Mountain Democrat. [volume] (Placerville, El Dorado Co., Cal.) 1854-1860, 1859-09-10

mY Aseeooon was called 70 u the more fully
was BatisAsd that slatement was correct !
slse told Harvey he'd 10 recollection Of ever
I havinK ECUHV6rakgi0N with you on The sub.
ieCt, altAeugh &c opas pOOsibIs that had.
also told him had no objection 70 any one
seeing my statement to you"
do most positively assert that was 90 In.
formed, not BY Mr.. Denver only, but BY 9th.
ers; and Il drew wrong inSerences from state.
ments made to me, like my predecessor, o.
Harvey, In the epistOIaFy line, ~ cannot un.
dsrstaNd the force Of language" It is an AZ.
ium In MnemOnies, that he whose thoughts
and business tend towards any one profession,
such incidents a. occur relative thereto. will
b BY him best remembered. Il Is readily
perceivable how would be more apt to re-
collect any conversations relative to the COun.
~ Hospital, than my intOrmants, they giving
mOmentary notice to the same, while had
the subject constantly before me, having been
charged a. ian unsuccessful bidder for four
successive years and am egOtistical enough to
say, that though unsuccessful, II never has
made me ~ "sOreheaded over the loss, a. Il
has o. Harvey, . successful bidder for the
above term Of years, at losing It for the arSt
tune.
As respects the conversations with NJ. A.
II. Hawley, doubt much IL that gentleman
ever allowed him to infer that he approached
me in any such bullying manner as represent
cd in his version. give the import, complete,
of both the meetings Of Mr.. Hawley and my
SELF Mr.. lIawley met me on Main street, pro-
duced the article, said he had been informed
| was the author, that il was untrue as to his
knowledge Of the transaction, and that the
Board did not accord them Harvey & Clark,)
the privilege, and requested retractiOn Of the
statement told him ! was the author and
would not rctract It, as had good authority,
and denied his right to speak for the Board,
being but one of the three members that
would willingly publish over the same sigma.
tGre, his statement that il such transaction
occurred, he was not a::party to or cOSnizant Of
the same. In reply, he informed me that my
authority wasincOrrect and It was untrue, and
that IL said retractiOU, exOnOrating him was
not published, he would pronounce it false
In the issue Of your paper OfAug. 9th, pub
lishcd the rctraction referred to so lackadasi.
cally as an additional insult" Some two
weeks Afterwards, A. H. Hawlcy called on me
and said that the wording Of the rctractiOn
was susceptible Of double construction, and
that the tenor Of the same, was not as he re.
quested. disagreed With him on both points.
He said that Il was not satisfactory, and IL not
done so as to exOnorate the entire Board, he
would issue card, II the Mountain Democrat
would publish Il, Il not he would seek some
paper that would told him IL he thought
they would not, would try 10 influence the
editors to publish his card. The above is the
entire purport Of our conversations, there be-
ing no prevaricatiOn, and having no referance.
e. maliciously stated by o. Harvey, to any
matters ION file," but recurring to the charge
alone Of the contractors being afforded an Op.
pOrtunity to examine proposals.
Much stress Is laid upon the fact Of the orr
ginal bid for &l6 900 being on record marked
accepted" though it is customary to mark
it first "tlled and the former mark is put
on when the proposals arc declared, and the
date Of fling when presented. There is no
date Of fling on It, and the word accepted
Is in the handwriting Of 7. N. Reed.
There are several statements Of o. Harvey,
which will review, md leave the tax paying
public to adjudGc for themselves.
He states, 1.-The contract was awarded to US
on our bid Of DlS, 600, which, il recOIlect, was
over 5000 less than any other responsible
bid" He challenges any man to prove from
the record, differently. Ny bid, the one re.
6eEred to As being copied, was $4,000, Is
many gentlemen in this city can testify. ]
am informed that DR.. Nelson Of Greenwood |
he'd one ct the same price. Neither bid is
now on Iile. Irequested to see mine in 1885,
and was informed by one Of the Supervisors,
that Il had been taken to base the contract on,
and never returned TO the Office. HaFvey'S
statement IL, that theirs " was 35 900 less than
any other responsible bid" Here are two ct
el6,O 900 as responsible as his own. Drs Tay.
lOr q Burnham had one at 02l, 900. and the
late D.. D. F.. Keene, also had one at 922, 900
or S95, 900. These two latter must be tho r.
responsible ones referred to, a. there are none
others that he is 5000 below.
The record shows two bids on iile. one Of
DR.. L. c. FiSke Of Mud Springs, wherein he
agrees to contract for everything ct fifteen
dollars per week, each patient. Now, to quote
O. Harvey, I" . simple arithmatical calculation"
will show that the tax payers Of this county
would have saved (there being an average Of
ten patients the snug sum Of $1,000 The
other bid give entire.
"To TmE HON. BOARD or SUPERVISORS OF
E. DoRAOO COuSTY-GENTLExES having
seen your notice In Georgetown News, request
Ing propositions to take care Of the INDECENT
sick Of this county, propose to your honorable
body the following, namely: | will furnish .
convenient house, with suitable apartments,
medicines, and render my medical services for
the sum Of eight dollars per week per patient
the county furnishing bedding, clothing.
board and the necessary attendance on the sick.
N. VROOMAN. n. D., Of Spanish Flat.
ColOma, June ., 1885,"
The patients, ten In number for that year,
e svpcSs to By o, HaSVeyr would cost ct eight
dOllass per week, eA.le0. Their board, ct
City cents per day, oHIe3os bedding $500.
clothing 16OOt and necessary attendance d..
Ron ...o..-.;.,.. A. =. t,,aaN "A A aan q rav;n@