Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1857-03-06
THE CANAL CONTRACTs-REMA
OF MA. BUCKLAND ON BRAzEE's
RESOLUTIONS.

LANDS remarks in favor of the resolutions
We shall give Mr.. BIS speech in full here
AFTER FltHHtf
Mr.. BUcKLAND maintained that this wa
a proper question for the Legislature to de
eide; that tho Legislature was not mere
machine to carry out the contracts Of public
agents, however illegal or fraudulent. The
State could not be sued without a special
act for that purpose. That power was re-
tanned to protect the State against just such
fraudulent schemes as the one under consid.
Grafton. The Board of Public Works had
not followed the line in any respect. Fifty
days notice Of the time and place of letting
was not tho due notice required by lay II
was too short for bidders to examine ever six
hundred miles Of Canal, make their esti.
mates and arrangements for bidding. The
specifications aud plans of the repairs re-
quired by law to be published with the
time and place of letting, wero not publish.
ed until the 30th of October, only fifteen
days before the letting giving persons de.
sirous to bid no opportunity to examine the
work after ascertaining the character of the
work to be done.
The law required the contracts to be let to
the lowest responsible bidders. This had
been entirely disregarded; it is contendcd
as an excuse of this total disregard of plain
provision of the law, that the word respon-
sible, as used in the law has reference to the
capacity or skill of the bidders for doing the
work. A far fetched construction, not war
ranted by usage or common sense. Respon-
sibility to answer for the doing an act is en-
tirely different thing from the capacity or
skill for performing the act. No regard
whatever was either paid TO the response
bility or capacity of the bidders; on every
section the lowest bidders were mon expert
enced in such work, and fully competent to
the performance of the work. They werc
just as responsible in every respect, as those
of Cooper Shadenger & Co., were old con-
tractors, and well known to every member
of the Board. Mr.. Bachus, the engineer,
says they and their securities were worth al
leest million of dollars. Their bid for sec
ton seven was $91 900; yet the Board re-
fused to let the work to them, but let it to
Forrer, Burt d Co., at S11S,0O0 making a
difference of $4,000 n year, and for the
five years, $ls5,OOO. Mr. Cooper was after
wards appeased by one-sixth interest in this
contract, by which he not only receives one
sixth of the profits he would have made,
at the bid of $8l 900, but also of the ad-
vanced price, his share of the advanced price,
for the five years amounting to $3O,833 49,
1t is easy to be seen that Cooper lost moth.
ing by the operation. On this one section
the State is defrauded out of Sls5,OOo, by
a total disregard Of the law, both in lettel
and spirit. 1t must be apparent TO every
mind that these contracts were all obtained
by fraudulent combination, in which sew
eral of the engineers in the employ of the
State participated, and at which there i,
strong evidence that some member of the
Board connived. 1t could not have beer
accomplished without such connivance. The
whole scheme was evidently concocted by
E. S. Hamlin, who was counseled by jaime.
b. Steadman, from the beginning of the pro
ject, and who was employed to examine the
law, get up the notice, specifications, &C.
After selling out his interest in one contrac
for $4,000 and in another contract for 81,
900, Mr.. Hamlin turns up the owner of one
half Of the $ll8,000 contract; and en- thi
fact hangs tale which would be very in
tercsting if it could be fully developed t,
the public gaze.
Mr.. Hamlin, in his first deposition, say
that his interest in the contract is that of n
attorney, and that he has been attorney 70
the Company from its origin. He say
Forrer owns one-sixth, Burt onc-sixth, AM
Cooper onc-sixth. When asked whethe
any member of the Board is or has been in
terested in the contract, he refuses to an
swer, on the plea that all his informatio
was confided to him as attorney for thu
company, and that he cannot answer with
out their consent. In a subsequent depc
sition he says his interest is one-half tn
net proceeds for his services as attorney an,
discussing agent of the Company. VIII,
could he not have said this in the first place
He evidently wanted time 10 prepare hi
answer Mr.. Forrer never knew that Nj
Hamlin had any interest at all. How har
pens it that Mr.. Hamlin has been the attol
ney for the Company from the beginning
with an agreement to have one half the nc
proceeds for his services amounting to 9
least 100000 for the five years, and yet, u
to Jan. LIST 1855, Mr. Foner did not knor
that Mr. Hamln had any interest. It wi
be very difficult for Hamln to convince tn
public that he has given an honest stat
ment of the transaction. 1t being perfec
ly apparent that the Board did not compl
with the law, and that tho contracts wei
obtained by combination among the col
tractors to defraud the State, the questio
recurs, what is the duty of the Lcgislatul
in the premisesl Mr. Buckland said
was for following the example of New Yorl
under very similar circumstances. The Lei
stature of New York, being convinced thl
tho contracts for enlarging the canals ha
been let under a combination like the OF
here developed, set them all aside, and n
let the work. The people approved the ac
II was just and the only adequate remedy
He was not aware tho great State Of Ne
York had lost any credit by it. or was di
graced in'the eyes Of the world. Mr.. Buc
land referred TO several other preccdcnts.
ES- The Columbus correspondents of II
Register, writing on tho 25th SAYS N
, gs,a,tI,i ,1f fLHxa ,,LE.s . ~, (: a Al