The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1860-08-31

cost Of the work in Tennessee. 1t NAV be
more, but from an examination of the hool
am sure it is not less than that sum-
The difference of what you do deduct from
the cost, Of the road in South Carolina and
Georgia, and the actual cost, which should
be deducted is $4,000. This is anothe,
overcharge in your statement.
Your mode Of attaining the cost Of the
road in Tennessee cannct be passed with
out remark. You say tho Treasurcr's re-
port does not state tho amount. But YOU
assume two thirds of $3.50 900, the County
and individual subscription in Tennessee
which is SlG6,666, to be the cost of the
work in Tennessee. The. Reports would
have shown you that; in order to comply
with the conditions Of the Tennessee char.
ter and Of the Act granting State aid, sew.
| entecn miles Of the road out from Knox
vile had been nearly finished. You might
have seen in the Report of 1856, Col.
Gwynn's estimate Of the cost of the grading
in Tennessee to he $4,000 and of the
whole road~in Tennessee sl.531, 900, and
also that the section Of seventeen miles
which was nearly completed, while it is
only thirty per cent. of the length Of the
road, is estimated to cost forty.one per
cent OF the entire cost. Forty one per
cent. Of the graaihg would be .s3lO, ,ooo.-
If you had used these Reports, you might
have made n nearer estimate than YOU
have done.
When 10 S242, 900, the amount of over.
charges. before stated, arc added $4,000
and $4,000, they exhibit an aggregate
OF errors and overcharges Of s527,OOO in
your statement Of coo, 600 rs the excess Of
cost over the estimate Qor South Carolina
and Georgia.) up to December 1852
If Col. Gwynn's estimate, in 1859, of
the cost Of completing the road from An
derson to Clayton, dii not include the
-Whitmire fill, your estimate Of the cost of
completing the road from Clayton to the
North Carolina line may he correct. But
II I've Wllitmire fill is included in that es-
timate.it is probabiss$ 900 per mile will
complete The road; for the grading from
Clayton TO the North Carolina line is very
hgsht:and so nearly flushed that the cost Of
completing it must he very inconsiderahle
In this case,:s45, 900 more must lie added
to the sum Of your errors.
l expect you to reply that my exhibi.
t'on OF errors does not apply to your
statemetftf that what you intended to
show is rot that The actual cost of the
work in South Carolir a and Georgia ex-
ceeded the estimated cost, but that the
expenditures for and about the work in
South Carolina and Georgia exceeded the
estimate Of the cost ot the road in those
States. 1t is precisely Of that. I Jiay&&&
n t,In f.,,r
TO make statement Of the 'cosf Esthe e
work compared Win the estia1StsS afRd;yet
you charge 10 the cost Of the work not
only the expenditures for it's construction,
but. also, the sum total Of al, Lie ex,raof
=qtaaAY.xand contingent expenses of the
Aaertaka6g, ,ffrom the date of the
cifaf tR DeesshbefS 1850. In other
wosa your ta,ernepts sSfrsses to exhibit
oaes4i in reality, it exhibits annoth.
y# different from that which is
%Yo1 ckaiHot complain if I have taken
you at your word, land corrected your stste I.
ment accordingly.
But, taking your statement for what you
intend it to be, viz: an exhibit Of be ex.
cess Of expenditure for the work sius South
Carolina and Georgia over the estimate Of
cost in those States, will show that YOUR
errors arc little less in number and amount
chan the errorsssW hieh have been. 1pointsdI
out.
From the $soo, 900, then, taken as the
excess of expenditure on the work in Soutfi
Carolina and Georgia, you must deduct
the overcftarge to, the work Of $l49. 20,
Agd also tie overcI,argo of s136,ooo,
Which results from your short estimate ri
the work in Tennessee. aud also $54 900
Jour overcharge' for engineering in SOUTH
Carolina and Georgia. To these Sims
must added the following items which,
fu llIe Treasurers report, are included in
the sum total Of ,S2 594.712. which sup,
total. in your statement. is charged IA the
amount OF the cost Of the work in South
Carolina andt dtGeoSgia: First, you charge
the total ofssSpcnse, snlafies, ,.legat advice,
suit Of BaSs& Co., s7e. .2se' to South
Carolina and Georgia. These charges are
f"r the common 'epe6fnand defence Of the
ironds Of eachcState, and, like sneineerins
should be charged in the proportion Of tie
poreien Of South, ,gasesss Georgia be.
ing in.thc ratio 40 I28, would
lie $4,000. In tifis itemA you have. oxsss
charged $4,000. The cost of lliaright
Of way in Nortl, .Csrolina and; Z Tennessee,
s9sqsS which you-bare charged 10 South
,Carolina and Georgia, is 8 man}fest ow5s
charge. -Sot is tbeEamount due by snp-l
dry Contractor.,3 Sc, ,3ll. This, amour,
being for advances or loans to them or, The
secarity Of theirw was 7efunted wLep
payment was made 10 them for future
wosk. so, also, you have wrongly charged
transportation expenses 81. l02, being The
expense.of* rnnning the road between An
derson and PendleioDs md the repairs OF
the road, $k70E Against, ,tisessstwo slsst
charges You will find on iba opposite COL
Nhn receiyeP for, transpa agtatiop s8s46..
You baYe also charged s,.s 90 0nns sdpe
by .Anson Bang, & co. Is DE
opposite columF youWiiie find an entry Of
!. interest due o Alsop Bangs s. Goa 1858.
aud Immediately, sboss tbM ensf another
si.oo Ias M E RasSssss ~ 20 O. III wa,. III