Meigs County telegraph. [volume] (Pomeroy [Ohio]) 1848-1859, 1857-01-27

were dlVlded into eight sections. In ma
king their report the Investigating Com
mittee take each section separately, and
give the facts relating to it. We shall fol-
low the example of the Com mittee;
SECTION NUMBER ONE
Is the Ohio Canal from Cleveland to,
and including the Walhonding acqueduct
and lock, near Roscoe, and the Walhond-
ing Canal.
The contraction this section was award
ed to Medbery Il Co., at $97, 500 year.
On this there were the following bids, all
of which were iower than Medbery q Co.'S,
viz:
Myron H. Mills -S21 900
William Miller r--------2 24,8OO
Nelson & Young ------ 26, 400
Peter Dunn $4,000
Samuel Doyle & Co---- 24,985
Joseph Cooper & Co----- 1880
SECTION NUMBER TWO
Is the Ohio Canal from the foot of the
Walhonding lock, near Roscoe, to the foot
of the lower lock at Lockville, including
the Dresden side-out.
This section was let to Doyle & Miller
at $4,000 year. The other bids, all
lower than this were made by
M. H. Mills $50, 900
w. S. V. Prentiss- $1,000
Peter Dunn $4,000
Cooper, shuddinge' Il Co.. $4,000
SECTION NUMBER THREE.
This is the Ohio Canal from the foot of
the lower lock at Lockville to the Ohio
River, which was awarded to Cooper,
Shaddinger & Co., at $37, 700. This was
the lowest bid, and the contract the COM
mittee approve of, and recommend that it
stand.
SECTION NUMBER FOUR.
This is the Hooking Canal. 1t was let
to Dennis Nc Carly at $9,65O year.
The following lower bids were rejec-
ted:
Henry Miller ---$7,4 499
Cooper, Shaddinger Il Co---- 5000
SECTION NUMBER FIVE.
This is the Muskingum Improvement,
and was let to Chamberlain, and Paul, at
$4,000. The committee say that this
bid was ES27, 900, and was subsequently
modified, by what uthority we know not
nor by whose suggestion or procurement
DR.. Paul and Mr.. Gibson both appear to
be ignorant on this point, and doubtless
are SO. 1t cannot be fairly claimed that
this contract and that upon section number
four, were awarded upon bids at ALL
Chamberlain and Paul put in no such bid
as $4,000 nor' did McCarty make any
such bid as 80, ,640 on the Hooking Ca
nal.
The other bids lower than the one ac-
cepted and rejected were as follows:
E. E. Shedd, $4,000; M. H. Mills,
1898, 700; j. j. Richardson, $4,000.
SECTION NUMBER SIX.
This comprises the Northern Division Of
the Ohio and Erie Canal, from the Lake
to the Indiana State line.
This section was let to Samuel M.
Young q Co., at S39, a year. There
were four lower bids, which were rejected,
as follows:
John G. Allen & Co. 1924, 900
H. H. Forsythe- he----- $4,000
]. q w. Deckey, Il Co----- 24,90O
j. M. Gloyd- $4,000
The committee invite particular atten-
ton to the facts in this case, and they are
somewhi peculiar indeed. Itappears that
the bid Of j. q w. .Deckey was withdrawn
on the condition that Young & Co.. pay
to the Deckeys & Co. s4, 900, part ofwhich
sum has since been paid. The other bids
put in by the other parties named were
mere bogus. They were put in by Young
u Co. themselves, and were withdrawn
after the Deckeys were bought of, which,
of course, left his 1900 bid standing
solitary and alone, without a competitor
That is what we call sharp practice.
SECTION NUMBER SEVEN.
This composes the Miami and Erie Ca
nal from the junction to the Ohio river,
and was awarded to Forrer, Burt & Co.,
for one hundred and eighteen thousand
dollars year.
The other bids which were rejected were
all lower, as follows:
Cooper, Shaddinger & Co------S81 900
j. W. Dickey & Co. -------- $4,000
Petit, Alexander q Co.. $4,000
Trevitt & Knapp 600
The committee say that the securities of
Cooper & Co. were worth at least one mill
ion Of dollars. "But it has been said that
Mr.. Cooper would not take this section
alone at that price," which the Committee
say is contradicted by the words of his
proposition which they quote, and which
is as follows:
1--WE, the UNDERSIGNED propose 10 keep