Evansville weekly journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ind.) 184?-18??, 1848-03-30

From your affectionate father,
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS.
For the Evansville Journal
Mr.. Editor-SIR.-Upon my return from
Cincinnati, on Sunday, | found in your paper
of Thursday last a column of low personal
abuse of me, signed Messrs Laycock, Stephens,
Griffith, and Scantlin-the high contracting
majority of the Common Council-in reply TO
the facts addressed 10 my constituents of the
Sd Ward few days previous. 1t isan old trick
to reply to facts which can neither be admit
ted, denied, or explained, with personalities
and abuse; and | suppose they thought it must
certainly succeed where " Old Willard" was in
the case. But they, or least some of them,
would have showed more respect for their own
reputation and the intelligence of the people,
by attempting TO make some answer to the
weighty charges | made, especially the one
they quoted and then say nothing further about,
namely: that ''two, at least, of the Council
men appeared not as representatives OF the in
terest of their respective wards, but as the pet
tifOggers for one of the companies proposing
for the work, pledged TO that proposition be-
fore it came before the Board" This being
true as preaching, as every body saw and says
who was present, they could not pluck up eff
frontery enough to deny; but it looks bad for
them TO repeat it, and then taeitly admit its
truth, replying to it only with low and false
nsnua tons as to my course about other total
ly irrelevant matters; these insinuations shall
not condescend ever to refer to, but am pre-
pared at any time, to show that my course in
regard of the matters alluded TO, was far from
inconsistent with my duty to the city.
One would have thought that when these
gentlemen undertook to appear in print a all,
they would have had something to say about
the merits of the case. My charge was, in sub
stance, that two of these, at least, were COM
mitted to the mitchell Bill before the propo
sails were opened, were willing to 60 for any
feature of it they could get majority for, and
determined to go against every thing else, how
ever preferable; and that they, in their devo-
ton to the interests of the Company, actually
sacrificed those OF the City, at least to the tune
of from $4,000 to $4,000; of all this they say
not one word except to insist upon ''our ina
billty consistently to accept OF any other propo-
sal, and to attempt to mystlfy my plan, (false-
" termed by them ''a proposition, for doing
the work under one of the cheaper proposals
| came in with no proposition as is falsely said,
but only attempted to show how the work
could be let to one of the other parties propos-
ing for the contract, at saving to the city OF
$4,000. And now word as to that matter
When the proposals were opened the ''Mltchell
Bill'' was found to contain features OF so out
rageous character that it was immediately as
certained that majority would not 60 for it,
and upon tie the Mayor would vote against
it. This set the gentlemen who have cha rae
terized as the pettifoggers of the company, TO
work to put it in such shape as would go down
with majority. andafter frequent consultations
with their principals they ''by authority" but
with as much apparent reluctance as if they
had been dickering for themselves, gradually
withdrew and modified just SO many of the
most Objectionable clauses, and no more, as
would enable the thing to pass and in this
shape 1t was understood the contract was to be
let, and for the purpose of forcing it through,
As fast one of the other proposals was ia
ken up 1t was Immediately and without any
consideration, laid on the table, upon the mo-
ton of either the Councimen from the LIST
or I'd Ward. When saw that they were thus
determined throw away at once at least &c.
600, and especially when the proposal of Man
ming & Budwell, offering for $23, 800 to do all
| the work now TO be done, was before the Board,
L begged OF them TO pause in so reckless course,
and attempted to show that they could let the
work TO these gentlemen and provide the means
to pay them. Iassured them that the city's 10
per cent. bonds would really sell to larger
amount than required and to convince them that
| was in earnest, offered forthwith to give bond
to take $4,000 of them myself. This | did
rather than to see them fool away so much
money in order to favor particular set of men;
and now submit to the people whether mine
was not the wiser and better plan for the city.
We have now to pay TO say the least 1913 300,
if we ever own the wharf; and 10 per cent. up
on that sum annually. whether we ever own
it or not. Under my plan we should have
had TO pay ten per cent on only So, 300, and
| for that sum should have owned the wharf at
once, with all It's revenues TO meet the princi-
pal. And yet these faithful servants of the
city were in such fear lest their pets might lose
the Job by something better for the city being
Offered and understood by the other Council
men, whose votes they stood in need of, that
they would not give such plan even a mo-
ment's respectful consideration; but the one
moved and the other seconded that it be laid
under the table. Let their fellow citizens judge
of their fidelity. The contract however being
made am for carrying it out in letter and splr-
it, and with this remark | am done with the
merits OF this matter, as | may well be, they
not having dared TO touch them. But just to
show the concoctor of this miserable abortion
who so cunningly grts his brother Council
men to lndorse his integrity in that capacity
by permitting them to share the honor of faith
ering his bantling that such a thing as recrim-
ination is possible even between ''old Willard
and the honorable representative from the fist
| Ward, have word to say to him individual
| ly, a word, too, that 1 aUont take bach.
thus fix The responsibility of This mess of bal
derdash upon the first signed for obvious rea-
sons; and among which is the great 81" which
sticks out SO prominently Notwithstanding the
effort to conceal his individuality in that beau