Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1859-07-30

,eatcd asseveratons to him that had not oecn W.
tied to attend the meetings Of the committee. o.
onsulted by any one Of them, coniirms my memo.
Y, and places nv recollection antagonsssc with that
{ Mr. Fisher. The difference between Mr. Fisher
md myself can be readily accounted Tor. He has
doubtless COMPOUNDED prior conversations IN rvicr.
nee to the account Of the contractors ct the hrsf
livsion; for the subject moo.cd at several scs
lions Of the board prior to the appointment ot the
committee. 49,,
Mr. Fisher has fallen viz: that the committee PRO
,ccled to act, having an account submitted BY the
Chief Engineer for their basis Of action" This
statement is in conflict with another immediately
following tho above in Mr. Fishers letter, wig: I" II
IS very we'll understood that the Chief Engineer de-
clined to adrise any settlement" Now my reco'-
lection goes to restore harmony to these eontradic'
tory statements for it obliteratcs both certainly
submitted no account or statement tn the commit
tee The committee may have had before them the |
general account or estimate Of the contractors show
ing the entire cost Of the contract with perhaps the
estimates and other memoranda furnished
by me to the board from time to time, and probably
the account of the contractors, which Mr. Mcnticn-
hall in his letter (hercunto anncxcsD says he t'r
nished Gov Morchead. then President OF the Com
pany, and these accounts Mr.. Fisher has perhaps
mistaken for an account Submitted" to the eon'-
mittee "by the Chief Engineer for their basis Of &C.
ton"
But in fac. the contract specified the amount to
be paid after deductng the cost Of several sections
designated by numbers in the contract so that the
amount to he paid the contractors could be readily
ascertaned by dcductng the aggregate cost Of those
sections from the whole sum to be paid conditioned
on the execution Of the work in accordance with the
specifications. Such beirg the nature OF the con.
tract and the Chief Engineer being the final arb.
ter. had submitted any account as basis for the
action Of the committee, it would have been contin-
ed to specification Of the failures Of the contract
OTIS in the performance Of their contract the amount
Of damage in each case to the Company. &c; all ,
which would have checrfnlly furnished had been
called on by the committee.
was ever ready and willing to settle the account
Of the contractors for the first DIVISION despite Of
any imputation which might have been cast upon
me in consequence Of my having. from sense OF
duty and self respect declined to hold any personal
intercourse with them. and was taken BY surprise
when committee was appointed to settle the &C
count Nevertheless, as ] said in my reply TO
communication from Mr.. Worth, chairman. &C., ~
made no complaint, nor did I make any enquiry a.
to the motive for taking the settlement out Of my
hands. inferred it done at the solicitation Of
the contractors"
In conclusion, I would observe that. until saw
the report Of the joint select committee, land
month has scarcely elapsed since il first met my cyc
never knew how the committee had settled the Nc.
count Of the contractors Of the first division. ]
could therefore, express no opinion, either ono way
or the other in regard to the settlement Il the
count. Mr. Fishers remarks. therefore, in regard
to any dissatisfaction" and from what have herr
tofore said his impression that the officers 81 the
company were not only very glad to be relieved ii
the duty Of making this settlement, but were veil
satisfied with its terms" can have no reference TO
me.
Revertins to Judge Saunders. I accept the issue
Is al
letter. wherein he refers to the recollection Of hi
committee, taken upon the recollection Of that
committee.
WALTER GwYNN.
Pendleton, s C., July 81. 1859.
IS. Gov. Moreheads letter did not come to hand
until the 10Th inst, hence the delay Of my reply to
Judge Saunders card.
If any editors have published Judge Saunders
card appeal to their sense Of justice and fairness
to publish my reply. VIC.
GREENSBORO. \. c..l
July 5. 1859.
| COL Walter Grynn:
DEAR Sir: Your favor Of the ssth ult was duly
received asking my recollection as to what trans.
pred before the committee appointed by the direct
ors Of the n. c. Railroad Company, in December,
1854 in relation to the settlement Of the contract
the first division Of the road
| After the adjournment Of the board Of DIRECTORY
left the City Of Raleigh and returned homo. did
not attend any Of the meetings Of the committee.
do know who attended or what TRANSFERRED hciors
them. furnished Gov. Morehcad then Prcsiden,
Of the road) with copy Of the account Of the con
tractors the first DIVISION and Il was some week.
before learned what had been done in the matter
/ recollect very distinctly hearing Gov. Morchcat
state, when he returned to Greensboro after the set
Element that he endcavorcd to get you to 60 bcfor,
the committee, bnt that you declined doing with
out being invited by them; that you were not pres
ent at any time when he was there, and that yo,
told him you had not been present at any time. no
invited to attend by any member Of the committee.
Yours very respectfully,
GREkxssoRo'. July l6, 1859.
Col Udlter Gxyan:
DEAR Sir: In reply to yours. requesting me Z
state whether have any recollection Of your helm
present at any time before, or being consulted by
the committee appointed BY the directors Of the
c. Railroad company to make final settlement b
tween the company and the contractors ON tho fir,
division Of the road. have to state: That rrmcu
Der distinctly, when the committee were about
commence their Investigations at Raleigh called
your Office in Raleigh and stated to you that l. ID
ing then President Of the company desired ths
you should appear before the committee, wheths
invited by them to do so or not and state the obje
tons you had to the manner in which portions
the work had been executed on the first divisio,
and that thought il was due to yourself ,nd d
company. that you should give the reasons Why 20
had withheld from the contractors estimates on tho
portions Of the work. You replied in snbstane
and, think, in about the following words: IL
said you had frequently laid before the board Of
rectors the difficulties you had with the eoasrscto
on the first division, rs to the manner in Viii,
hey had executed portions Of their work, and b
stated to the board the reasons Why you had n
given them estimates on those portions. The boa
being thus fully advised by you had thought prup
to take the settlement out Of your hands and pla
| it in the hands Of . committee, which you thong
was pretty strong intimation on the part Of the
rectors that it was not desirable that you shou
have any thing to do with the settlement, and IN
otherwise advised, you certainly should not obsru
yourself upon the committee You were there
your Office near them, the committee knsw where
find you. II they desired your presence at .
.. time they only bad 10 request Il, and you 10,
promptly attend
L