Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1857-03-27

NfAS
Of certainty, the nature and extent, OF
amount Of the repairs, and tho manner Of
doing the same; aud that the notice should
be published in time TO enable bidders 10
examine the work before the letting. What
did this give to examine about
800 miles Of canal and ascertain tho na-
turc and amount Of repairs TO be donci I
say ext 10 mono at all.
But. the specifications and notice jwere
entirely sufficient for the plans concocted by
Hainlin, for the benefit of himself, the en-
gineers, and favorites Of tho Democratic
members of tho Board. s. 3.l
The law also requires the contracts 10 he
let TO "the lowostresponsible bidder" This
provision Of the law was totally disregarded.
II is claimed that the word responsible
means, not only prccuniary ability to aiis
swer for any breach Of tho contract, but, al
so, capacity and fitness for performing tho
work, which in my opinion, is far-fetched
and unwarrantable construction. can find
no instance where such meaning is given
to the word responsible" The response
bility for the performance Of an act, and
the capacity or skill necessary to perform
the act, arc entirely different and distinct
things. When the Legislature intends to
require skill as well as responsibility, some
other word, such as competent or skillful, is
used in connexion with the word responsible.
But, did the Board let the work to tho
lowest responsible bidders, competent to per-
form the work They did not. No re-
gard was paid either to the responsibility or
capacity of the bidders. On every section,
the lowest bidders were men experienced in
such work, and fully competent TO its perfor-
nance. They wero just as responsible in
every respect as those to whom the contracts
were lot on higher bids.
Take Cooper Shadinger & Co. They
) were old contractors, well known to every
member of the Board. Mr.. Bachus, the en-
gincer, Cooper and Hamlin all swear that
they and their securities, were worth at
, least million of dollars. Their capability
as well as responsibility, were beyond all
controversy. Their bid for section No. Z,
was $sl, 900 per annum. Yet the Board
= did not give the contract to them, but let it
, out TO Forrer, Burt & Co. at $l1e, 900, max
ing difference Of 1000 year, and of
$lS5,000 for the FIVE years. This difference
alone makes quite handsome profit. Mr..
Cooper was appeased by being let into this
, contract at tho higher bid, with one sixth
interest; by which he not only receives one
sixth of the profits he would have made at
/, tho bid of $Sl 900 but also of tho advanced
!, price; his share of the advanced price for
five years, amounting to $30,s33 SO. 1t is
easy to see that Cooper loses nothing by
the change; but the State is defrauded out
: of Sls5,0Oo, by total disregard of tho
+ + law both in the letter and in tho spirit. 1t
: : must be perfectly apparent to every Senator
that these contracts were all obtained by a.
> fraudulent combination, in which several of
the engineers in the employ of the State,
: participated, and at which there is strong
evidence, that some of the members Of the
u Board connived Several engineers were in
. . terested in the bids and sold out their inter
y ests, some before and some after tho con-
: tracts were finally awarded. The firm Of
:. :. which Mr.. Bachus was member bid $24,-
~ 900 per annum for section 6, and were
I bought off by Samuel M. Young & Co. for
u $4,000. Thatscction was then let to Young
- d. Co. at $4,000 per annum. By this
. transaction the State was dcfrauded out of
u S35,500. Two engineers Foster and Sif
y ford, were interested in the contract for Sec
, ton 2, and sold out their interest, one for
= $4,000, and the other for $4,000. Hamlin,
who had been acting as counsel for the
Board from the beginning of the project, or
C rather for the Democratic portion of it, and
/ who, as such counsel was employed to ex-
o anime the law and get up the notices, spec
u icatons, &c., after selling out his interest in
It one contract for 81 900, and in another for
Q $4,000, turns up the owner of one-half Of
J, the $l1S,000 contract, the largest of all.
n And in this fact Mr.. President, hangs a
It tale, which would be very interesting, could
: it be fully developed to the public gaze
it Mr.. Hamlin in his first deposition, says that
J. his interest in this contract is that of an at
n torney for Forrer, Burt & Co.-that as he
IS has been attorney for thst company from
E its origin, and that, besides this he never
le had any interest. That Forrer owns one
J. sixth, Burt one-sixth, and Cooper one-sixth.
y But, when asked by the committee who else
/ were or had been interested in that bid, OF
3 whether any member of the Board of Pub
IS lie Works is, or had been in the bid or con-
il tract, he refused 10 answer, on the plea that
le he knew nothing about who were interested
a in the bid or contract, or what they had
1t done, or were to do, only what he had
/ learned by being attorney for the company,
c and, therefore, could not answer without
is their consent. This deposition was given
y on the 9th ofJuly, 1856, and on the 10th
g of December following, he gave his second
! deposition, in which he says that his interest
h in the contract is that of an attorney, and
l. that he receives one-half of the nett pro-
g ceeds for his services; that he acts as secre-
( tary and discussing agent of the company,I
o and is responsible for the funds, and is to
d employ any legal assistance that may be
It needed. Why could he not have said this
y in the first place.! 1 would like to know
:, sir what there is in this statement of facts.
/ which required so much shuf1ing and delay
9 on the part of Hamlin? He evidently
q wanted time TO prepare his answer. AT
, first, he said his only interest was that of an.
e attorney; afterwards that he only acted as
d secretary and is responsible for the funds,
&c and is to employ any legal counsel that NAV
n be needed! His first statement, therefore.
n was not true. His interest was not that of
an attorney merely, according to his last
I.Nn .a.,N