"To Exercise a Sound Discretion":
The University of Virginia and Its First Lawsuit
Frank E. Grizzard, Jr.
Note: The author expresses gratitude to K. Edward Lay of the University of Virginia School of Architecture for conversations about university workmen. He also thanks Mr. Lay, David Mattern of The Papers of James Madison, and Pamela J. Grizzard for reading the following essay and offering suggestions.
In 1823, a Charlottesville workman by the name of James Oldham filed the first lawsuit against the University of Virginia. Oldham asked the Chancery Court at Staunton to make the fledgling institution pay for carpenter work completed by him under contract. A talented housejoiner but a stubborn and irascible fellow, Oldham disputed not only the amount of money owed him but even the terms of the contract governing his work. His disagreement with the university required no Solomon as judge and set no legal precedents for Virginia yet his quibbling over prices and contracts prevented an easy or quick solution and greatly exasperated everyone involved in the matter. His lawsuit dragged through the courts for a decade before its final settlement in 1832.
The restless stepson of a Philadelphia carpenter (who worked on the staircase in the White House), (1) Oldham first appeared in Albemarle County in 1801 to work at Monticello. By 1807 he committed himself to the Northern Neck Volunteer Corps of Light Dragoons, eventually attaining the rank of captain. Alongside the manifestation of his many creative and valuable woodworking talents Oldham exhibited less desirable traits. By nature quarrelsome, his tendency to see every matter only to his own advantage often led him into petty disagreements with others. His temper flared so easily that when provoked he could turn violent. (2) His slaves, whom he sometimes hired out to other university workmen, often felt the brunt of his displeasure. (3) Thomas Jefferson observed that at Monticello Oldham could not get along at all with his "brother-workmen." In fact, Oldham quit working for Jefferson in 1804 for this reason, although Jefferson said he left his employment "without displeasure between him and myself." (4) A move to Richmond followed, where he tried to set up his own business. It did not prove as lucrative as he had hoped so he once again appealed to Jefferson for work. (In Richmond he made many of the doors and window sashes which still hang at Monticello.) Oldham possibly lived in Bath County around 1810 (5) and in 1818 he went to St. Louis to seek his fortune on a short-lived housebuilding scheme. (6) Apparently he moved back into Albemarle County shortly before beginning work at the university in 1819. (7)
To oversee the day to day construction of the initial buildings on the lawn of Thomas Jefferson's Academical Village, the Board of Visitors hired Arthur Spicer Brockenbrough as the University's first proctor. A member of a distinguished family, Brockenbrough hailed from Richmond where he superintended repairs to the Capitol and improvements to Capitol Square. (8) An honest and capable man, Brockenbrough zealously protected the people's interest in his capacity as public servant. When he decided to join battle with the new proctor, James Oldham chose an opponent less vindictive but at least as strong-willed as himself. Oldham's tenacity in objecting to an amenable settlement managed to bring out in Brockenbrough a corresponding obstinacy. If the heads involved had remained calmer, their disagreement, serious enough on the face of it, might not have developed into a personal quarrel which precluded a satisfactory agreement between the two men, and thus between Oldham and the University of Virginia.
Governor James Preston recommended Brockenbrough as manager of the university's building projects in the spring of 1819 when he praised him as "judicious, economical, and industrious, a man of correct taste, who had been trained in building; and in character, unexceptional, and in disposition, amiable." Indeed, Brockenbrough proved an ardent supporter of the infant school, energetic and resolute in business, unflagging in enthusiasm, and invaluable in service. His knowledge of building supplemented and enhanced that of the institution's founder. The association between Brockenbrough and Jefferson increased in importance as the pace of building intensified, especially after the former president's health began to fail. In fact, the two men complimented one another perfectly in their working relationship. Brockenbrough's unwavering attention to detail and his responsible management of humdrum daily affairs permitted Jefferson to attend to other major concerns related to establishing an university. On the other hand, Jefferson's personal involvement in "the correct and orderly progress of the buildings" relieved the proctor of much of the typical drudgery which his position entailed. (9)
The formal inception of the University of Virginia took place on 25 January 1819 when it received its charter from the state, (10) but its roots lay in two earlier entities, the Albemarle Academy and Central College. (11) Some confusion resulted each time the institution changed shape. Shifts in goals and emphases followed the removal of authorized agents and the naming of new representatives even though Jefferson continued as the guiding spirit behind the enterprise. Commitments made by former agents under the auspices of a different charter remained valid and binding on the newly created corporation. Prior to the beginning of Brockenbrough's employment much of the planning and preparation for the building projects took place while Nelson Barksdale served as proctor for the Central College. (12) Barksdale replaced the institution's first proctor, Alexander Garrett, who then served as bursar, sometime between the laying out of the lawn on 18 July 1817 and the cornerstone ceremony at the first pavilion on 6 October. (13) For several months after the official terminus of his job Barksdale continued to supervise the building at the direction of his successor, whose previous engagements hindered his moving to Charlottesville from Richmond. Thus some of the workers' proposals and contracts predated Brockenbrough's tenure and his delayed arrival in Charlottesville gave ample room for misunderstandings to arise.
On 27 March 1819, James Oldham applied to Nelson Barksdale for a portion of the carpentry work at the University of Virginia after seeing an advertisement Barksdale placed in a local newspaper. (14) In the advertisement Barksdale referred to the Philadelphia Price Book of 1812 as the "rule of compensation" (15) by which work would be measured and priced. (16) Oldham offered to build one or two buildings at twenty-five per cent "advance on the adopted rule" specified in the advertisement. On 3 April, after hearing that James Dinsmore and John Perry "were aboute handing in proposals different from theare former ones," Oldham sought permission to renew his proposal also, saying, "I am very desireous of getting to worke if on Terms onely that will cover my daly expenses and am confident the Price I now propose will not exceed it." (17)
Within a week Oldham received from Jefferson an acceptance of his bid: "The terms offered by James Oldham are accepted for the Pavilion No 1 with an allowance to him of the Philadelphia printed prices without any discount." Jefferson also enclosed a note reiterating the offer.
Th Jefferson sends to Mr Oldham an acceptance of his offer to undertake a pavilion, at the printed Philadelphia prices without the discount offered by him—He Sends him a drawing of the pavilion No 1 allotted to him, and wishes him to take a copy for his own use so that Th. J. may receive back his own on his return from Bedford. (18)
Thus Oldham received the work of building Pavilion I and four adjacent dormitories on terms guided by the Philadelphia book. Later he contracted for Hotel A and nine Dormitories on the Eastern Range. Still later he undertook the construction of Hotel AA and two dormitories on the western range. (19) In his disagreement with the university Oldham appealed to the advertisement and to Jefferson's notes allotting him the pavilion and insisted the price book governed all three projects. He maintained Jefferson gave him the work and studiously avoided admitting to the existence of any contract between him and either Barksdale or Brockenbrough.
