University of Virginia Library

James Oldham
Memorial to the Rector & Board of Visitors

You[r] memorialist James Oldham very respectfully represents--That he was induced by the
propositions made by the Proctor of U.V. to apply for some of the work that was proposed to
be let out to undertakers in the spring of the year 1819--He accordingly made his proposals
to the former Proctor U.V. and the Proctor laid them before the board of visitors at their
spring meeting in 1819. After the dissolution of the meeting--He was informed by the
Rector that his proposals were approved, and entered into a written contract with the
Rector--a Copy of which contract is herewith exhibited marked (A)--

By which contract he bound himself to execute certain houses which were then to be erected
at the U--and by which it was agreed that the price of the work should be regulated by a
Price-book which was published in Philadelphia in the year 1812 by Matthew Carey--so far
as the Items of work to be done was specified in the price book--But in the event of a
difficulty in consequence of work done for which no price was specified in the price book
the proposals above alluded to--as published by the Proctor provided that the price of such
work as had not been fixed by the price book should be deduced from the elements of which
sd. work was composed--A Copy of which proposals is herewith exhibited and referred to
for the Correctness of this Statement--Your memorialist proceeded with deligence and
fidelity to the performance of the work allotted to him by the Proctor and Rector, until the
Autumn of the year 1822--at which time he completed this undertakings except as to some
unimportant particulars which he could not execute for want of materials which the Proctor
had undertaken to furnish, in the capasity of Agent for the purchase of materials--Allthough
the Proctor as your memorialist humbly conceives, acting out of his duty--had interfered
with him by employing other artists to execute work which had been let to him by contract,
and which he had, had no oppertunity to perform, for the want of materials--Your
memorialist continued labouring for the institution over which you preside upon different
buildings then erected for the period of nearly four years--at great expence, having many
hands in his employment during the time, and persevered until his Contracts with the Rector
were fulfilled on the part of himself--During the progress of his work your memorialist had
frequent interviews with the Proctor upon the Subject of the Settlement of his bills for work
which had been either wholly or in part completed by him--And as it appeared to your
memorialist that there might be a variance of opinion between himself and the Proctor upon
the Subject of charges he became solicitous to Know before he proceeded further with his
work, what method the Proctor would approve as a means of removing such
difficulties--And from repeated communication both personally and by letter it was agreed
between the parties that all difficulties with regard to the charges of your memorialist was to
be removed by arbitrators one chosen by each of them as evidence of which understanding
and agreement he begs leave to refer the board to letters written by the Proctor to your
memorialist, copies of which are herewith exhibited marked 1. 2 & 3. one dated Nov. 5th
1821 a second dated Jany 3d 1822--and a third dated Jany 25th 1823. This understanding
was satisfactory to your memorialist as he considered it as forming a part of the contract
which he was executing deligently on his part--and he was advised its execution could be
enforced on the part of the Rector and visitors of the institution--These considerations
quieted his fears and Soothed the anxiety of his mind, and he proceeded with his labour--
Whenever he pressed a referaence against the institution for work which was so far
completed as to entitle him to receive considerable sums of money from the Institution, the
Proctor would state objections and urged your memorialist to complete the buildings and
then was the time that he intended to refer the accounts as to all items about which they
could not agree--Your memorialist finished the buildings he undertook in the fall of the year
1822--and since that period--he has been constantly urging the Proctor to Settle his accounts
in the way agreed upon--He has not only made personal application to him on this behalf but
has employed Counsel to press his claims before him and he is now informed by him, that
he will not consent to an arbitration at all, that if your memorialist will not take what he
offers him, that he must resort to a Court of Justice for a remedy--As evidence of which
determination on the part of the Proctor, the board is referred to the certificate of Rice W.
Wood, who was employed by your memorialist to act as counsel for him in the Settlement of
his bills against the institution with the Proctor and is herewith exhibited marked (4)--[858]

