The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1904-02-24

work. in which they declared not only
hat the plans were sufficient hut that
4 the true intent and spirit OF them
vas carried out the state would Sc
,hre Il good job. Not being ourselves |
to pnss upon q technical
point OF this nature. We knew no high
ar 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
dds submitted under them ranged mp
ns nigh rs $2l2,0OO. which seemed to
Se me price necessary to Justify that
contractor In engaging to erect the
worE. according 10 the accepted re-
qui,ements. The difference in the low
est bid and the one next TO it OF nearly
SlD,oo0. absolutely precluded any idea
oi collu3ion In awarding the contract.
There is general impression fos-
tered Dy this report, IL not created
tharsby, that the act creating the COM
mission for the completion OF the State
house directed that said conn ,ission
should require bond from the con-
trtctor. 1t will, therefore. be sur
prise to most members OF the general
OF the fact which Is now stated, that
no such bond was required or sug-
aeSted by the legislature when defining
the duties of the commission. There
being an utter absence of any mention
OF bond in connection Herewith, it
Is clear that the bond actually taken
was one required by the commission
solely upon it's own motion and III or
der the better to aid them in enforc-
ing the performance of the contract
which they entered into with McIlvain-
Unkefer company. We take the posi-
tion that this bond was not at any
time under the control OF the legisla-
ture. and that 1t became. according to
its terms. utterly null and void as soon
as this commission, acting through q
majority of its members, expressed
itself as satisfied with the performance
OF the contract which II secured, The
commission having accepted the work
OF the contractor the bond given to
secure the performances 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
ministerial duty done by the gov
could have been manlnmused to do
under the circumstances. We are in
formed by the members who belong to
the legal profession that If suid bond
were now In, possession OF the officers
Of the Statennnaarred by any endorse
ment, the pi,ssntiff III interest could
not recover under the facts without
alleging and proving fraudulent col
fusion ns to acceptance of the work be-
tween the commission, the obligees and
the contractors. the obligors. and the
si;;s:TGc:; ce the !nyestigatt ing commit
tee have. given public assurance that
no such collusion Is even suspected.
Furthermore. ut, meeting held sub
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. = IS 80.
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 1t in his bid than they
could get for Il otherwise, but ques-
tions would have been continually aris-
this old material. and Of getting It out
OF the way. It cost severdi hundred
dollars to ge' he old iron alone down
from the roc cesides. the appropria-
ton for the [" twas limited, and the
commission desired to nut in the build
their disposal, permitted. Not only did
the architect. as the agent Of the COM
mission, inform the bidders personally
that the specifications would be SO con-
strued. (See opinion Of the attorney
general. exhibit HI. but there is abun-
dant evidence that all who f4led Q S!!tts,
for the work did 30 on the basis of
getting in partial payment the old ma
terial that was removed. Mr.. j. d.
Garfunkel. the man best qualified to
investigating committee itself sum-
nloned 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
on fn "a frO OpfN
affidavit OF j. B. Garfunkel, exhibit J).
If any further evidence OF this fact was
necessary the reply OF w. A. Chester
man, one OF the bidders. and Of J. E.
Burgess, another to the same effect. in
response to q telegraphic inquiry that
GIN my capitol bid figured on all old
material being my property" See tel
egrams, exhibit CD should do 80.
No one doubted tor nm instant that
not only as q matter Of right but under
contract this old material went to the
contractor, until over year after the
contract was let, when Senator Nor
shall filed his protest. An investiga-
ton resulted. when the fact developed
that the contractors had actually al
material In their estimate sheets.
Thereupon the attorney general gave
to the commission this opinion, which
has been completely ignored by the in
SeStiSdtiu6 CONi1llltee, nOt"ltNSLauQ-
ing the fact that 1t 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
they 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 value for this material,
and the specifications had been so con-
strued and made absolutely plain be-
fore the bids were even flied. The peo-
pic Of the State do not aak their pub
lie servants to do a dishonest deed. In
otr opinion it would have been dis
honest to have attempted,to take from