On this matter Oldham technically held the upper hand, at least partially. Jefferson did tell him he could build Pavilion I and neither of the proctors ever directly entered into an agreement with him. (20) Jefferson desired of his workmen an understanding of the intricacies of design as well as an ability and willingness to execute their work faithfully. He expected them to share his concern about the quality of materials and construction. Because he employed him for some years during the rebuilding of Monticello, Jefferson knew Oldham to be very proficient in carpentry and joinery. (21) To Jefferson the craftsman also appeared to be "skilled in the orders of architecture." (22) After Jefferson fruitlessly tried to secure for Oldham (at the latter's request) a copy of Palladio's Quatro Libri he loaned the worker his own portable edition. (23) Oldham's acquaintance with architecture pleased Jefferson because Pavilion I is an adaptation of the Doric of the Baths of Diocletian, taken from Freart de Chambray's treatise on classical architecture. (24) With a chance to procure such a qualified and proven worker, at prices set by himself, Jefferson did not hesitate to hire Oldham.
At the time Jefferson agreed to let out work to Oldham the Philadelphia Price Book seemed like the perfect guide by which to control construction costs. Universal regard for the superior talents and output of Philadelphia artisans made Matthew Carey's recent publication appear to be a suitable standard for measuring materials and labor in most building trades. It appealed to Jefferson because he hoped to attract some of the legendary Philadelphia artisans to Virginia by offering competitive wages. In addition, it offered an uniform way to estimate costs and compare workmanship and with little trouble could be adapted to fit local markets. However, the Philadelphia book did not please everyone. John Percival submitted terms for carpentry forty per cent in "advance" of Carey's guide. He took the former president to the woodshed.
It is very astonishing that the first men in this very extensive & rising Empire Should fix as a standard perhaps the most Antient in the present Day the most illiberal the most Obsolete & the least Scientific of all Books extant and by this means to enslave with a yoke & reduce to Vassalage the most extinsive & useful Branch of the Republic. (25)
John Parham, a master builder from Philadelphia, asserted in his proposal that the "book of Prices said to be printed by M. Carey is not known at all by the Measurers and Carpenters of this City; and was never used as a rule for Measurement by any Carpenter in this City." (26) Complaints notwithstanding, it still appears that when Oldham contracted for Pavilion I he and Jefferson bargained for an arrangement both fair and satisfactory to each party.
Soon after, however, the Panic of 1819 struck, causing a fall in wages. The squeeze on the state's money supply caused even more instability for the university's already uncertain financial situation. Anxious to stretch its dollars as far as possible the university sought to negotiate or renew contracts at prices lower than those listed in the Philadelphia Price Book. Rather than go without work most workers grudgingly accepted lower pay. Even the area's best housejoiner, James Dinsmore, who in 1798 migrated from Philadelphia to Charlottesville at Jefferson's urging to work at Monticello, dropped his prices. The Irishman haggled over using the Philadelphia book because Virginia materials, workers, and measurers differed from those of Philadelphia. He also complained about the existing difference between Virginia's and Pennsylvania's currency. But after feeling the effects of the depression he conformed to the guide and discounted his prices like everyone else, only with slight modifications to account for the local conditions and the value of currency. (27)
Following the agreement to build Pavilion I, the university rendered subsequent contracts to Oldham in some confusion. The reasons for the mix up remain partly obscure, but it is evident both sides misunderstood one another's intentions. The university demanded an across-the-board reduction in prices of ten per cent on any work governed by the Philadelphia Price Book. It publicized the new prices in a general meeting of undertakers, thinking such notification sufficient. However, no university agent directly spoke to Oldham about the standing of his contracts. (28) Oldham openly held the new price code in contempt, maintaining not without reason that it did not effect him because his agreement originated with Jefferson, not the university. In order to bolster this claim Oldham pointed to a request the university granted to Dabney Cosby, a Richmond bricklayer, who sought to labor alongside Oldham on the West Range if the latter received new work. To complicate the matter written contracts for Hotels A and AA and the other dormitories lacked specifics and did not mention the price reduction. In a bewildering and embarrassing oversight the university permitted Oldham to undertake the construction of large amounts of work on vague terms.
The disorder surrounding Oldham's new contracts well may have been avoided if Brockenbrough had moved to the property sooner. Some items which Jefferson would have settled necessarily fell through the cracks before Brockenbrough could obtain a firm grasp in his new situation. Apparently the university's representatives thought Oldham's contracts properly taken care of while they overlooked important details. For his part, Oldham contented himself simply by not raising the issue with either the proctor or Jefferson. His initial relations with Brockenbrough seemed fine. In the summer of 1819 the carpenter successfully appealed to Brockenbrough for two slaves as sawers after low water caused Captain William D. Meriwether to fall behind in cutting the scantling Oldham purchased for Pavilion I. (29) This enabled him to start laying the Pavilion's floor the first week of August. (30) By steady toil his work progressed rapidly and he encountered no problems in having Brockenbrough favorably adjust his accounts. Two years passed before the two men's first open disagreement over prices in October 1821.
Something of a price war occurred in March 1821 when Brockenbrough placed advertisements in a Staunton newspaper for workmen to undertake new work on the Western Range. (31) A scramble ensued among workers wanting to extend or renew their contracts. (32) Several, including John Carter, Malcom F. Crawford, James Dinsmore, John M. Perry, Abiah B. Thorn, Dabney Cosby, William B. Phillips, and George W. Spooner offered to stay on at the same prices. (33) James W. Widderfield wanted to work at the "same price" as other workmen. (34) To build ten dormitories, James Starke gave a discount of three per cent less than the "usual prices." (35) Joseph Pitt volunteered to do one- or two-fifths and Thomas R. Blackburn one-half of the Western Range work at discounts of ten per cent. (36) Thomas Pickering, being unfamiliar with the area, promised to furnish all the labor for the Western Range Hotels at twenty per cent less than the Philadelphia book if the university procured materials. (37) A few, like James Widderfield, grew antsy when their proposals failed to win a contract promptly and resubmitted reduced bids after "reconsidering" their previous estimates. (38) Cosby submitted a new plan within three days of his first, in search of a two year contract. (39) Fairly typical of the offers sent to Brockenbrough around this time is George Spooner's proposal to do woodwork on the Western Range: "[I will finish my] present engagements on Hotel B and dormitories on or abut the 1st of July next and am willing to do the worke at the price contain'd in the Philidelphia pricebook which governed the contracts of the buildings on which we are presan[t] engaged." (40) Brockenbrough endorsed the proposal, "Same as heretofore."
