Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-12-20

To tho Editers Of ths Standard - 3. s.
In the Wilmington journal of the 9Th instant
there appears au editorial rejecting in the seyerest
tone on the managers Of the work on the line of
the Cape Fear & Deep River Navigation Company"
do not propose to reply in detail to the structures
of the Journal; but desire the of your columns
to submit brief narrative of facts which is neces
sary to dspel The managers of this work de-
sire only justce and it is hoped that this narrative
will be sufficient to show that they would not have
been willing to sacrifice the work for the benefit of
"our own people in Chatham and Cumberland"
contracting. ITO find employment for this or that
of our own young men" as engineers.
At the meeting of the stockholders in April, 1855,
in Wilmington there was strong feeling expressed
in favor of employing Mr.. E. A. Douglas as Chief
Engineer of the Company. resolution was pass.
ed expressing preference for him, and the Board
requested to secure his services. Accordingly, at
their next meeting, which came off at Summervlle,
Mr.. Douglas was retained at salary of S. 600 per
annum and his expenses, which was the least sum
at which his services could be secured, he coming
on to North Carolina often, as he then informed
us, as was necessary. l beeve-in fact know
that majority Of the Board at that time voted for
the resolution employing him with reluctance, feel.
ing that the compensation given him was very high.
But the working season was then ut hand; we had
time to look around for another who might be
equally competent; and the Board was instructed to
employ him. So much for the charge of paying an
exorbitant salary to the Chief Engineer. 1t is not
improper to remark further that the stockholders at
Haywood in April last, ratified and approved the
action of the Board in this matter, and so stroug
was the feeling for Mr.. Douglas in Wilmington that
a gentleman who stands deservedly high in the
tidence of the Wilmington stockholders, and who
represented the most Of the Wilmington stock in
said meeting, came up for the avowed purpose
of ejecting from the Board gentleman who is
as much acquainted with the river as any man on
it. for the reason that he was supposed to be 0ppos
ed to Mr.. Douglas In q consultation with Mr.. Dou-
no ha hnx
asked how many assistants he wanted. His
answer was that two were enough And he ex.
pressly stated that he would prefer to take them
here among us, of "our own young men," if they
would do. The Board at once employed Mr. Con-
ner on his recommendation, AID he asked if he
would take Mr.. McDuiie as the other. He readily
agreed to do So and expressed himself entirely sat
isfied with him. These two gentlemen went at once
into the service of the Company under Mr.. Douglas
Mr. Conner some time afterwards resigned; and we
have since had McDuffie and two other young men
the work under the Chief Engineer On the re-
signation of Mr. Conner Mr. Douglas never indicated
his successor. He has not dismissed as he had the
power to do. any one of " our young men " on the
work. He never reported to the Board that they
were incompetent wanting in fidelity to their
trusts. He has never given the least intimation
which can recollect, that he desired their dismiss
sion for any cause whatever Have the managers of
this work, of whom the Journal sees two dali
ly, failed in carrying out the plans of Mr. Douglas
anu auopteu OWL platlS jill pI1Ce vi as.
sert positively they have not done in o single in
stance; and if they had done this, he ought in JUS
tce to himself to have promptly resigned long ago.
Did they fail in giving him efficient assistants? He
| asked for two. They gave him these, recon-
mended by himself, and he readily assented to the
employment of the other-cxpressing himself en-.
rely satisfied with him. If in the progress of the
work Mr.. Douglas had become satisfied that any
of his assistants was incompetent, that he had
not engineering force sufficient, submit to every
air-minded man, ifhe ought not to have dsmssedhim
or expressed his dissatisfaction to us, and recon-
mended an increase Of the engineering force How,
then, can any person, if there has been disappont
ment, that it has come, censure the board of
managers, for retaining North Carolina assistants,
with whom he expressed dissatisfaction for
not suppyng wants of which he apprized them?
My object, Messrs. Editors, is not to attack Mr..
Douglas. Far from it. But merely to show facts,
that an impartial public may not censure those who
do not deserve it. Errors they may have commit
ted but from no such motives submit, as are as
crbed to them.
Again: 1t is alleged that the interests of the work
have been sacrificed to subserve the interests of con-
tractors resident here. Now, in regard to this, l
will assert that it is impossible oind in NorthCar-
DINA out of it, seven gentlemen who are more
sincerely DESTROYS of pushing this work through
than the present board. They differed among them
selves, it is true, to the contractors. In March
last the work was let out on Deep river. portion
othe Board desired to give the contract to Northern
Company who owned important coal interests on Deep
river and who willing to take the contract at Mr..
Douglas estimates. majority ofthe Board, howev-
err decided to give the work on Deep River-not to
| one Company. but to several different Companies
| who were required to enter into bond with good
| and sufficient security for the completion OF the
work-all of which they did And will here on
ly remark that they contracted to do said work at
| cost of nearly 5000 less than the said esti-
| mates and that with the exception of the Stone
Lock at Lockville, will be seen from Mr.. Douglas
report, it is nearly completed and, will add, is
we'll DONE If little is due to my opinion, would
respectfully refer to Mr.. Douglas authority. An
other fact will mention in this connection When
the Board declined the bid of this Northern Compa
| nv for the whole of the work on Deep River, but
preferred dividing it into different contracts, men,
Der Of the Board requested to confer with the
| agent of this Company and ascertain whether or
not they would be willing to contract for the con-
struction of the work at Lockvle; and reported af
mhote of the Deep River contracts they would have
| nothing to do with part Of it. Having had some
experience heretofore of Northern contractors the
! McCulloughs, who were as highly recommended as
this Northern Company possibly could be, the Board
did prefer to i've the work divided into different
| contracts, to citizens of North Carolina who
| known to them, and knewn to be responsible men
| (he most of them of experience in the construc-
ton of this species Of work. and who entered into
undoubted bonds for its proper execution; but in
asmuch as there to be constructed at Lockville
| a stone lock, which was the first built on the
river, they would have preferred letting these gen.
tlemen have the construction of it. from the fact
that it was understood that they had experience in
this species of work.
In all this Messrs. Editors, permit me respectful
" to ask, in what have the board done wrong? We
are answered that if we had given the contract to
these Northern gentlemen their own interest would
| have prompted them to push the work through;
and that it would at this very time have been COM