Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-08-17
For the Standard.
A CARD.

letters, to avail myself Of the testimony Of the con-
tractors themselves, and also of Mr. Fishers replyto
Mr. Worth, of March 18th. AS the question at issue
between Judge Saunders and myself is one of truth,
"thc whole truth" ought to be told; any thing
short of it would impair the portion that has been
told. |, therefore, without hesitation or apology,
herewith supply the omission above referred to-
1st As to that portion of Mr.. Rands letter to
which the facts shall bring forward have bear
ing 1t is as follows: Judge Saunders being the
person addresscd) ~ further recoect that you, as
chairman of the committee, stated to the committee
that you had notified Col Gwynn of the meeting
and that he declined to attend, i'll consequence of thu
unfriendly relations between him and Col. McRac;
but if McRac would reduce his claim to writing Ii,
would attend. Mcl'ae did so, and Col Gwynn ap
peared before the committee"
Cd As regards Mr.. Fishers letter to Judge Saun
derS, he states that the committee proceeded to
act, having an account submitted by the Chief En-
gineer for the basis of their action"
Though, in my former communication, perhaps
enough was said, shall now proceed further to re
but these statements by introducing the contractors
on the stand. In their pamphlet Of % pages, en-
titled "A Defence of John c. McRae X Co., from:
the Imputations cast upon them as Contractors Of.
the North Carolina Railroad by the Report of the
Joint Select Committee of the last Legislature o!
North Carolina ON the 18th and 10th pages o:
shcir pamphlet the following sentences will be found
viz: 1--WE come to the settlement OF the COM
mittec In December, 1854, the track was finished
to Raleigh When the board met in Raleigh on the
18th of December we asked them to receive the
road from MS, and make such deductions from what
remained to be done as in the opinion of the Ensi-
necr. mig ht be deemed right and fair.
The board as>cntcd to this without hcSitation,-
passing the resolution which appears i'll the report
Of the committee, as follows: At the request of
John {. McRac Co., the board agree to finish the
remainder of the first division, for which said Nc
Rae 4 Co are to account, on the settlement above,
according to the estimate of the Engineer.
This resolution of itself is sufficient t@ show that
the board had no idea of taking the settlement out
of the hands of the Engineer.
1t would indeed be reflection the intelligence.
il not tic integrity, of the board to suppose when
they passed this resolution that they had any idea
Nh taking the settlement out of my hands" While
the resolution was operative the settlement was OF
course in my hands. But it was soon followed by
anotherv0olution rendering it imperative null and
void and therefore, taking the settlement out OF
my hands" For, in continuation of the above quo
aton. the contractors say, 1T was after the pas
sage of the above resolution that the suggestion was
made by member oc the board Mr.. Robt. Strange,
that the settlement should he referred to commit
tee; the only object being to avoid the difficulties
which mi ht arise, if the matter was left entirely
with the Engineer, between whom and ourselves
there was no intercourse. Having no other desire
than that of making fair and just settlement, we
asSented to reference to a committee. When the
committee was prepared to act, the accounts were
made OF for them by the Principal Assistant Engi
neer and by the committee shown to MS for our oh
jectons. in writing. \ part of the objections made
at the time, we copy from the original" &c
Now the above extract from the defence of
the contractors shows in rciutation Of Mr.. Rand's
statement before cited.
LIST. That the settlement Of the contractors was
taken out of my hands.
ID That 1.-The contractors did not reduce their
claim to writing. condition of my attendance
the committee On the contrary, they say that
when the committee prepared to act, the
counts were made out for them by the Principal AS
Sistant Engineer and by the committee shown to us
for our objections in writing" Thus submit that
the testimony Of the contractors completely refucs
the recollection of Mr.. Rand.
in this connection | woull observe that the con-
tractors nowhere state in their defence" that
ever before the committee, or had anything to Go
with the settlement Of their account Though ndc
fatgahle in their enquiries their labors to show my
agency in the settlement Of their account they
knowledge proved abortive. For they say, referring
to SEINE particular charges in their account which
they cite 1--WE endcavorcd by correspondence, to
ascertain definitely the pnrticuor author of these
charges but failed We found the memory Of the
parties to whom we wrote not sufficiently vivid on
this particular point to purposes; in other
matters, however. they were, some of them, aston
ishingly vivid. We had intended publishing the
correspondence. and with this expectation have de-
laycd the publication of our reply. Subsequent re-
Election has convinced that it is useless to length
en- the reply by publishing letters of no force 1t
is clear therefore that the replies to their enquiries
as to my agency in the settlement of their account
proved unsatisfactory.
Cd. In regard to Mr.. Fishers statement that the
committee proceeded to act, having an account
submitted by the Chief Engineer for their basis Of
action. Now the contractors in the foregoing quo
tation say expressly that when the committee was
prepared to act. the accounts were made ont for
them by the Principal Assistant Engineer, and by
the committee shown to US for our objections in
writing
Again. Mr.. Fisher says himself, in his reply to
Mr.. Worth, of the 18th of March, 1.-The account
final Of the contractors made out by Mr. Miller,
Principal Assistant Engineer, and submitted to the
committee"
Again, Mr.. Fisher in letter to Judge Saunders
says, "The Chief Engineer declined to adrise any
settlement" Now, how was the refusal of the
Chief Engineer to "ndri~e any settlement" to be re-
concilcd with the statement that he Submitted
account" to the committee for their basis Of &C
| tom"
Furthermore, Mr.. Fisher, in note to the con
tractors, published in their defence" says:
"RALETGH, April 3Oth, 1855.
DEAR SIR:-A few days ago saw Mr.. Miller or
the road below. and enquired of him, as told YOU
at Goldsboro' should take occasion to d. in res
pect to your account. lie tells me he found nothing
after our settlement here of nature to be included
in that settlement, according to orr understanding
there have no doubt therefore, when this is I'm
derstood by Gov. Morehcad, he will at once clos
the matter with you, as advised"
Now the question very naturally arises why, j
the settlement had been in my hands, that the &C
count of the contractors should have been kept opel
for upwards of four months for Mr.. Millcr's cxami
nation and decision and when that decision was I'm
derstood, as Mr.. Fisher says, by Gov. Morehead In
has no doubt the Gov. would at once close the mat
ter. Can any one doubt if the settlement had bcel
in my hands, with the plain tenor of contract be
fore INC, drawn up by myself that Mr.. Miller or an
one else would have been the arbitcr upon m,
point? Yet to whom does Mr.. Fisher allrdc by tn
recurrence two occasions in his brief note Of tn