Some workers expressed dissatisfaction at the low prices. William Phillips complained about the low pay in his brickwork proposal. (41) Malcom Crawford proposed to do one-fifth of the work being contracted for at "preasant prisces," then added, "I Comprehend that this tuscan work cannot be done for less than the preasant prisces, unless a man d[o] injustice too himself or his Employer." (42) George Spooner's grievances are especially important because he acted for Brockenbrough "in the work out of doors" before the proctor moved to Charlottesville (43) and because he later served as a witness in Oldham's claim. To Brockenbrough he expressed his feelings in writing.
[I] cannot but regret althoug[h] disposed to acquiess in the reduction of the prices on the buildings on which we are now to be ingaged—not only as it affects us as undertakers but is calculated to delay the completion of the buildings, as we must necessarily be obliged to reduce the wages of oure Workmen which are already so low that they are hardly Sufficient to induce good workmen to leave Cities and come here for employment—
Spooner proved dead wrong in warning that price reductions would cause considerable delays by scaring off workers and discouraging builders in larger cities from moving to Charlottesville. (44) But he adequately expressed the underlying frustration and tension of the workers. He also expressed confusion over the pricing of items not listed in the Philadelphia Price Book: "am I to understand the prices of such work to be fixed upon before Oure contracts are closed or after, when those partes of the Worke are to be executed[?]" (45) Such an inquiry shows clearly the uncertain and puzzling nature of the contractual arrangements and Spooner's letter as a whole reveals the dissatisfaction among the workers that soon erupted into a series of acrimonious contests with the university.
Several disagreements came to the fore in March 1821. Joseph Antrim, who did a large proportion of the plastering at the university, (46) disputed the proctor's assessment of money owed him for finished work. Antrim originally submitted a bid for plastering in 1817 in which he proposed to work for either Richmond or Philadelphia prices. (47) In 1819 the proctor evidently wanted to settle according to the depressed scale and asked James Glasgow of Philadelphia to set the prices. Glasgow, however, avoided becoming involved by claiming he could not find out the prevailing prices at the time Antrim did the work. He gave the proctor names of two other men who might be willing to do the pricing. (48) A month later William Thackara and Edward Evans responded to Brockenbrough's March "Interrogatories." Even less helpful than Glasgow, they apologized to the proctor for not providing specific information, understanding Glasgow had sent him the Philadelphia Price Book. (49)
A more intriguing line of communication began in March 1821 between Brockenbrough and Edward Lowber, of Philadelphia, the principal supplier of painting and glazing, who worked mainly through assistants John Vowles and Angus McKay. (50) Lowber complained that his firm in the previous year had advanced materials and furnished labor to the university valued at two to three thousand dollars but had received in return compensation totaling only sixteen to eighteen hundred dollars. He asked Brockenbrough to send a thousand dollars immediately. In the next six years Lowber wrote the proctor at least twenty-eight times and on every single occasion he mentioned money, usually requesting amounts of five hundred dollars upward. "How is it possible for me to continue to forward my property," he asked in July 1821, "unless there is some Kind of punctuality observed in remitting for it[?]" In exasperation Lowber proclaimed himself "extremely sick" of the entire undertaking, wishing he had contented himself with a "small loss." (51) However Lowber really did not want to lose the university as a client so he continued to front the institution more materials. In 1824 Lowber's worst fears came true when Brockenbrough suggested that the completed work be remeasured. Declining to run the concern into farther expense, he instructed Brockenbrough to have the work reassessed and "inform me what deduction you claim off the Bill we have rendered." (52) But the Richmond measurer chosen by Brockenbrough found a discrepancy of two thousand dollars in the painting alone, delaying settlement and causing Lowber to beg to "submit the whole affair to some competent & disinterested judge." (53) When more months passed he lamented that a "deduction of 2300, is contrary all reason or justice." (54) Two years later, disgusted, he exclaimed, "I have been Kept out of my money till the interest has well nigh consumed the profit." (55) In spite of the magnitude of disagreement and the slowness of getting his pay, Lowber continued supplying the university and, unlike James Oldham, he never mentioned going to court for settlement.
Brockenbrough must have gotten wind of Oldham's view on his contracts sometime in late 1820, if not before, from Dabney Cosby whom he wrote in December asking for information concerning Oldham. Whether Brockenbrough directly confronted Oldham in the matter is unknown, but he probably did so before writing the bricklayer. Brockenbrough would later claim he "informed the plaintif[f] in a very short time after the work was undertaken by him that such deduction would be made from the former prices for the work undertaken by him on the West street which was the Third & last arrangement with the plaintif for work." (56) Most likely Oldham roundly rebuffed the proctor. In any case, Cosby answered from Prince Edward County courthouse the following February.
I recollect Capt. Oldham telling me that M. Jefferson had told him he was to have a portion of work on the western range, and I am well satisfied he considered the work as coming from Mr. Jefferson and not you. It was for my own satisfaction I made the enquiry of you to Know if you understood the thing in the same way in order that there might be no misunderstanding on the Subject, Oldham being the only Carpenter with whom I have a personal acquaintance I wished him to be employed on the same Building.
Brockenbrough specifically questioned Cosby regarding his and Oldham's understanding of the specifics of workman contracts. Cosby did remember hearing of the terms proposed to the carpenters, "namely 10 p Cent under former prices whether before or after my Conversation with you on the subject of Oldhams employment I do not recollect. but I do well recollect Oldham Considered he had nothing to do with them having been employed and his work designated by Mr Jefferson[.]" (57) It is inconceivable Cosby brought this subject up first with the proctor. It is tempting to consider that the bricklayer himself might have fallen out with the carpenter by then. However, at the end of his letter Cosby wrote, "The Questions & answers I have forwarded to Capt. Oldham." Moreover, he later gave an affidavit in the lawsuit that favors Oldham's side of the story. Cosby's response only could have disheartened Brockenbrough.
The bricklayer correctly represented Oldham's views when he told Brockenbrough that Oldham considered himself unaffiliated with the other carpenters at the university because the former president designated his work. That Oldham reckoned his position on the West Range as a request from Jefferson and not Brockenbrough probably accounts for Oldham's refusal to apply to the proctor for a portion of new work to be let out in 1821. "[I] hopes to Sheare a portion of the Worke that is yet to be done, at the Standard Price," he proposed to the Board of Visitors in early April. (58) In an oversight hardly unintentional, Oldham did not ask for any specific buildings nor did he offer to define "the Standard Price." Since winning his first contract for Pavilion I the "standard" price for all building contracts had fallen but Oldham still operated as if under the original contract. He obviously intended to avoid applying the ten per cent price reduction to his work on Hotels A and AA as well as any future work. He thought to achieve this end by going over the proctor's head but someone on the Board of Visitors passed the proposal on to Brockenbrough with the endorsement, "to the proctor." Thus it fell back into Brockenbrough's hands to try and convince Oldham otherwise.
