Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1809-04-11

was uCtolCQ u u VINO DcSiQcS himself
we're employed what were his or their wa
ges; what time they were employed; so
tina. upon every point necessary to illustrate
the subject, and to- enable us to form opini.
ons, he IS totally silent: and yer, it is upon
this affidavit th,t the committee of the ex-
ecutive have relied, to support the enor.
nous sum of u.s. $50 dollars
Among other things mentioned by Young,
that no workmin Guild be procured 10 ex.
ecute the work in the manner it was ex-
ecuted nus the wnrkmen in Mr. Clarke's en-
ployment-he fu rther states, that Ciarke's
workmen wrought 1926 days under his di-
rection, and Shac they were worth los 81
per day for each days work Thus crea.
ting or machinery, great part of when
was OF little or no value, the SUN of IS $50.
In this mode of calculation, it seems that
Young has MKT the work done under the
CONTRACT, and the work done afterwards
so thai no discr,m cation can be made, but
there is clue by which the MISERY can be
unravclled
In February 1901, the first certificate
was issued in tine name or Josepa Young,
tor extra work, for the sum of dolls $50 SO.
Similar Charges succeeded each other al
most every month until March 1907, beinp
% In humber, amounting to dolls Is 135
90. And calculating upon ..x years, IS
working days to a montn, and to work p
days each month, Will average about 500
dols.-ODon many occas ons the SUI an drawn
IN the dffsrent months was much larger.
Now IN order to ascertain the truth and
know what the commonwealth ought to have
paid, We should establish the actual am oupt
Of the Wages Of Young and oshers-the time
they were employed. and the usefulness Of
their service.-It will probably be found du-
ring these six years, thas the work done
was not equal to two constant hauds-and
allowing these TO work $50 days each in
the year, Will amount exclusive of the CON.
tract, to $40 days, and altho' Young, rvs
no other workmen were equal to them
and that los 81 a day was low price. vet
1t IS fact, that Philip Hamilton was hir.
ed at 20 dollars m nth, and Robert Aims
worth at 80 dollars month--and it is Ca
paole OF being proved that workmen equal
TO the best or them could then and now ne
employed on more moderate terms.
Ii is upon these data that conc ,ude that.
from 5000 to 1000 dollars would be fully
sufficient tor ali the benefit received by the
public f-r which d )lls 10, I35 So have been
paid.
The affidavits of Joseph Young NOT an.
swerins the purpose, it was necessary to
get substitute, which here fellows.
line Chairman OF the committee of the
executive having requested me to give nv
opinion as to the difference between the su N
winch mJor Clarke would have received
LOT tne services OF the mi lwrights who were
IN his employment, had they been engaged
In the business when they ordinarily pro-
secuted before ne was called to the pubic
service, and the sum which he has ACTUALLY
received, In consequence of devotiug their
ID our to the puolic service. 1 do hereby
certify, that it's my opinion thartne work.
men IN major Ciarke's service, that is, his
millwrighIs would, if they mad been employ
ed IN the service of prya indIvidua;s.
nave earned for him at least twice as much
IS they have earned for him while laborlng
&C the mandatory of arms.
JOSEPH YOUNG
December Sd, 1898.
Henrico County, to wit:
Inc above certificate was sworn
TO before me in due form, agreeable to law.
this 4th day of December, 1868.
(Signed)
DAM. L. HYLTON.-
In opposition 10 the above, l state as fol-
lows
suppose two constant hands, workin q in
year $50 days eacn, equal to 500 DAYS.
Or for years, 5000 DAYS.
Rate these at26 days to month,
VIII make rs months.
And this at S 80 each
will produce & $3.50
Deduct these from 8 1926
So, will leave 1868 SO
overdrawn IRON the treasury.
1t is also testified by George William son.
that he was an eye witness TO the whole Of
the work aforesaid, that it was faithfully
executed, and the extra work was worth
more than three times the worth specifi
In the contract between maj. John CT ,rke
and the Executive, he saw all the d fret
items in the preceding statement, aud also
saw everyitem in the work which was done
by maj. Clarke with like fidelity. In this
manner Mr.. Williamson supports the AFT
davit of Young.
Without calling in question Mr. William.
sons morality or veracity III this matter, |
viii shew the probability OF his being entire
ly mistaken. In the first place MANY of
the items happened almost ten years ago
and related to matters which could not have
been under his eye, even If the buildings
had been then complete and he mad been
there-and what is still more extraordna-
y, some OF them happened a very con.,de-
raole tine before Williamson was employ
ed or before the works were in a situ,t on