Buchanan County bulletin and guardian., 1868-02-21

between the two Wapsies much nearer
market than Independence cut off consid.
cradle amount Of travel through lttleton,
and give new impetus to a young village
which was becoming dangerous competit>
or for the country trade.
The assertion that the bridge site is inn
practicable is simply absurd. The channel
/ MT tha, point is wide and deep--two points
| immensely in its favor when we consider the
volume Of water which is liable TO pass thro
| II during the spring frcshets, while the road
ON the south side can be turn -piked AT a very
moderate cost, and road will then be open
ed which will, from the amount Of travel on
it, demand and receive sufficient work to put
and maintain it in good condition at all sea
sons of the year.
Let us now consiler the assertion that
Jesup failed to become bound for the full
fllment of Mr.. Hyde's contract, admitting in
the outset that she not only failed but reta-
scd. What was the occasion Of this refusal
Simply that the amount to be paid fer build
ing the bridge was considered insufficient,
and parties did not feel inclined to bind
themselves to erect a bridge for $4,000,
which could not in the estimation Of good
judges, be built for less than $4,000 to 3d.
900. Let me ask our Littletonians if there
could be any compulsion to sign bond, if
parties did not consider it safe to do so?
Who got the timber on the ground? Not
the Jesupites, though it appears that sever
al pieces of it were obtained from Mr.. War
rem, and that he has never received his pay
tractor placed it there on the strength of that
"private subscription is another absurdity,
for the subscription was placed in the hands
ofthe contractor, and single glance at its
conditions would assure him that the county
was to make the first disbursement.
The county lost $3.50 to 5000 did it, be-
cause Of this failure to build the bridge?
Let us consider that briefly, and learn, if we
can, for what that money was paid, or ''lost."
The first question we have to ask the Litle>
tonians is, did contract for buildng section
bridge exist, or did it not ? If the con-
tract and bond we're duly signed, and &C.
cepted by the committee, then q contract ex-
sted; otherwise there was no contrast. "A
Lit,letoneer' claims that Jesup failed to
make his (the contractors bonds sufficient"
from which we can only infer that, his bond
being insufficient, the contractor himself was
Irresponsible, and that, therefore, no con.
tract existed. But If there ras a contract.
why was that $3.50 or 5000 lost? Was it
paid 10 the contractor as a bribe for throw.
ing up the contract? lfthere was q bon.. hIe
rn"'r.cc., with the necessary bond duly ap>
proved and accepted, then there was no oc,
casion for loss to the couaty, and We might
have had a bridge for $4,000 which cannot
probably be built for much less than $4,000.
Jesup stood ready to make up the deficiency
after the expenditure of the $500 appro>
priated, and the bondsmen would have to
foot the balance of the bill. If there was no
contract, why was this $3.50 or 5000 paid
Was it done for the purpose Of killing the
bridge movement, by removing the timber
to some other points or simply to delay the
matter until the Lii,letonians could have
time to lay out a new road, and new bridge
site, % that they could come in for
their share Of the " fair play in free fight"
OF which Sometimes is such lover? Was
il done for the parpose Of injuring the best
interests Of three towns in this county, by
forcing travel out Of its direct and legitimate
channel in roundabout way, simply for
the personal ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Of the Little
tonians? Unfortunately for the statement
Of" A Litiletonecr," the petitions of those
most interested, residing in Fairbank, and
on the roads south Of that place, do not show
a majority in favor Of bridge at Melrose
Ford. On the contrary, petition lately cir
cula'ed exhibits a large majority in favor Of
the section bridge, while some whose names
had, without their consent, been placed oil
the other petition, came before the Bridge
Committee and demanded transfer Of their
names to the section bridge petition. With
the assurance that | am writing on subs
ject with which | am acquainted, and the
hope that those who readily swallowed the
bait in my former article will promptly an>
swcr the questions propounded in this, and
SO give this bridge controversy thorough
ventilation, still adhere to the old name,
and subscribe myself again
| RECFrrs