In late August 1821 the weakened financial situation at the university forced Brockenbrough to notify builders that "No farther advances will be made, except on [bu]ildings actually completed." (59) Within six weeks Oldham attempted and failed to settle accounts for work completed on Pavilion I. In October the proctor and James Dinsmore certified some of the work, "with prices annexed," which Oldham had completed on Hotel A. According to Oldham, "A difference of opinion" arose between them on "the application of the rule furnished by the Book containing the Philadelphia prices as to part of the work." Oldham offered to settle the matter by adjusting accounts agreed upon and seeking outside "capable persons" to judge remaining disagreements. He said Brockenbrough rejected this idea because Jefferson opposed having the matter settled in such a manner. (60) Oldham thus appealed to Jefferson, who responded by writing to both Oldham and Brockenbrough.
To Brockenbrough Jefferson mentioned George Divers and Dabney Minor as his choice for arbitrators to settle the Oldham account, adding, "these differences between workmen must be settled at last." (61) He informed Oldham that he regarded Brockenbrough "at entire liberty to have all differences of accounts settled by any arbitrators he thinks proper, I think a mutual negative on the Choice of arbitrators would be fair & proper." (62) In early November the Proctor notified Oldham of his readiness to commence measurement of his finished work, "agreeable to the price book by which the work was undertaken—any disagreement as to the Measurement or prices of the work may be settled by arbitrators one to be chosen by each of us—I wish to settle this business so that the Arbitrators may have as little to do as possible." (63)
The situation remained unchanged for the rest of the year, in spite of Oldham's repeated demands to Brockenbrough for money. In early 1822, Oldham again petitioned Jefferson for help, this time furnishing a detailed list of work finished and writing about the proctor, "on yesterday I renewed the subject again when he positively refused to do any thing with it—and declared that I should not receive one cent of pay until it suted him to give it." (64) Jefferson diplomatically washed his hands of the whole affair.
I sincerely regret that any difficulties should arise between Mr Brockenbrough and yourself on the Subject of your contracts, but it is totally foreign to my office to intermeddle with them—I cannot entangle myself in the labyrinth of questions between the proctor and undertakers as the contracts are made with him, with him they must be settled as they would be with any other employer in any private case—I should think both of you would prefer arbitration to law, but in this you must chuse for yourselves . . . I hope you will find it reasonable that I should be excused from interferences which are not within my province . . . (65)
Jefferson's pointed insistence that the builders' contracts belonged in the domain of the proctor understandably shocked Oldham because it directly contradicted his claim to a special relationship with Jefferson. It severely wounded his pride and he never made an appeal to Jefferson again.
The same day Brockenbrough, also smarting because he felt offended by Oldham's accusation, defended himself to Oldham. He opened his letter with an accusation of his own, "I have your communication of this date to Mr Jefferson, written no doubt to injure me in the estimation of Mr J." He admitted that Oldham frequently solicited a settlement by arbitration but blamed the carpenter for holding things up by not submitting the necessary memoranda. He flatly denied declaring that he would not give "one cent of pay until it suited him to give it." Instead, he promised to issue "drafts for the balancees that may be due as fast as funds can be obtained to take them up," but resisted arbitrating unsettled bills "untill the entire completion of the buildings," or, "unless expressly ordered." (66)
After receiving the proctor's letter, Oldham let the issue lay still for the next year. He became seriously ill for three months, during which time Brockenbrough measured the work on Hotel A and nine dormitories and made out two distinct bills, which he annexed "in his own hand writing" to Oldham's accounts. He also measured work done by John Harrow for Oldham on Hotel AA and two dormitories on West Street. But, according to Oldham's legal brief filed in November 1823, the proctor inconsistently priced work and "omitted a number of Items for which your orator was entitled to compensation." For instance Brockenbrough allowed 1/6 per foot for 706 feet of Tuscan entablature on one bill and 1/3 per foot for exactly the same kind of work elsewhere. Many other instances could be cited, asserted Oldham, inconsistences in charging for cornice framing and "secret nailed floors." (67)
On 18 January 1823, Arthur Brockenbrough wrote out a Due Bill to James Oldham from the University of Virginia for forty-two hundred dollars. After adding interest and subtracting fifteen hundred dollars for three separate and equal payments the university then owed him twenty-eight hundred and six dollars, forty-two cents. (68) Five days later the proctor declined to agree to Oldham's request for an outside judge in Richmond to settle their disagreement although he still agreed to arbitration in principle. (69) Meanwhile Oldham sent an anonymous letter signed "a farmer" to Thomas Griffin, a York County member of the House of Delegates, accusing the proctor of all kinds of improprieties at the university. It is somewhat of a mystery why Oldham suddenly used this vicious ploy to strike back at the university. Likely he knew the General Assembly to be touchy when it came to allocating funds for the school, because he shrewdly chose in Griffin the university's most powerful opponent in the General Assembly. (70) But surely he must also have known that the General Assembly would not investigate charges given under the cloak of anonymity. If he thought his authorship would go undetected he made a serious miscalculation because Griffin immediately passed the information on to the university. Oldham's vindictive move to aggravate the university probably achieved somewhat less than he expected.
Brockenbrough reacted predictably. Livid with anger, and "In consequence of some abominable slanderous charges, and insinuations thrown out against me," he broke off all communications with Oldham on 5 February until after an official investigation into the matter by the Board of Visitors. (71) Fearing repercussions in Richmond, Jefferson wrote a long letter to Joseph C. Cabell, who represented the university's interests in the General Assembly, informing him of Oldham's charges against the proctor of "the grossest frauds and malversation."
