The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1908-05-20

and J. n. Parker. members OF the
u sii'amsburg county dispensary
= board. The removal was the result
OF IN investigation made In which Il
wes charged that the board had pur-
chAssd certain brands Of goods with
out the legal advertising and that
ehsss goods were purchased at high
<Sr price than those offered by other
Aousss. .l
me particular arm Interested in
ehh Investigation was Bluthenthai q
R'ehert formerly Of Atlanta. and
now OF Baltimore. Il was charged by
sAe clerk Of the board. Mr.. J. ID. Gil
)nhd. that the membsrs had violated
hs law In this respect. and that. the
tseds furnished were of q lower grade
/ ana quoted as higher prices than 9TH
or li1uors supposed to be oil the same
quality. fAr
= hearing was held some time ago
by Gov. An4sl. after an Investigation
~ Dhpsusary Auditor West. and be-
reps leaving for washinston last
Monday the governor decided on the
rsuhovai Of the two members. This
deelsSon. was not made public until
yesterday morning however. and the
ORDER Of the governor Ia the case 10
80 1ollows:
a ruIs was issued by me directed
% ths abovs named nembsrs Of the
county 6ispsnsAry board OF williams
bsrg county 70 show cause why they
Should not b renewed from once for
uieconduct. nssiscs OF duty and In.
bopactty. A'rsturn was made by
I 80 nsDbsrs and . hearing given
tAon. thsy having appeared through
thelr eounssl. and the case was fully
e9Uusd ~ them and by the assistant
e>oosaey general. I have carefully
eena4>rea ne testimony and afada-
90 sohs6atssd to me. f.
/, rrhs ars< thing that nnd in which
shey erred was that they gave 70 their
c1ozk authority TO order out the goods
or which awards were made BY them
,ustsad - making thsss orders them
eslvea considsr that Il 10 the duty
~ the board 10 make al the orders
TS9msslvss or to have u done under
tnrr psvsonai supervision and dirsc-
tn. ftt ~ y
.ris sscead srrOf' mat was ccm-
n1essA. which h : Violation OF section
2 q me dispssstry oct. was IN max
- ordsrS fOr sdda<sonaI goods over
~ shove the awards that were
na1s. The act requires that all
awords made shall bs published
Z whieh was done inthis case. This
= dons n order that the public may
knew szacsly the amount purchased.
Ghpt n the awards made DO not cover
"a suncisnt quantity to supply the
demand. no asthority h siven under
che act 10 make orders for more than
ths awards.
'Anothsr was the violation of said
ssetiou 2 In making an award for
goods when no bid was on nle, an
essuired by the act. and by the ad-
vsetissmsnt. A bad made under q
prtvious advertisement cannot be con-
s,dered and no awerd can be made
upon the same. The act II very strict
upon the question as TO what IL nec-
essary 10 be done In the advertise
Jmsnt for bids and the awarding of
the contracts. and u II imperative
that the provisions Of the act be
strictly carried out. There Ia no
ambiguity about these provisions. and
any one who will read them care
fuiiy can understand them.
Then again more was paid for
certain liquors than the same could
have been bought for from other bid
ders. While the name Of the LIQUORS
was not the same. the quality, as
shown by the evidence. was as good
and possibly better.
\ THE sct provides that In awarding
contracts the board must award to
the lowest responsible bidder, with
the right to reject any bid. Now
where two parties are bidding and
each equally responsible and the one
higher priced than the other. the act
4 says the board must award to the
'5lowest responsible bidder. This pro-
vision Of the act was not followed
by this board (the two members
above named being the only ones
present when the awards we're made
. at the November IS. 1907. meetins),
and can see no reason why II should
not have been followed. 1t was
neglect OF duty not to have done It.