Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, IA [i.e. Ind.]) 1839-1854, 1842-05-28
MIR. JESSE /. WILLIAMS.


him Of Specializing, or connIEing at speculate
by others of the engineering corps on the lines
Nor do they charge him wiih ovcr-estIm1tcs I
contractors. ~ conniving at such ctndnct Il
others. There is charge against bun ct retain
ing T. NJ. Beckwith III Office, after some Of HI
misconduct had been known 10 sad WiIi'ams.-
The misconduct conpained Of to Mr.. Williams on
which this charge was based, was, that Beckwtrl
had made an erroneous profile OF the ground, ant
false estimates Of work done on section No :, &"
the Madison Raiirond, whereby Hendricks haf
sustained great loss. Mr.. Abraham Hendricks
and Joseph II. Hendricks, the contractors, and
William Hendricks, Sen, appear to have united
agains, Beckwirh IN this matter. In the winter
of 1888, Mr. J. II. Hendricks visited Mr.. Williams
and requested him to have nis work re measured
lie SAYS that Mr.. Williams promised to come down
and measure the section himself, but did not come
down for months Afterwards, and then he
got BeckwIlh to make out profile, TO satisfy Mr..
Hendricks. THIS was presented to Mr.. Hendricks
by Mr.. Williams, but he re ected II without eX-
animation. Several lotters appear TO havo been
written to Mr.. Williams subsequent to this time.
by the Messrs Hendricks, and Wil!lnm Hendricks,
Sen ComplainIng of tho Same matters, and re-
fleeing upon Mr.. Bcckwth very severely. The
committee will remark that The nature OF these
complaints is such ms to raise no very strong I'm
preston on Mr.. Williams mind, that Beckwith
was dishonest. They were made by disconten
tod contractor, and his immediate connections
and friends, who complained ct the resident en-
gneer for under estimates. Had there been
complaint of estimates by thtrd pcrson5 the
case would have bean quite different. Mr.. VIII
lIams' conf Ienco in Beckwirh IN such case.
might have been shaken, and II would have been
his duty to set on foot rigid inquiry INTO the
facts. But 1t must bo borne IN mind that Mr..
Beckw ,lh had been introduced TO Mr. Williams
with tho highest testimonials OF private and pro
fessional character, that the charges made against
of occurrence.
every engineer who did his duty was daily sub
iect to, from contractors who had mldo losing bar.
gains. Mr.. Williams might we'll be slow to give
up n confidence placed in Mr.. Beckwiih and Iong
cherished, on such weak and Improbable grounds.
The nature OF Mr. Williams duties requiring his
presence and attention in various parts of the
State might well excuse his not going 20 MadI-
than he did; and tue high opinion he enter
tanned of the character Of tho resident engineer.
sufficiently accounts for his not evincIng any sns
pcions Of him. Ia order 10 satisfy Mr.. hendricks,
Mr.. Williams required Mr.. BeckwIth TO make
out profile OF the ground on the second section.
which Mr. Hendricks rejected without examine
ton. This conduct the part OF Mr.. Hendricks
was calculated to strengthen Mr.. Williams pre-
conceived opinion Of the compliant; and Hen
bricks violent dcuunrlnttons OF BeckwIth were
cacula ted ind ace the belief that he was ANNA
ted by some what Of a personal auimosIty towards
him. 1t part of Mr.. Williams dnty as
Chief Engineer. TO make estimates IN person;
supervision Of the works Of others, and a general
direction of their operations necessarily occupied
his whole time and attention. Mr.. Hendricks
complaints were subsequently made to the board
Of internal Improvement, and Mr.. Thomas a.
Morris despatched the special service Of ma
king a measurement of the work. Mr.. Hen
bricks seems to have entertained an opinion that
Mr. Thomas A. Morris confined by the Chief
Engineer to Beck profile and estimates IN
making his calculations. hut this does not appear
49, ,l,., 10, tf>f
SCRIPT from the books of tho board. certified to
your committee, II appears that his operations
were not so limited, and Mr.. Williams denies, IN
his examination, having given any such directions
verbally. Complaints OF the same character were
also preferred by Hendricks against Beckwith be.
fore the board of Internal improvements and la
boriously investigated An abstract of The whole
testimony and proce cdings have been certified TO
10 your committee, from whh,h II appears that The
trial was fairly made. without Mr. Williams IN
reference, and Mr.. BeckwIth acquitted. Mr.
Beckwiths character was attempted to be Impeach
ed at this trial, but he sustained triumphant
" by testimony of the most uninpeachabe char.
acter. Another charge against Mr.. Williams Is
that this trial he positively that the pro-
file made tv Mr.. Beckwith was correct. Mr.
Williams would have hazarded great deal in
making such an oath as II is not pretended that
he had ever surveyed the ground. Mr.. Williams
would have found i, difficult sustain himself in
this assertion, had he made it, for the next most
natural inquiry would have BEEN how did you
arrive at that conclusion? The naked eve can
not without the aid of instruments and diagram
determine quantities and levels with certainty:
and Mr.. Williams, had he made such an assertion,
would have been driven from his ground by the
next question. The abstract of testimony fur
nIshed by the secretary of the board Judge Nor
rison) does not sustain this charge. Mr.. Williams
opinion as TO the correctness of the profile is gil
ven in qualified form. Mr.. Hendricks hea,
seems TO have injured his cause before the board
Some OF the levels noted on the profile were af>