I know the handwriting of the letter as well as I do my own, and possess many samples from the same pen. It is from James Oldham one of our undertakers. I have known him 15 or 20 years. He worked on my house some years, is as faithful a workman as I have ever know, and I have ever believed him an honest man. But his temper is unhappy. Disagreements with his brother-workmen occasioned his leaving my service, without any displeasure between him and myself; and knowing his skill and fidelity as a workman I got him employed at the University. He soon got into misunderstandings there with the Proctor, has refused to settle his accounts on the principles on which I am informed the other undertakers have settled, and has not yet closed with the propositions of arbitration which have been offered. This has prevented his receiving payments for his work in proportion with others, and has engendered the dispositions of mind manifested in that letter. I did not suppose however that his selfrespect would have permitted to have attacked an adversary from behind the mask of an anonymous information; or that instead of laying his charges before the board of Visitors whose duty it is to inquire into any malversations of their officers, he would have sent them for inquiry at such a distance to a gentleman under no particular relations with the matter and who, I am sure must have felt his justice offended by the presumption of the writer that he would become the instrument of any one who would not risk his own name on his charges. With respect to the charges themselves, I shall say nothing now, because I hold it to be the duty of the board. (72)
The Board of Visitors did take up the matter at its next meeting in early April. It resolved to contact Oldham and investigate his allegations "if he avow himself the author" of the letter. (73) But Brockenbrough need not have feared an official inquiry into his behavior because Oldham dropped the matter, already having achieved his ends, and the board fully exonerated the proctor. Jefferson defended Brockenbrough, saying his conduct "has had the stamp of most perfect integrity and diligence; that it has kept me in a state of entire satisfaction." (74)
It turned out that Oldham's outrageous maneuvre went unnoticed in Richmond. Cabell set Jefferson's mind at ease a week later, writing,
the letter of Oldham made no impression here; and I believe it was met so promptly, there has been no attempt to use it for mischievous purposes. It deserves, in my opinion, no serious notice from any one. Mr. Brockenbrough's feelings may prompt him to ask a further scrutiny of his conduct, but I believe no candid man would request it. (75)
Oldham's stunt forever soured relations between him and Brockenbrough and ruined all chances of a settlement of his accounts apart from the law. For his part, while Oldham "did not intend to Submit to `the fantistic tricks of those clothed with a little brief authority,'" he did permit "the effereusence of anger to pass over" for a few more months. In March the proctor forced open the doors of Pavilion I (Oldham retained the keys) in order to let another worker, Malcom Crawford, finish the work of attaching the ornaments. According to Oldham, Brockenbrough himself with "his own hands" worked at Hotels A and AA completing work contracted by Oldham. The carpenter accused the proctor of intentionally withholding the specially ordered ornaments in order to prevent the completion of the work, (76) a charge which Brockenbrough hotly denied.
Another worker, William J. Coffee fell out with Brockenbrough during this time. This talented but idiosyncratic northern artisan created the ornaments, "the ox-heads and flowers, the rosettes, lozenges, female heads, flowers on pannels and friezes," that adorned the entablatures in the pavilion drawing-rooms. (77) But in trying to settle his accounts "a difference of opinion" arose between he and the proctor whom he "roundly denounced" as "ill-bred, unhandsome, and insulting." (78) "I am Surprized," he wrote Brockenbrough in April, "you Should have Lost temper at a man mearly becaus[e] he wished to be paid a full demand for his labor & talents, you also seem to lay much Stress on a written agreement." (79) He reminded his "Very good Friend" that in conversation that they "did not think it all necessary to mention Every Item" of the contract. Coffee continued, "This much I must Say that it has Learnt me Knowledge never to trust to Such Documents again." This last barb surely irritated Brockenbrough because he only recently "solemly protested" to Jefferson that Coffee had "crowded in a smaller hand" words altering their contract. (80) He charged Coffee with retaining the original price paper which he signed, but the artist denied ever seeing it and furthermore chided him for not keeping a copy. Accusing Brockenbrough of treating him "handsome" and of insulting him in "A Very High Tone," Coffee ended his tirade against the poor proctor with a Jeffersonian-sounding lecture, "you ought to reflect that Every man Alike has a full Claim to reward for Labor or Talent," whatever "his Situation in Life." (81)
According to Philip Alexander Bruce, the "exasperating intricacies" of dealing with disgruntled workers "sometimes harrassed" Brockenbrough's temper. The proctor's duties included the misfortune of dealing with talented men like Coffee and Oldham who made great difficulties over their charges and payment. Bruce credited Brockenbrough with preventing all but a few serious disagreements to arise in the building of the university, evidence "that care had been taken by him to deal justly and exactly with all the persons who had a share in constructing it." (82) Such praise probably would have provided little consolation to Brockenbrough in the summer of 1823 when Rice W. Wood, a local Charlottesville attorney, accompanied Oldham to the proctor's office to examine the carpenter's accounts and seek a settlement.
Oldham hired Wood thinking "the instrume[n]tality of another person" might effect an adjustment of his accounts. He believed Brockenbrough's "personal hostility" toward him prohibited the reaching of a satisfactory arrangement. Wood observed that Oldham wanted to ascertain if Brockenbrough would consider an arbitration of the accounts pursuant to the agreement which Oldham's mischievous letter had derailed in January. When asked, the proctor was hesitant upon which course to pursue. Previous to entering the proctor's office Oldham asked his attorney to seek explicit answers from Brockenbrough concerning arbitration. Brockenbrough declared that he had been "directed" not to agree to an arbitration of their differences. He repeatedly confirmed "that it was understood between himself and Mr Jefferson that there should be no arbitration." At the same time he remarked that Jefferson "told him to do as he pleased about it." Oldham remarked that he had not understood from Jefferson that he was opposed to an arbitration. He left, said Oldham, "without being able to effect anything." (83) However, unbeknowing to Oldham, the appearance of an attorney stirred Brockenbrough into action. After the two men departed the proctor wrote a note to James Dinsmore instructing him to measure all of Oldham's unmeasured work, saying Dinsmore's "Measurement & prices on the same shall be satisfactory to A. S. Brockenbrough Proctor." (84) Later Dinsmore noted items in Oldham's work differed "Materially" from his own. If "confined in his Settlement with the University to the Prices mentioned in my Settlement with the Proctor," Dinsmore said of Oldham, then he "will be deprived of that Justice he is entitled to under the Book which was made the Standard for valueing the work of the University." (85)
The following fall Oldham decided to take more decisive action. In October the Board of Visitors met and Oldham "respectfully addressed to them a memorial" outlining the history of his relationship with the university and listing his grievances with the proctor. (86) He claimed that he completed all his work in the autumn of 1822 except for "some unimportant particulars which he could not execute for want of materials which the Proctor had undertaken to furnish, in the capacity, of Agent for the purchase of materials." He accused the proctor of neglecting his own work and acting out of his duty by interfering with contracts. In an obvious reference to his earlier jab at the proctor, he said Brockenbrough suggested for arbitrators "farmers and not Carpenters," a proposition to which he could not assent. Oldham asked the board where he stood in regard to future work (the Rotunda still being unfinished) and urged it to settle with him, expressing a willingness to submit to arbitration on the disputed amounts.