But your memorialist has waited twelve months already since the completion of his work,
rather than incur the Costs of a law suit himself and embroil your institution in
litigation--He has thought it better to wait and appeal to your board--being advised that you
are clothed with a controuling power, persuaded as he is of your disposition to do him
complete Justice--Your memorialist considers that he is not only entitled to an arbitration of
his accounts by virtue of his agreement with the Proctor--But he is also persuaded that in the
absence of all agreement that your honourable body will agree with him in the opinion, that
the submission of disputes of this Character to arbitration is not only the most equitable but
the most eligible method of deciding them--The board must be familiar with many
illustrious instances in which this method has been adopted not only for the decision of
differences between individuals, but also in the Case of national disputes--The experience of
your memorialist furnishes him with an instance of Similar character to this to which he
wishes to call the attention of the board--He alludes to the case in the which the executive of
Virginia thought proper to Submit claims for work between the State and the Artists who
repaired the Capitol in 1817. to the Arbitration of men, one chosen by each as will apear by
referaence of the Copy of the order of Council hereto annexed marked (6)--Your board will
the more readily grant this request, when you are informed that your memorialist is not only
Kept here in a State of Suspence with regard to his accounts, and reduced to the necessity of
resorting to his own funds for the purpose of defraying the expences he has incurred on act
of the University, and which he is daily incurring for the means of support--As evidence of
which as to a part he refers to a bill for lumber herewith produced (5)--Your memorialist has
chosen to make an appeal to the board from the Proctors decision, because he has the most
perfect confidence in their Justice and thinks it would be idle to go else where to procure
that Justice which he confidently expects from them Influenced by the solicitude he feels for
a Speedy and amicable Settlement of his disputes with the Proctor--He thought proper to
trouble the Rector with his Complaints--But he was Sorry to find that his opinions varied
some what from your memorialists ideas of Justice and equity--He appeared to be willing to
Submit a portion of your memorialists bills to arbitration, But thought that he ought to
consent that those Arbitrators should be farmers and not Carpenters--As to the other Items
of account he Seemed to think that your memorialist ought to abide by the prices fixed in
bills Settled with other undertakers--Your memorialist thinks that the Settlements of others
is not obligatory upon him, even if they had been conclusive Settlements--But in two cases
he is informed that the undertakers were induced to acquiesce in the proctors terms, not
because, they thought them correct, but because they were desirous to get the money for
their work and avoid controversies--In a third instance the undertaker States that he was
compelled to make Sacrifices to get his accounts Settled--as to the proposition to Submit to
farmers--it was objected to because it was believed they were not so well qualified as artist,
to decide correctly--Your memorialist would be willing to Submit his disputes to any men
whose experience and Knowledge qualify them to decide correctly--But he is not Singular
in the Idea that the more Knowledge a man has upon a given Subject the more capable he is
of forming a correct Idea upon that Subject--If Farmers could be procured much
experienced in house Joining he would be willing to Submit to their award--But it does
appear to him that no one can form so correct an Idea of the value of a piece of work as the
man who has been in the habit of executing that worke--Your memorialist does not wish it to
be understood that it is his prayer that the whole of his work Should be submitted to
arbitration--he only craves an execution of the proctors agreement--Your memorialist prays
for the health and prosperity of the Board individually and collectively--

James Oldham

Copy, part of document U in Oldham vs University of Virginia, ViU:UVA Chronological
File. Copies of some of Oldham's supporting documents for his lawsuit against the
university are in ViU:PP, marked "Memoriall to the bord of Visitors of the U.Va. Octobr 3.
1823," and includes William Robertson's Order, 2 June 1818, Nelson Barksdale's
Advertisement for Workmen, ca 1 March 1819, Jefferson to Oldham, 8 April 1819,
Brockenbrough to Oldham, 5 November 1821, 3 January 1822, and 25 January 1823, and
Rice W. Wood's Certificate, 14 July 1823. See James Oldham, Lawsuit against the
University of Virginia, 20 November 1823.