The Perrysburg journal. [volume] (Perrysburg, Ohio) 1853-1861, 1857-02-26
Pictures for the People to Look
Upon!
SECTION NO. a.
OEO OlION nv. u.
The Hockin0 Canal.

Ihe Hoc6tng Canal.
Thi, section was let on bid offered ia
the name of Dennis Mccarthy at,
per year. S9,650
On this section Henry Miller bid 7,499
Cooper, Shaddinger
q Co. bid 5000
! There were other bids on it below the
price at which it is let, but that of Fo rer,
Burt & Co. was withdrawn, and it is not nee
essary to speak of the other bids The bid
of Mccarthy was originally SO, $40, but it
appears to have been modified after the bids
were opened, so as to bring it within the ave-
rage annual cost for the last six years prece-
ding, as the law forbids the letting of any
section above that sum What authority the
Board had for modifying this bid in this way
we have not been able to discover.
| The persons interested in this bid were
Nc cCarthy, Doyle, S. G.. Foster, the engi
neei in charge of it, and Z. s. Hamlin, the
attorney, as he swears, the OF Board. Subse
quently, Foster and Hamlin were bought out.
Hamlin got 81 900.
Henry Miller's bid on this section, given
above, was backed up by securities worth at
least $50, 900 and he himself was amply re-
sponsible, and is stated by E. E. Shedd to be
worth at least $4,000 Yet it was let to
Dennis Nc cCarthy, Samuel G.. Foster, engi-
neer in charge of it, L. S. Hamlin, and Sam.
uel Doyle, at So, 81 per year more than his
bid. 1t is but just, however, to say he e
that Mr.. Foster testified that before ANY bid
in which he was interested, was put il, he
made out resignation and handed it to Dr.
Griswold, fully intending that it should take
effect. 1t nowhere appears that Mr. Girls
10 tIo Al
Board, or that they ever took any action up
on it, and it never took effect, and Foster sold
out his interest and was continued in office.
Henry Miller testifes, that after the con
tract was entered into, Mr.. Griswod said tc
him, that his bid was entirely responsible, bu
hat the Board feared that he would lose
money at the price bid, and that for tha
reason the bid was rejected. This reason
is not assigned on the record of the Board
and we ventured to suggest that it is mucf
more benevolent than lawful.
Complaints of so serious nature wer,
made as to the management of this section, BY
the contractor and resident engineer, that W.
deemed it our duty to take some testimony in
relation to it. Accordingly one of the com
mittee went to points on its line and made in
quiry, and took some dispositions. Mr.. Crook
collector at Logan, and Mr. Charles w. JAIME
of the same place, testify to facts, which ar,
worthy of serious consideration. The state
ments of these two gentlemen, if true, ant
they are undoubtedly worthy of belief, make
it quite m ,nifest that the contractor has no
done what he should have done, and tha
the State has lost considerably by his negli
gence. In connection with this testimony
we thought it our duty to give the contracto
the benefit Of this testimony, of the resi-
dent engineer, as he knew more or ough
to have known more, of the real facts o
the matter, and, accordingly, we examined
him, and he represents the matter in quite
different light. 1t would appear, too, from
the statements OF Messrs. Crooks and James
that the resident engineer had not given th
proper attention to this work, and he rathe
admits this himself in his deposition, and jus
tifes himself on the ground that more inpor
tant services, the Muskingum Improvement
and the deepening and widening of the Ian
caster side-cut, demanded his whole attention