Raftsman's journal. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1854-1948, 1857-07-29
PACKERS QUALIFICATIONS FOR OFFICE.


The Philadelphia Times of recent date
SAYS We cut the following from the Penn
sylUanta7, of yesterday
ssThe contrast between these two candidates
is striking Wilmot has always been an ultra
ist and disorganizer, and has no experience in
the necessities or development of our State,
while General Packer has for many years been
identified 11ith her administrations, and serued an
rarious positions Of responsibility and trust,
1rkich hare giren him such personal kDoaciedge Of
the lcGRts and resources of the Commonwealth as
no other enjoys
We do not propose to comment ourselves
upon the ssvarous positions of responsibility
and trust which he has occupied but we do
propose to subion an exposition OF the man
ner in which he has filled of those posi-
tions, that of Canal Commissioner. General
Packer was Canal Commissioners, by appoint
ment under David Il. Porter, from 1889 TO
1912.
A committee of investigation was appoint
ed in IS41 to inquire into the expenditures
upon the canals and railroads of the State. 1t
reported upon the 18th of April in that year.
In that portion of their report which relates to
the western division of the Main Line. in
speaking OF q reservoir which is called the
Western, near Jehnstown, it says:
ssThesc facts, in connection with the proof
that McComb & Bingham s, and OFriel & Co.'S
bid, at rates nearly corresponding for the East
tFll rtSGTIOlE, tSldDHSn fHOSI COHCfuSiftiN III
our minds the opinion that the Western res
ervoir was allotted TO MoOrhead & PACKER al
prices so far beyond the real value of the work,
that the transaction can neither be explained
or excused
s.The circumstance of II. b. Packer one Of
The contractors for his JOB, being brother Of one
of the Canal Conlmissi0aers, should not deprive
him of an equal chance with any other citizen
in the Commonwealth for public work, for
| which he might be the lowest and best good
bidder, but, certainly, this circumstance
should give him preference. The commit
tee will not say that, because Mr.. Packer IS
brother of Canal Commissioner, he was there
fore favored inallotment of job. They Will,
however, assert the belief that the contract is
| one, the granting of which they cannot recon
ciEe trith proprietV or justice to the people of
| the Commonwealth. Besidesthc allowance OF
most cxtravagaDt prices for the job the cir
cumstance attending its allotment we think
| deserving of ccnsure, and go so far to show it
! was previously determined upon, not to give
| out the public work to the lowest good bidder,
but, by arrangement, TO ttrow certain jobs into
! fhe hands Of certain persons, and, at the same
| time, to satisfy all prominent competitors for
the job.'' wide vol. j. II. R., 1871, page
| 5750
| The committee state it as their opinion that
the State lost, by the favoritsm of the Canal
! Commissioners, Sl69, 200, in the canal and
railroad contracts in 1S40-that is, that they
4 awarded the contracts at prices SO far above
what reliable contractors offered TO do them
| for, that the sum over and above what was
proper expenditure was paid. (Vidc same,
page 5SS.)
Does this favoritism TO his brother, this
! Squandering in single year of 5 l96, 200 of the
| public money, evince fitness for 'spositions of
responsibility. and trust!'' If they do, then
| General Packer ought to be elected, otherwise
he ought not. No such shameless family par
! of the public money, stains or mars the record
of David WiImot. His private and public
character arc alike unimpeached and unim-
| peachable.