Jefferson's letter to him a few days later probably convinced Oldham to resort to the courts to settle his disagreement with the university. (87) Because of the legislature's funding process, Jefferson wrote, future work on the Rotunda only would proceed piecemeal at the completion of each stage, and in any event, the visitors did not think it "within their functions" to let out work. This meant contracts must be negotiated with the proctor and Oldham knew he had effectively destroyed his chances of ever receiving work from him. Jefferson also informed him of the visitors' interpretation of the law as establishing the proctor as the executive agent of the institution with power to make, execute, and settle contracts. Moreover, related Jefferson, "the Act establishing his office has laid the Courts of Justice opened to the persons injured (as to all other persons suffering injustice) by making him liable to their Suit in the ordinary Courts." The visitors, Jefferson concluded, had neither the power nor the right to act as a judge; the courts not only afforded one a chance for justice but because of the appeal system it gave "him two chances of a favourable decision, instead of one."
Oldham described himself as "overwhelmed with astonishment" at Jefferson's reply. "He saw himself without the hopes of redress," the carpenter wrote concerning himself, although he added that he "did not believe his case as hopeless as the answer of the board of visitors represented it." Still seeking to avoid a "legal controversy" he solicited lawyer Wood to speak to Brockenbrough. Accordingly, on the first day of November Wood paid him a visit but the proctor's pressing business delayed an interview. (88) In the next week they "had some conversation upon the Subject," with Wood trying to lure the proctor into committing to a specific course of action. The noncommittal Brockenbrough ended the discussion stating that "he wished to take further time for deliberation" and promising to reply in two or three days.
Upon the passing of a few days Wood "again called to see the proctor at his office, and enquired of him his intentions." This time Brockenbrough said he had not yet decided upon a course of action because he "was desireous of having a consultation" with Jefferson, whom he had written and expected to see any day. The rector finally replied in a note from Monticello, drawing attention to the problems the university experienced not only with Oldham but with fellow joiner John Neilson. As to their accounts, Jefferson wrote Brockenbrough:
I leave to yourself entirely, you are so much a better judge than myself. I always fear settlements left to workmen however honest; because on that subject they have a special code of morality of their own; however I do not say this of all and leave that to your judgement, recommending that you have a settlement in some way. (89)
The letter influenced the proctor to ask Wood how far his client would go in defraying expenses if he would consent to Oldham's request for arbitration, but his offer came too late. (90) Now, beyond mid-November, following three weeks of deliberations and the exchanging of notes, Wood paid a final visit to the proctor, again to no avail. After "nothing but equivocal answers" Oldham and Wood filed a lawsuit in late November.
Oldham's petition asked the Honorable John Brown of the Superior Court of Chancery holden at Staunton, Virginia, to redress the balance owed him with interest beginning on the date the money became due him (i.e., the date he completed his work). In his suit Oldham named the rector and the Board of Visitors as defendants. The responsibility for his pay lay with those who composed a "Corporation," rather than an individual to whom he "never confided and who by law has no contract of the funds of that Institution." The law did not make the proctor the "Executive Agent" for the university, he argued, but rather charged the visitors with the "erection" of the buildings and gave them "power to employ a Proctor as their Agent." This point the university conceded even though the proctor, as its authorized agent, still had to face the brunt of the storm alone. At least litigation gave Brockenbrough some breathing room, for when he appealed to the courts for justice James Oldham lost all prospects for a quick settlement with the university.
Twenty-two months passed before the Staunton court issued its first summons in September 1825 requiring the Board of Visitors to appear before it to answer charges filed by Oldham. In addition to Jefferson and Brockenbrough the summons named six other men, James Breckenridge, Chapman Johnson, John Hartwell Cocke, Joseph C. Cabell, James Madison, and George Loyal. (91) Evidently the parties agreed upon some arrangement whereby a single authority could represent both sides, for no evidence exists that most of these men ever attended court. Unquestionably Jefferson never attended any session for he died in July 1826, a full year before the first depositions taken of witnesses. James Madison replaced him as rector of the University of Virginia.
Only three days after Jefferson died Brockenbrough offered an impassioned defense of his actions in relation to Oldham's claims. (92) He stated that he could not remember if he ever told Oldham the prices on contracts (he would later contradict this statement). But he said Oldham could not have been ignorant of the prices because it was "generally known and circulated among the workmen and undertakers of the institution." In fact, Oldham worked without offering "the slightest intimation that he expected or was entitled to a higher price." Furthermore, Brockenbrough charged that Oldham paid out to other contractors at the ten percent discount prices and thus "required two estimates, one to receive by, the other to pay by—this convenient faculty which he exhibits of blowing hot and cold with the same breath is incompatible, this defendent would Suppose, with the atmosphere of the Court which he has been pleased to Select for the adjudication of his Case."
The proctor claimed Oldham sought arbitration only because of the "possible advantages arising from an unliquidated and Contested claim against a public institution." While suggestive, this position is not really tenable as no existing evidence points to this as Oldham's motive. Brockenbrough said the late president left it to him "to exercise a sound discretion" regarding arbitration and that he would not "yield advantages" to the plaintiff which "he is by no means entitled." He also observed that all other "undertakers of wood-work" settled with little difficulty by the summer of 1823, and he claimed he often yielded to Oldham in small points to get the thing over with. As for Oldham's personal attacks on him, Brockenbrough said his claims had "no existence except in the fruitful imagination of the Complainant." Charges that he employed his own hands upon work especially enraged him and he accused Oldham of "a gross and wilful misrepresentation—how the plaintiff can reconcile it to himself thus to utter a case, deliberate and unprovoked misrepresentation is to this defendant somewhat unaccountable—it is singular he should indulge the momentary gratification, when refutation is so immediately at hand—"
Brockenbrough felt so constrained that he produced, in a emotional nineteen pages, a fruitless endeavor to refute his opponent. Instead of succeeding in his effort to defeat Oldham's attacks, he fell into the same type of diatribe that his combatant excelled in. For two pages he railed about Oldham's letter to Griffin, calling it a "wicked and malevolent production," an "attempt at the wanton assassination of Character," a "midnight libel." He even accused Oldham of being unpatriotic for writing it. Overtaken by such rhetoric, Brockenbrough failed to properly address the heart of the matter at hand. About the terms of their contract he spoke vaguely and against himself. Concerning the actual money owed to the carpenter the proctor incredulously reduced a claim of four thousand dollars to a ludicrous $134.97! This injudicious final assertion proved more absurd by far than any ever made by Oldham and unfortunately cast Brockenbrough off the high road which he had heretofore trodden so steadfastly.
