Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1859-05-05

WORKS.
The subject being on the amendment o
Mr.. RANKIN, proposing to lease the Public
Works for tenn of ten years. Mr.. WELsE
sale:
Mr.. SPEAKER: may perhaps owe al
apology to the House for proposing to con
sumo portion of its time so near the close
of the session, in giving my views on The
subject under cons Iteration. But as fee
that have not been troublesome in this re.
spect, / hope to be INDUCED for . short time
while | attempt to offer some reasons why
in my opinion, the proposed amendment
should not be adopted.
A proper disposition Of the Public Works
OF the State is a subject in which my imme.
diate constituents feel deep interest, and
one upon which very many begin to feel
slightly sensitive. The universal sentiment
| seems to be that the Public Works should
be sold; that the State should be released
from any further obligation to keep them
up. The amendment under consideration
pro poses to lease the Canals for term OF
ten years, and thus pa, it out'os the power
of the State for that length of time to sen
them. This consider sufficient reason
why should oppose the proposition. Not
that would have the most remote idea that
the Canals would stay leased for term of
ten years, but because we are attempting to
do thing which, if we could accomplish,
would oe unwise and impolitic. We are not
without some experience on this subject.
A law was enacted March 9th. 1845,
authorizing the Board of Public Works "to
let by contract the keeping in repair of all
or any portion of the Public Works, except
the National Road" "for any term not ex-
ceedi1g five years." After the lapse of ten
years, the Board of Public Works did, in
November, 1855, let 'the repairs of the Pub
lie Works." as was pretended, "to the low
est responsible bidders," for the term of
FIVE years, and the lessees seversl'y entered
upon their respective duties under the con-
tracts. But how long did they continue to
discharge :heir obligations under the lease,
and with what results! The cry of fraud
was Immediately raised against the Board,
in the lettings, and also against the bidders,
and the fact very clearly: proven that
the contracts had been awarded, with sim
gle exception, to the very highest, instead
of "the lowest responsible bidders" as
the law required. The lettings on one Sec
ton alone showed the contract to have been
awarded to parties at a price Of $4,000
above the bid made by other parties, who
were acknowledged to be not only equally
competent and responsible, but who offer
ed the most ample security.
The next Legislature, after entering into
a most elaborate invesfig alton of the sub.
ject, which continued during the vacstion
between the sessions of that body, declared
the contracts fraudulent and void, and the
repairs which had been thus let reverted
back to the Board of Public Works, bring
ing with them long train of evils 20 be
provided for by the State hereafter. The
aggregate contract price for the eight Sec
tons into which the Public Works were
divided, was S27s, ,329 per annum, but this
amount fell far short of the actual sum ex-
pended for repairs during the year 1856,
when the work was performed by contract.
The report of the Board Of Public Works
for that year shows tha. the checks drawn
on the Treasury for Canal purposes amount
ed TO S40l ,49S. being Si23,l59 greater
than the contract price. True the Board
claims that much OF this surplus expense is
for repairs of an extraordinary character,
which they say would not likely occur again.
What right had they to expect that they
would not occur agaia-they had occurred
very frequently before, and have continued
10 occur each year since that time.
The first year under the contract system
was the FIRST year the Canals ever failed to
pay the current expenses of superintend'
ence and repairs. the deficiency for that year
being $76 ,663 l3. And this is not all
The act which dispossessed the contractors
authorized them to come into court and lit
igate their claims. both for possession and
damages. in case they were finally disposs-
essed. The contractors did sue the State
and although the Supreme Court decided
the case adversely to the claimants, an sp'
peal was taken to the United States Distric
Court, and the case is yet open for damages
A joint committee ofthe two Houses ha:
been appointed within the last Few days, tt
examine and report upon the nature an,
amount of damages claimed by the contrac
tors. What amount OF damages and expense
trouble and degradation, both morally ant
politically, this short experiment may ye
cost the State, no human being can at thil
time foresee. a,---......
Have we any very good reason, Mr.
Speaker, to expect better results from thu
proposition before US! True we may hav'
a more honest Board CT Public Works q
the present time. think we have, but i
the contracts do not, either by chance o.
design, fall into the hands of their political
friends, it will be palpsble deviation from
all former precedent. The uniform custom
has been for the party in power to dispens'
this patronage to its political friends, 70
party purposes; but suppose different ruiz
should be adopted in The lettings, and tn
State should drive sharp bargain
with the ccntractors--one whicl
would result in an annual loss to tho less g
lis 1t probable that the State would ho!,
them to their contracts! If so, it would Ger
tainly he contrary to all past experience
The lessees, with their thousands of depend
ants, would be before each succeeding Leg
islature with the mott eloquent appeals fo
relief, and relief would be granted. We hnv'
had case in point which has bsen decde
by the present Legislature within tho las
week, to grant relief to the lessees OF tn
National Road. When tho contract wa