Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1909-11-24
large claimant, are given $53,TS9.2S
on claim of S66,3S3.7i.

on claim of S66,3S3.7i.
Carolina Glass Claim.
The commission in its special re-
port in the claim OF the Carolina
Glass Company finds that 1.-The Off
GERS OF this concern entered into
conspiracy TO defraud the State of
South Carolina by defeating all COM
petition In the sale of glassware
needed The commission refers to
a bid of the company in September,
1902, to furnish SO cars of glass bot
ties at prices ranging about 10 per
cent In excess of the prices paid to
Flaccus 4 Co., Notwithstanding the
fact that other bids were fled. That
also the Flaccus contract, when pur-
chased, was for the purlos Of stiff
ling competition, as all moulds of
the Flaccus Company were turned
over to the Carolina Glass Company
and the former had no facilities for
filling orders.
1t is also charged that at several
quarterly purchases other competi-
tive bids were suppressed, and the
Carolina Glass Company was award
ed contracts; that after December,
!912, and Until 1906, when the con-
tract existing between the State dis
pensary board and this company was
cancelled, this firm maintained a
complete monopoly of all business
for glass and raised prices from
time to time much above the fair
market prices for the goods sold
Also that at the time of the passage
of the concurrent resolution cancel
ling the untitled portions of the
contract there were outstanding con-
tracts at exhorbitant prices for more
than 200 cars Of glass bottles at an
approximate value of 100000. The
commission states that, according to
the testimony of one of the officers
Of the Glass Company, the State saw
ed more than $4,000 when compar-
ison is made with prices paid for
goods subsequently purchased.
1t is also charged against this firm
that goods were sold Of the same
quality, size, and character as that
sold the State dispensary in other
States and in other parts of this
State from 20 to 25 per cent lower
than the price paid by the State dis
pensary.
Conspiracy Alleged.
The commission states that several
of the creditors entered into a con-
spiracy with members of the boards
of directors to cheat and defraud the
State, with the assistance of some of
the members of the boards, and
goods were sold at price largely in
eXcess Of the market value, the Off
GERS or agents of the concerns and
members of the board making use Of
the funds in corruption and bribery.
1t is also stated that many of the
claimants did not comply with the
law in that:
|. They resorted to various devices
to destroy competition.
2. The law as to advertising for
bids was so worded as to prevent
competition instead of promoting it.
.. That bids submitted upon
which awards were made, were ex-
orbitant as to prices, with the
knowledge and consent Of the board.
4. That the claimants violated the
law in maintaining agents and solic-
itors in the State to obtain contracts
for the purchase of their goods.
5. That in many cases no bonds
were furnished on awards given.
6. None of the claimants filed at
the time of making bids an analysis
Of the liquors for sale.
u. S. Fight Cost $21 ,526.17.
After reviewing the victory won by
the State of South Carolina, the COM
mission calls attention to the fact
that the fight carried to the United
States Court cost $21 ,526.17, and
considers the State damaged to that
amount. The various companies men,
toned above are assessed rropor-
tional this amount,