In the summer of 1827 Oldham notified the university that he would take depositions, beginning with John Harrow and others, at the Augusta County courthouse. (93) Later, in November, Rice Wood swore an affidavit at William D. Fitch's tavern in Charlottesville. Harrow made a particularly damaging statement against the proctor. He said Brockenbrough never tried to settle with him for less than the amount owed. On one occasion, however, he presented a bill for work he finished for Oldham, who lay at home sick, and the proctor discounted it ten per cent even though the charges were the same as for other work completed by Harrow. When he showed the bill to Oldham the carpenter became quite distressed. Caught in the middle, Harrow somehow managed to settle for the full amount, leaving Oldham and Brockenbrough to fight about the difference. Harrow added that Oldham always paid him punctually and in full and that he never heard the proctor complain about Oldham's work or faithfulness. In his November affidavit Wood expressed a desire to know how Brockenbrough adjusted his client's accounts, charging that three or four principal undertakers of buildings at the university "were not well satisfyed with the accounts made out for them by the Proctor." (94)
Wood based his assertion on fact. In August Brockenbrough sought to discount some of the finished work on the Rotunda. This strained relations between him and the principal contractors of the Rotunda, James Dinsmore and John Neilson. (95) Writing for them both, Dinsmore complained to the proctor, "I do not feel my Self Justifiab[l]e in accedeing to your Proposition under the Present Circumstances—the work was measured as it now is after a full veiw of it By the Measures—if any deduction is to be made the Law must decide it—I will give you My opinion Verbaly as to what I Consider the best way of remidying the Evil—" Unfortunately we have no record of the face-to-face encounter but they evidently settled the matter without recourse to "the Law" as Dinsmore threatened. (96)
Less than a week after Wood's deposition Brockenbrough suddenly agreed to Oldham's demand for an arbitration to settle the account. (97) If he had to choose arbitrators, the proctor said, John Perry, George Spooner, and Malcolm Crawford "are persons I would name as respectable men & fully competent to measure, and price and make out the Bills of work executed by James Oldham." (98) In choosing these men Brockenbrough named competent and respectable but not altogether disinterested persons. All three undertook major construction at the university and each enjoyed an especially amenable relationship with the proctor. Brockenbrough might have named the equally competent and prominent university contractor, James Dinsmore, who acted more independently of him. But of course the most reasonable choice for arbitrators (as the proctor would later learn) lay outside the institution in observers completely detached from its entanglements.
An agreement to arbitration did not bring about the desired settlement. After a whole year of inactivity Brockenbrough offered another defense, this time against some amendments Oldham added to his suit in the fall of 1828. (99) Briscoe G. Baldwin, a Staunton attorney, thought he could make arrangements for Brockenbrough with the plaintiff's counsel, "by which your answers may be adopted as those of the visitors." If those arrangements fell through the lawyer said an answer would be required of the visitors. Baldwin also informed the proctor that at the last term the question of jurisdiction came up and the judge overruled the defendants' plea of contest. He doubted the propriety of the decision but noted that only an appeal could correct it, "after the final determination of the cause." (100) Two weeks later Baldwin wrote Brockenbrough again, concurring with the proctor "that there was no propriety in making you a def[endan]t in the cause," but telling him that "your name cannot be not be stricken from the record at this time." Baldwin assured Brockenbrough, however, that he could not be subject to damages in any event. (101)
Baldwin did succeed in winning an agreement to allow the proctor's answer to the plaintiff also to be taken as that of the visitors. The university reserved "all & every benefit of exception to the imperfections, inaccuracies, & mistatements of the said Complainant in his original & amended bill." Brockenbrough denied taking any of Oldham's work, insisting that against frequent urging to the contrary the carpenter stopped of his own accord when "moved by a peticulance of temper to which he but too often yields." The opening of the university forced the proctor, in the public interest, he said, to employ other hands to finish the work. Moreover, only in this "solitary instance, out of numerous contracts," did trouble arise. "With the exception of this single case of the complainant," ventured Brockenbrough, contractors for similar work had been satisfactorily compensated at "prices offered to him." He concluded with a plea for the dismissal of the case. As he gave his answer before John Perry, a justice of the peace in Albemarle County and perhaps the largest undertaker at the university, the proctor somehow managed to overlook his price haggling with James Dinsmore and John Neilson, the aspersions cast upon him by William J. Coffee, and the financial fiasco involving Edward Lowber. (102)
The wheels of justice indeed turned slowly for James Oldham. In July 1829 Oldham asked Judge Allen Taylor to require Brockenbrough to live up to their 1827 agreement to put the case in arbitration. Oldham's request followed only two days after the visitors resolved to certify their answer to his original and amended bills of complaint and thus can be considered a grudge response. (103) Because of "undergoing Considerable Alterations" on Pavilion I, Oldham feared that before the next term of the court "not a vestage of the disputed work will remain, & he [Oldham] will be deprived of the only evidence of the quality of the work." The joiner suggested Yeamans Smith of Fredericksburg and Otis Manson (the famous builder/architect) of Richmond be appointed as two skilled commissioners "to measure the work before it is destroyed, & affix prices." (104) In early March 1830 Taylor granted Oldham's petition and appointed Smith and Manson to investigate and report back to him, designating the investigation to take place in the second week of April. (105) The commissioners visited the university accompanied by John Vowles and George Spooner as witnesses. (106) They reported back in June that they had not remeasured the work because both Oldham and Brockenbrough agreed the records accurately represented the original measurements. Moreover, in their opinion the university owed Oldham the full amount of £ 4000 for his services on Hotel AA because the proctor did not notify the carpenter of the ten per cent discount. After adjusting for credits and a few small oversights and overcharges, and deducting for the differences between Virginia and Pennsylvania currency (a whopping £ 795), the commissioners ruled that the university still owed Oldham another £ 890. (107) Oldham had won the first round.
In spite of an apparent victory settlement still remained off in the future. In fact the conflict now turned nasty. On 28 of December the university apprised Oldham that on the first day of January at McClung's Tavern in Staunton (108) it would be taking the deposition of Brockenbrough for a bill of exception to the ruling of Smith and Manson. (109) Not to be outdone, Oldham immediately wrote a revenge notification to Brockenbrough (delivered on the 29th) informing him that M. W. D. Jones would on the same day at Eagle Tavern in Richmond read an affidavit as evidence against the bill of exception. (110) In front of Frank Carr, justice of the peace for Albemarle County, Brockenbrough filed his opposition to the report of the commissioners who failed in their appointment "to Veiw, measure & affix the proper prices to the work done" by Oldham. (111) Brockenbrough charged the commissioners with changing their place of meeting from the university to Fitch's Tavern in Charlottesville without informing him, thus keeping him in the dark concerning their inquiry. He said they did not see all his account books, allowed incorrect charges by accepting Oldham's original bills without measuring the work performed, and overlooked communications he swore he made to Oldham. He denounced the whole affair, "This defendant not only objects to the report but to the commissioners themselves, not as defecient in integrety, but for the want of a thorough Knowledge of the complicated Philadelphia Price Book by which they were to be governed." Actually, neither of the commissioners had ever laid eyes on the price book before arriving in Charlottesville.
