The Highland weekly news. [volume] (Hillsborough [Hillsboro], Highland County, Ohio) 1853-1886, 1857-04-02

U p u
tract is that of an Attorney for Forrer
Burt & Co.-that he has been attorney
for that company from its origin, and
that, besides this, he never had any in
terest That Forror owns one-sixth,
Burt one.sixth, aud Cooper one-siXth.-
But when asked by the committee who
else were or had been interested in the
! bid or contract, he refused to answer, on
the plea that he knew nothing about
who were interested in that contract, or
what they had done, or were to do, only
what he had learned by being attorney
for the company and, therefore, could
notanswer without their consent. This
deposition was given on tbc13 Of Ju-
/ ly, 1896, and on the 10th of December
following, he gave his second deposi-
ton, in which he says that his inter
est in the contract is that of an at
torney and that he receives onc-half
OF the nett proceeds for his services:
that he acts as secretary and disbursiug
agent of the company, and is respOnsi-
ble for the funds, and is to employ any
legal assistance that may be needed
Why could he not have said this in the
first placer I would like to know, sir,
what there is in this statement Of facts,
which required so much shutting and
delay on the part Of Hamlin? He ev-
identity wanted time to prepare his
answer. At first, he said his only in
terest was that Of an attorney; after
wards, that he only acted as secretary
and disbursing agent, and is response
BILE for the funds, and is to employ
any legal counsel that may be need
ed! His first statement, therefore, was
not true. His interest was not that
LOT an attorney merely, according to
his last statement. The original firm
OF Forrer, Burt & Co., consisted Of Sam
uol Forror, j. S. G. Burt and John
Howard. 1t is a singular circumstance
that neither Forrer nor Howard ever
knew that Hamlin had any interest in
that contract as Attorney or other
wise, and that Mr. Burt refused to
testify upon that point. Mr.. Forrer,
as late as the first of JANUARY last.
says: 81 now consider that myself,
Burt and Cooper, with the securities on
our bond, are alone bound to keep up
the repairs; and, therefore, that I have
no other partner besides Burt and
Cooper. l am aware that rumor as
signs to several other persons an in
. terest in this contract" ITO whom.
or in what proportion, the fve-sixths
Of the contracts is assigned to my
partners, if any besides themselves, I
am unable to state" How does this
correspond with the stat ment Of Ham
/. lin? How happens it that Hamlin has
been the Attorney Of the Company
from its origin, with an agreement to
have one-half the nett proceeds for his
services, amounting to, at least, $4,000
for the five years, and yet, up to the 1st
Of last January, Mr. Forrer did not
know that Hamlin had any interest at
alR Both statements cannot be true
1t will be very difficult for Mr.. Hamlin
to convince the public that he has given
an honest statement of this transaction.
have no doubt but that Mr.. Forrer is
an honest man, and speaks the truth as
far as he knows; but he has allowed his
name to be used, unconsciously, to give
character and influence to a nefarious
scheme for plundering the State Treasu-
Iry He knew nothing Of the means used
to obtain the contract, OF ofthe agency of
Hamliu in the matter He had not
even seen the contract with the State
when he gave his testimony in January
last. Although the leading name in the
firm, he did not know who his partners
were, or who was their Attorney and
discussing agent, although that Attor-
ney and agent was to have one-half of
the profits for his services. Mr.. Prosi-
dent, the whole truth has not been dis
closed, and probably never will be. II
is entirely incredible, that this Company
estimated Mr. Hamln's services so high
lily. No sir, the one-half Of this con-
tract, which Mr.. Hamlin claims to own,
was floating in the air, but designed to
fall upon parties who are left in the
back ground Circumstance may point
them out to us, but positive proof new
er; because those who are capable of
concocting such a scheme of fraud,
are also capable Of swearing it
through. 1 am, fully convinced, sir,
that all these contracts, not excepting
section No. 3, let to Cooper, Shadinger
& Co., are the result of a fraudulent
combination. The project ITSELF was
conceived in fraud, brought forth in
fraud, and will be sustained by fraud,
and even by perjury if necessary. 1t
is a monster, with corruption oozing
out at every pore. I don't say that
every man connected with these con-
tracts is dishonest; not by any means,
sir. On the contrary l have the ut
most confidence in the integrity of
several Of them But they were only
taken in to give character to the tran
saction, to lull the suspicion Of fraud,
and to create an influence against any
attempt to defeat the scheme. They
We're kept on the outside Of the ring.
1t is evident that this cunningly de-
vised plan is succeeding but too we'll
/ We see its workings on all sides Much
has been said about the evidence being
ex parte. Is it so2 What better evil
dence can you have than the testimony
Of the contractors themselves, and the
recorded proceedings Of tho Board?-
| No other testimony is relied upon; no
other is needed Do the contractors ex-
pect to prove that they have, themselves
Sworn falsely?
1t being perfectly apparent 10 my
mind, that the Board did not comply with