
then in the old roof. and the commits
sion, upon accepting McIlvain-UnkefeI
-; Il NrIa ho4 ho H.
! munication OF Mr.. Garfunkel be turned
over to the successful bidding con-
tractor. upon the ground that the said
I" "old material was at the disposal OF
, the latter.
The clause quoted for the specifca-
tons bears internal evidence Of con-
scious ambiguity, and the conflicting
interest is susceptible OF various in
terpretations. 1t is easy to conceive
that the bidding contractors could
! claim with q show of reason. the title
to the "old material in question, anc
: irasmuch as the paper containing the
clause was prepared for and IN oehall
of the commission, and the law would,
as I understand it, construe the con-
tract strictly against the commission
and in favor of the bidder, for one rea.
son, among others, that in cases OF
doubt, the construction by the con-
tractors must be given the benefit OF
the doubt. inasmuch as the commits
sion. as the author Of the specifica-
tons must suffer. if either party must,
on account of ambiguity.
But + think that up to a very recent
date it had been the understanding on
all sides that the contractors should be
the owners Of the old material, ano
,, the facts as found seem to me to pre-
! clude any other conclusion.
, The statement Of Milburn. the archi-
tect. speaking on behalf Of the commits
sion, the known conduct Of the con-
tractors, based upon Milburn's inter
probation. the acceptance of the DIG
, based upon the supposed ownership by
the contractors of the ''old material
and the declination to treat with pro
posed purchaser for the sale Of the old
! material and the reference OF his BIO
to McIlvaine-Unkefer company, al
estop the commission from claiming
the "oId material in question.
Hoping that this will meet with your
approval, am.
Very truly yours,
(Sicned) G. Duncan BellinSer,
Attorney General.