On New Year's Day Oldham kept his word. The testimony of his witnesses directly contradicted that of Brockenbrough. Before Preston Smith, the justice of peace, M. W. D. Jones testified that Commissioners Smith and Manson called on Brockenbrough in April and asked him to lay before them any records he wished and to state any objections and to go to Fitch's Tavern to discuss the situation, all of which he did. (112) John Booker and John Goddin also testified before Preston Smith that Otis Manson, a man of impeccable character, is "one of the most competent house-Carpenters" in Richmond. (113) And finally, Otis Manson testified that in April he and Smith settled the account in the presence of the proctor who made no objection when the measurements and prices were sanctioned. They could not have settled the matter more agreeably, he asserted, by measuring and pricing another way. (114)
Brockenbrough in turn excepted each of these affidavits on the ground that only one notary witnessed their signing. In addition, he contested Manson's affidavit because he considered it unreasonable and the notice given too short, it was given after a notice to take depositions on the same day, and it referred to a letter not produced. Chancellor Peyton agreed the notice was "as short & as unreasonable as the notice is complained to be" (he failed to comment on the shortness of Brockenbrough's notification). But the chancellor observed that Manson was "interrogated by questions propounded" by the proctor exclusively and the letter not produced was one written by Brockenbrough himself, placed in the hands of the attending justice by Thomas Gilmer, Brockenbrough's close friend in the General Assembly in Richmond, requesting interrogation of the witness. (115)
In late January an order signed by William S. Eskridge, clerk of the county court, instructed the two sides to select a Philadelphia measurer to solve their long-standing disagreement. If they could not agree one would be chosen for them by Joseph Cowan and Jacob Swoope, commissioners fixed for that purpose. The order directed the commissioner
to view the work, to measure Such parts there of as may be required by either party, so far as practicable, and to affix the prices according to the Contract between the parties, and to State and Settle the Accounts between the parties and make and report thereof to this Court, together with any matter Specially thought pertinent by himself, or required by the parties to be So Stated. (116)
The commissioner held power from the court to proceed in the absence of either party (or both) who failed to attend. The parties elected Joseph Morris, a qualified measurer of carpenter's work in the city of Philadelphia, who received his appointment sometime in mid-April. It seems that in picking Morris the plaintiff and defendant finally agreed upon something without experiencing great difficulty. (117)
Morris entered upon his duties on 22 April, performing services day to day until 5 May, with both Oldham and the proctor present. He viewed all the work and measured such requested by either party, affixing prices along the lines of the Philadelphia Price Book. (118) He observed that there appeared to be no "Specific Contract between the parties." According to an affidavit of John Perry, (119) similar work was performed with a deduction of ten per cent and identical work not of inferior quality would have been done by others if Oldham had not done it. Morris thus judged the ten per cent discount "a fair Compensation at the time the work was done." He disallowed claims for non-carpentry work by Oldham as well as a forty-four dollar claim by the joiner for ornamental work done attached to Pavilion I but which he had no connection with. Morris concluded by introducing a new disagreement into the arena—Oldham claimed interest on a forty-two hundred dollar promissory note issued to him by the proctor in January 1823. But the proctor said the note became due only upon the university's receipt of funds designated to dispense with it. Morris asked the judge to settle this question. (120)
Judge Thompson ruled on four items in Morris' report. (121) He denied compensation for the ornamental work not done by the plaintiff but he sustained the plaintiff's claim for $137.55 for non-carpentry work. More importantly, he ruled the "testimony proves A Contract for the discount—I am perfectly satisfied that the plaintiff is not entitled to more—" By Morris' figures the ten per cent discount shaved two hundred and seventeen dollars off Oldham's bill. As far as the last item, the judge sustained the plaintiff, declaring him "clearly entitled to interest." Thus Oldham collected one hundred and seven dollars interest on the promissory note. According to Morris, the whole amount of Oldham's claims amounted to ten thousand, one hundred and twenty-four dollars. After adjustments for credits and the justice's ruling, the university still owed Oldham two thousand and forty-eight dollars. (122) Furthermore, interest began accruing on this balance on 7 April 1824, that being six months from the day (7 October 1823) the Board of Visitors declined the mode of adjustment proposed by Oldham. (123)
The lawsuit ended on a predictable note. The obvious question, given the expectation of the outcome, is why didn't the two sides settle their differences harmoniously and avoid the vexation and acrimony of legal hassles? The final terms of settlement made both parties admit what they already knew. Oldham could not have been unhappy with the outcome, winning interest for seven years. The ten per cent which the judge discounted he half-expected to lose, and the ninety per cent he did receive was fair and equalivent to the compensation of other undertakers. Brockenbrough, for his part, had nothing to lose by settling at any time, except possibly his pride in being an exacting public servant. Against his will he at times had settled with other builders in their favor without taking it personally or seeming to think it hurt the university. The looseness with which he made and executed contracts, even after the dispute with Oldham, casts little negative upon Brockenbrough's competency as a manager. Instead it probably reflects more upon the nature of how gentleman carried on business in the early nineteenth century. (124)
Thomas Jefferson might have been able to solve the difficulty in an extralegal manner. But he knew Oldham's temper and had probably observed the growing personal clash between him and Brockenbrough. The security Jefferson enjoyed in hiring highly trained artisans outweighed any misgivings about Oldham's inability to co-operate with his "brother-workmen." Jefferson put up with the ornery joiner because he was a skilled craftsmen of the highest calibre who would not tolerate inferior work. When Oldham forced Jefferson's hand in 1823 Old Sachem wisely decided to steer clear of the controversy. By placing the entire matter in Brockenbrough's lap Jefferson did not compromise his relationship with the proctor one iota but instead showed him that he entertained Jefferson's full support. His snub toward the carpenter did not jeopardize the university because Oldham had already completed his work and would not be given more anyway. In fact the university actually gained over the short run because Oldham's claim represented a considerable sum for an institution struggling to place itself on a secure foundation. However this is not to say that Jefferson or the proctor actually delayed settlement for such a reason.
Compared to today's headlines of corruption and scandal the university's first lawsuit pales in significance. It is not a story about an individual waging war against a large institution although it might seem like that on the surface. Instead it is the simple tale of two strong-willed and even stubborn personalities whose unwillingness at first to settle a disagreement gave way to the exchanging of frequent barbs. Asperity and slander, over time, then evolved into an inability to rationally communicate. No records remain to tell us whether Arthur Spicer Brockenbrough and the man who holds the dubious distinction of being the only workman to bring suit against the University of Virginia for pay ever had anything else to do with one another after the lawsuit ended. Most likely not because Brockenbrough died shortly after the settlement of the case. (125) Oldham lived another decade during which time he ran a tavern. In 1843 his temper got the best of him and he shot Archelaus Robertson, a neighbor's son. (126) Robertson lived, however, and Oldham served no time.