Sugar planter. [volume] (West Baton Rouge [i.e. Port Allen, West Baton Rouge Parish, La.]) 1856-1925, 1858-12-18
lFrvm the Pointe toupee D. ,nocsat 4th inst
AvoYE1LEs: La, Nov 26, 1883,

ee Echo, signed Vi nstice,' which
contains the following assertion
II at a large advance was made t,
the contractor through the hands o
b. 3. Sim,nes, to whom he wa,
bonds,nssn, and that he failed Il
hand over the amount IT, The sal.
contractor, but kept it t'r his owl
use; the work was consequently
neglected by the u1Jorzuuute co1
tractor,
This statement is undoubtedly
made for p'liticaI effect, and con,
veys the idea that fraud has beer
practiced by one occupy ing d high
p'sition. / therefore deem it my
duty, as the I" unfortunate csntrac
tor' to whom allusi,,u is made. t.,
give a plain a:ld Concise staterue1,;
ot' the transaction. In Dccelu|er.
1856, beca'ne the contractor tor
cutting a canal and clearing away
the timber on a line extending from,
Bayou Moreau to the l.atena,he<
the whu)c contract amounting t.
about $4,000. took the contract
in good faith. believing, from the
statement Of the Engineer of the
I'd Swamp La'ri District, that the
work WAS practicable, and did nl,-
tain HI advance vt $10,oOt' on he
said work The magnitude ot The
work did not justify me in c',,n-
,neucing it without some guarantee
that the nio!lcy would be forth
coming in proper time, and the
advanced w:.s not di>p,.,-
pprt'onate as c"lnrar"d with the
advances usually made |,y the Conn
IL other c itract'ts in the
District. | may he permitted t.
ailude tu HE works "n Cat Island
in the 1St District, undertaken and
completed i'll tie belief that the
nno',ey WAS ready on he c''n,l letit',
If the work, whereas. it was not
until ate, a delay "t son,e twelve
Or eighteen months Guns med IN ap.
plica'i'm t.' tie Legislature. that
tie n,oney was paid before which
time $ me OF the pour contractors
were ruined.
Up II HI examination nt the line
1T the work, | found it wl' |ly int
practicable, as the lower r"ti il.
where the work WAS to he com
slelced at Bayou / a'enac|'e. was
c,,vvred with water. This will be
afterwards si..wn hy the t"lnnIi<-
sioner's ltepor., n,atle to |s.. Lvgs-
lat,re at It's last se>s1on, III which
The "pe'''ng "t cert = hav"as is
Il next tall, i'll order
that the work may he done. and in
hi report he attaches Ii" blame +"
the contractor for not having cunl-
plet.d til. work. did co,t,ine'ce
the upper portion between i;a.y"''s
Mor,iu and Marine, bat found it
impossible to complete this port ''@'
IT the canal, owing t" The fact that
both t!,,,se bay":s teing tnll Of
water. it W. ul&i rise in the canal TN
a level with the water in The hayous.
| was not prevented for a want #
means to carry .n the w"rk-1"r
was MY failure owing to this fact
] his assertion is perfectly g'atuI-
tnus un the part "f ".justict,' as
he we'll knows n'r ten times $4,000
the work could nm have been dome.
| had twenty applications +" re'ct
the work. but after the parties ap
plying had examined the r"''te.
they declined taking it at amy p"1c<,
AS it was impossible to do it vii III
the water standing 'm it Had HE
work bee, practicable it would have
been pushed onward to completion
all paid for, without asking 'he
C,.tnn,iss .oner tor any :'rt er adj
vance. had every reason I" be
livve, fr,n, the Report I" the TOM
missioner and tr'm private inter
views with him, that the contract
wu.ld he continued until Ivy the
cutting If the lay'a.s | would he
able to do tie w"ik ; bnf, /" my
us'nnisIl,,ent, III the month "f A pr'|
l:,st | was told by the , "'''nissi"ne'
that MY c,ntract hal not only heel
declared forfeited, but that he had
p,1rately ulet il; in vi"lati"n I"
the Act Of 1854, secti*nn 13. which
Ill x.-..,.i. T., h.. al IvRrtl lSs.l