Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1856-03-08

read With intersss Sc iSsss e $ -
source; andif ID do 5o Ixh ar6a l56bled 1zl6s
anything that do not : Sk,nd, d hope is sili
NOT be considered that am stepping III limits
2: Ct !, Z private oekhelass, i ask for
The Chief Engineer in allusion to u sc
the road makes statement which If .c6il es-
tabiishes beyond question his reputSS for estima-
ting the cost of work in advance G ond that of
any other Engineer Of this country. allude to the
statement to be found on the 18th page of his re-
port that the actual cost falls short Of the esti-
mated cost 81 1882" 1t is at this point have STUN
bled for being but simple body and not like Mi
chael Capio, "a great Arthmetican," cannot I'M
derstand how it is that road which was estimated
to cost s., 405, 1872, and upon the construction of
which it is we'll known-but perhaps / had better
say generally beeved-that at least 81 900 900 have
been expended can be said and proven to have cost
81, 2SS less than the original estimate have stu
died with some care the proof of this extraordinary
assertion, but cannot, somehow or other, make it
out Perhaps the difficulty arises from the fact
that have not the necessary faith in the report of
Gov. Morehead, which is referred to as proof That
report of the x-President, made as it was to the
Legislature, have always set down as Of the Bun
conbe order. And an examination of it., think,
will convince most any one that it was never in
tended for serious consideration.
But let me present my idea of comparison of
the actual with the estimated cost L have not the
data before me f'r going into thorough examina-
ton OF the subject All that can do is to present
some crude notions. derived from the report in
question, and that of Governor Morehead, to the
Legislature:
The original estimate for the cost of the road was
So, 4O5 1872 1t is not finished yet, as will be
by reference to the list of unfinished work which
appears in the report of the Chief Engineer; and
yet, as have before observed, it is generally be-
lieved that 81 600 900 have already been expended.
If this be so, then there is an apparent of
cost of 1894, 1858. In Gov. Morcheads report this
discrepancy, Tor rather one Of $83O16s, for it is
there estimated that the road when finished will
cost s., 235, 30O,) is accounted for by showing
increase in the estimate for equipment the increas
ed cost of iron, and an increased allowance for
CINE sheds and houses for overseers. Now let US
look into his explanation with regard to iron. He
says "of the 900 tons bought for this road 900
tons purchased before the rise and 900 tons
since at an advanced price of at least $22 per ton,
making the cost for iron at least 900 more than
was anticipated" In the report to the stockholders
at Hillsborough in July, 1854 information is given
of the contracts for iron up to that tme viz 1000
tons at 81 70 per ton, and 5000 tons at $50 per
ton, both exclusive of dnty. And in the report to
the Legislature informed that 5000 tons had
been purchased at $40 90, exclusive of duty also.
The duty the first lot would be about $1l Is per
ton, the second lot about $l3 and on the last lot
about $40 so; adding to'each lot transportation at
Sc per ton would make the cost as follows:
1000 tons at $62 per ton delivered $24S00O
5000 4" SO 53l 900