The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1909-11-24
subsequently purchased.

subsequently purchased.
]; is also charged against this f-u
that goods were sc!d os the sam'
quality. size and character as tna
sold the State dispensary in othe'
States and IN other parts OF th!
State from ~ TO @5 per cent lowe
than he price paid oy the State dis
pcnsary.
Finding in Glass Claim.
The finding is as follows in the
case OF the Carolina Glass Company:
we therefore. find tha: the con
tracts made between the Carolins
Glass Company aud the board OF
directors Of the State dispensarE are
! contrary TO the laws OF the State
and agains; public policy. and 70:
those reasons null and void. and that
the Carolina Glass Company should
not as a matter Of strict law. be
entitled 70 recover any sum OF money
/ from the State OF South Carolina on
account OF said contract. even II
the State had no Offsets against them.
; whatsoever. but the commission fur
the, finds that i. should determine
the matter on equitable principles
and tx the matte. Of liability on .
'quantun meruit' basis and that the
prices az which the Carolina Glass
Company sold 10 the State d!spensaEy
the glassware manufactured by 1t
ranged throughou, the entire period
OF ;he!. transactions with the State
d!spensary except for the years 1905
and 1907. q; about 10 Per cent above
the fair and reasonable market price
for said goods.
Prices We're Reduced.
The commission snds that begin
ming early il the year 1905. as tie
result Of a legislative Investigation
made by a committee appointed By
the General Assembly OF the State
Of South Carolina. and the .esolu-
ton adopted by the Genera! Assem-
bly, relating especially to the con-
tracts WITH the Carolina Glass Com
pany hese!nbesore referred TO. the
Carolina Glass Company was forced
TO and cid lower It's bids to prices
which during the year and the short
period OF 1907. during which the
dispensary was operated. were
in accord with the fair
and reasonable market price OF the
goods sold during that period; but
the commission Snds that during the
years preceding 1906 the ove7cnarg-
es made IL excess OF the fair and .ea-
sonable market prices for the goods
sold was s51,432.sS. which should
be and IS hereby Offset against the
claim IL favor OF the said Carolina
Glass Company TO wit: Its claim
Of s23.013.::5. which being deducted
from this amount Of said oveccharges
the commission finds said Carolina
Glass Company to be Indebted to
the State OF South Carolina in the
sum OF S2S.419-24.
in more than half the claims there
were over judgments rendered IN IA |
vor OF the State by the commission |;
AS stated these may be collected /
the Courts. Tt, commits
sion states IL It's findings that the
mem be-s have made careful in
ves;isa,ion OF the business OF the
old State d!spensary and also all OF
the evidence taken before the lesis-
.a,ive investigation committee.
handemn2 Observation-Disclosures |
Due and formal notice. states
the decree. was given to all cred
ito-s 20 produce before the comm!s- |
sion their books OF account and 9TH |
,r records and correspondence dis
closing the transactions between the
creditors and the State dispeusary.
and in few instances some OF the !
creditors complied with this demand
and produced .hei: books and rec
,rds in part at least. for the inspec-
hon or the com mission.
The commission also heard oral
and received aftidarits
from members OF whiskey concerns.
Conspiracy Alleged.
The commission states tha: sev-
era! Of the creditors entered into .
with members OF the
boards OF directors 20 chea, and de-
rrand the State. with the assistance
Of some of the members OF the |
boards. and goods were sold at a |
price largely IN excess OF the mar
set value. the officers or agents OF
the concerns and members Of the
board making use OF the funds in |
corruption and bribery.
II is also stated that many Of
the claimants cid rot comply With
the law IN that:
l. They resorted to various ceric-
es 10 destroy composition.
=. The law as 20 advertising for
bids was 50 worded as 70 prevent
instead OF promoting II.
5. That bids submitted upon
which awards were made. were ex-
horh,an, as 10 prices. with the
knowledge and consent Of the board
:. That the claimants violated the
law in maintaining agents and So
!icitors in the State 10 obtain con-
tracts for the purchase OF their
goods.
5. That in many cases no bonds
were furnished on awards given.
s. None o: the claimants f!ed al
the time OF making bids an analysis
OF the liquors for sale.
Only Real Values TO be Paid.
The commission rules that the
claimants haze all violated the law.
but thinks that & should oea! with
petitioners uooc equitable principles
and makes Snch settlement as viii
~. fair and I;St II therefore finds