The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1909-11-20

cars of glass bottles at an approx
mate value Of 100000. The COM
mission states that, according to the
testimony of one OF the officers of
the Glass Company, the State saved
more than $4,000 when comparison
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.
Finding in Glass Claim.
The finding is as follows in the
case of the Carolina Glass Company:
1--WE therefore, find that the con-
tracts made between the Carolina
Glass Company and the board Of
directors of the State dispensary are
contrary to the laws of the State
and against public policy, and for
those reasons null and void, and that
the Carolina Glass Company should
not as a matter of strict law, be
entitled to recover any sum of money
from the State of South Carolina on
account of said contract, even If
the State had no offsets against them,
whatsoever, but the commission fur
ther finds that 1t should determine
the matter on equitable principles
and fix the matter Of liability on q
'quantum meruit' basis and that the
prices at which the Carolina Glass
Company sold to the State dispensary
the glassware manufactured by 1t
ranged throughout the entire period
of their transactions with the State
dispensary except for the years 1905
and 1907, at about 10 per cent above
the fair and reasonable market price
for said goods.
Prices Were Reduced.
1.-THE commission finds that begin
ming early in the year 1906, as the
result of a legislative investigation
made by a committee appointed by
the General Assembly of the State
Of South Carolina. and the resolu-
ton adopted by the General Assem-
bly, relating especially to the. con-
tracts with the Carolina Glass Com
pany hereinbefore referred to, the
Carolina Glass Company was forced
to and did lower its bids to prices
which during the year and the short
period of 1907, during which the
dispensary was operated, were
substantially in accord with the fair
and reasonable market price Of the
goods sold during that period; but
the commission finds that during the
years preceding 1906 the overcharg-
es made In excess Of the fair and rea-
sonable market prices for the goods
sold was $5l,43299, which should
be and is hereby Offset against the
claim in favor Of the said Carolina
Glass Company to wit: It's claim
of S23,o13.75, which being deducted
from this amount OF said overcharges
the commission finds said Carolina
Glass Company to be indebted to
the State of South Carolina in the
sum of $2S,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
through the Courts. The commits
sion states in its findings that the
members have made a careful in
vestigation of the business OF the
old State dispensary and also all OF
the evidence taken before the legis-
lative investigation committee.
handemn2 Observation-Disclosures
due and formal notice., states
the decree, was given to all cred
itors to produce before the commits
sion their books of account and 9TH
er records and correspondence dis
closing the transactions between the
creditors and the State dispensary,
and in few instances some of the
creditors complied with this demand
and produced their books and rec
ords in part at least, for the inspec-
ton of the commission.
The commission also heard oral
testimony and received aftidavits
from members Of whiskey concerns.
Conspiracy Alleged.
The commission states that sew
eral of the creditors entered into a
conspiracy with members of the
boards of directors to cheat and de-
frand 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
ket value, the officers or agents of
the concerns and members of the
board making use of the funds in
corruption and bribery.
It is also stated that many of
the claimants did not comply with
the law in that:
1. They resorted to various devic-
es to destroy competition.
2. The law as to advertising for
bids was so worded as to prevent
competition instead Of promoting it.
3. That bids submitted upon