Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1834-05-27
To the Stockholders of the Alexandria Canal.

Without access to the proceedings of the Ca
nal Board during my service thereat; obliged to
rely upon memory; Iprofess not to give specific
dates to the offers of William LIE Baron and his
companies for the Aqueduct contract; answer
only for facts stated. The first offer, as before
mentioned, was declined the 28th February,
1888 together with those of Martineau e. Co.
and Osbourn. LIE Baron went home, ignorant,
as all others seemed to be, except Martineau,
that the contract was open. The season of
work was at hand; Martineau & Bargy alone
offered contract; pressed by the urgent neces-
sity of action proposed to accept that offer,
although near 1000 more than two of those
we had rejected; the Board acceded to it. Upon
the failure of those contractors to perform their
offer, became, through desire to begin the
work, much excited, and was encouraged, by
the President and Mr.. Janney particularly, to
hazard myself in place ofBargy, with Mr.. Mar
tineau; fortunately | forbore to do SO. The
working season rapidly progressing; no offer
being before us; DESTROYS to prevent the loss of
that year to u.s. as by gross miSmandgement 1t
has been, desired a friend of VIM. LIE Baron's
to inform him of the failure ofMartineau & Bar
gy to comply; that as the contract had been
open to them, it must be so to all who would of
fer; that no proposal was then before the Board;
that if he could form a respectable effective
Company; make fair offer and bring such re-
port of their character and means to perform as
would satisfy the Board, | thought such offer
would succeed. | reasoned for the Board &C
cording to my perceptions Of its duty to you;
some others had very different ideas of that du-
ty. l was particularly DESTROYS also to have
contract formed, to put at rest the belief OF ma
nv persons interested, that the Board really in
tended to proceed by days work; and, con-
fess, the assurance given by Mr.. Mason, that it
was not intended to keep the Aqueduct work
under direction of our Engineer, never did re-
move my distrust on that subject. About the
middle ofApri, 1888, VIM. LIE Baron presented
an offer for himself, Burke and Dearmond; the
two latter were expected the next day; Mr.. Ma
son and Mr.. Hunter were appointed to confer
with the Company. Burke and Dearmond came
not as expected The Board met, daily think,
to receive a report of our Committee. LIE Ba-
ron was, | understood, disconnected by the abb
sence of his friends, and desired to return for
them; wishing first to be on certainty Of not To-
sing his time and charges he asked the Board
to say if his offer would be accepted, provided
he returned within given time, with satisfacto-
ry assurance Of capacity to perform the con-
tract Such, to my recollection, was the sub
stance of his request to the Board. During the
uncertainty of Burke and Diamonds arrival,
! remarks had been made at the Board respect
ing the parties offering. Mr.. Mason expressed
himselfto this effect, and nearly, ifnot positive
| w, in these words, viz: g LIE Baron acknowledge
| ed to me that he owes ten thousand dollars, and
he wants public work to enabled him to pay it."
Whether the whole sentence, or only the ad-
mission of debt were LIE Baron's words, and
the means of payment suggestion of Mr..
Mason's, he best knows; as to that latter part.
certainly truly state MIR. Mason's words No
thing was then said of any property, or other
means of LIE Baron's to pay that debt. AS a
man Of business, the representation of Mr.. Ma
son conveyed to me, distinctly, to the idea of
| LIE Baron's insolvency. | had such different
| Of Nr Lei arOn,S situation thOuOlt
personal feelings had too much influence in MIR.
i Mason's representations; fully believe so now.
! The Board seemed indsposed to assent to LIE
Baron's request. / differed therefrOm The
| offer, think, my recollection may not be eX-
! act as | did not note the amount, came out
about $500 or $500 more than we had agreed
to give Martineau & Bargy for the same work,
at a season more favorable for us to conclude
such bargain. Consistent TO my repeated de-
| claration that Improvement OF time was more
important to us than to sacrifice it for the I'M
certain saving of little money, would not,
| in the urgency of the case, suffer the petty sum
of $500 to stop our proceedings. Neither would
| object to the allowance of a few days to
bring up his company q think it was or limited
the time to seven days.. Now look to the time,
unlimited, given by the Board to Martineau for
the same purpose. Who was consistent and
lust? the Board or II This is the case, it now
appears on which Mr.. Mason POUNDS his charge
Oh I1C Ho'O ShhPAoy ~ hii'
time to better effect for those who paid him.
Burke & Dearmond arrived before LIE Baron
left the District. They had been detained by
want of seats the Western stages being full.
Their offer was again before the Board, with
their general character of ability to perform
Upon proposition of Mr.. Hunter TO give them
the contract upon the same terms granted to
Martineau & Bargy the yeas and nays were
taken at my request Mr.. Hunter, one 2! Of our
Committee, Mr.. Brockett and myself, said yea.
Mr.. Smith. MIR. Janney and Mr.. Miller, nay.
Mr.. Mason rejected it by his casting vote; by
which, do believe, he did more injury. to our
interests than ever, now, can be repaired. |
saw LIE Baron before he left the District: his
disappointment was great-more for his friends
than HIMSELF their loss of time and expenses
he attributed, through prejudice against him, to
the determination of the Board against any con-
tract wherein he concerned | repealed
that idea; defended the Board upon the neces-
sty of caution as to the capacity of contractors
to perform their agreements; charged the re-
fusai of their offer, mainly, to the want of such
papers as had desired his friend to say con
i F.,r- certificates of reSDecta.