The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1869-11-16

luk upOu UVEEOWeu Chplu1I'
Tho very tone and style Of their argu,
mont shows that the subject they wero dis
cussing and the ideas they were promul-
eating were o new and grand discovery
in their estimation.
If MI. Smith had beon replying to thi.
argument, he would have done go in 4
single paragraph showing whore tho mis-
tako was, and would mover have paradet
II before tho world in highsonndinr
phraseology as m exhibition Of hil
Of his extensive mathematical acquire
ments. But the parade and displA,
which counsel mako over 1t, show
how they wOrC elated with tho discovery.
There is another consideration which
leads US to suppose, we may possibly
havc miSapprchcndcd the meaning Of The
witnesses.
Now that our attention is called 10 the
gro ut disparity between q cubic perch o.
stone, and tho quantity in q pilC 81 fee
long which fills the guRge, ..we can hardly
suppose tho authorities who fixed thu
quantity, would havo dcphrted &C
largely from scientific rules, while usint
scientific terms, If there was o misnn
prehcnslon about the evidence, Of course
tho calculation is erroneous and tho argu
ment based upon it fails.
If tho correction had been made il
courteous and gentlemanly terms w
should have boon obliged 10 counsel fol
1t, Rs we certainly would not intentionally
do Mr.. Ferrel any injustice. And We
can very we'll afford to relieve him from
tho consequences derived from this Argu
mont, As there is enough loft to hang him
if tho offence charged against him wcrt
hanging matter.
Mr.. Hubbard controverts tho principle
Ibid down in our opening argument, thai
an agent may not deal or contract for his
own benefit in matters connected with hil
agency. Authorities Rre quoted in sup
port Of tho contrary doctrine. We have
no desire to discuss the question further,
but If tho Board desire to consult theil
legal adviser, the Attorney General, OF
any other respectable lawyer, we IRE en-
tirely willing they should be governed BY
his opinion. Tho effort to escape it upor
the ground that the principal may ratify
tho acts Of his agent cannot succeed.
There is no contract in tho name or on
behalf Of tho road which tho Board cor
affirm or disa(Iirm. The contract il
between Dir. Ferrel and Mr.. Hervey and
is executed BY. them without the interven
ton Of the Board. 1t is not shown BY
Mr.. Ferreps reports that thero wls any
such contract. Mr.. Ferrel reports that he
paid so much 'on contract to Mr.. Hervey,
Who Mr.. HerVcy paid for hauling the
stone, or how much he paid does not mp
pear. II is oil o secret between Mr.. Her
vOy and Mr.. Ferrel which tho Board cor
neither affirm nor disallirm because they
know nothing about it.
lis clearly and palpnbly Mr.. Ferrert
interest TO make large allowances to Mr.
Harvey for furnishing stone, because he
gOts paid for hauling all tho stone which
he pays Uervey for furnishing.
1t is this position Of Antngonism to The
interest of his principal, which tho law do
nouncesa as unlawful.
And tho question for the Board il
whether they will sustain q superinten
dant who is confGssedly engaged in un,
lawful mud forbidden contracts with con
tractors on tho road.
And oil tho circumstances Of tho case
tend To show that this unlawful combina
ton is working out its natural and legiti
mate results.
Take the case Of Mr.. Roth, which we are
So soundly bcrrated for disappearing
Take Mr.. Roth's testimony as It is quoted
by Mr.. Cracrah. lie says "Ferrel sent
word he wished to sec mo-" What did
Mr.. Ferrel want to SEQ him for2 1t does
not appear that he had any business with
him when he got there. Eerrcl says
Roth bought some goods Of him. But
Ferret did not send for him to como And
buy goods. When he got there ho found
Hervcy there. How lucky. Hervey was
the worry man who WAS Interested in pro-
venting Roth from bidding. ucrvey
took him out md had o conversation will
him, tho result Of which was that Roll
should not bid, but should go in will
l1ervey on n contract, which it seemed
to be understood Iervey would get
They then went in and reported to Fer
rel the result Of their deliberations.
That Roth would not bid but woulC
20 in with lTervey. Why report it to
Ferrel? Why should he caro- whether
Roth bid or not? Or rather should he
not as Superintendent have desired tina
Roth should bid so that the contracts
might be lot ns low as possible2
But tho announcement seemed TO bt
entirely satisfactory to Ferrel, and there
upon tho parties separated.
Roth says he had intended 10 bid, ant
would have taken q section at 81 81
which Hervey got OF 81 rs.
No man who has As much brains rs M
oyster can fail to SEQ that Ferrcl sent fol
Roth that he might have m interview witt
lIervey, md be persuaded not to bid
And Hcrvey's promise to Roth to take
him in with him in contract was {
means to induce Roth not 10 bid, ~
is shown by his refusal to comply will
his promise.
Take this in connection with Fcrrel'I
refusal To permit Mr.. Erskine to be askeG
whether he had not persuaded him not L
bid ut tho lettings, with tho marvellous
sagacity Of Mr.. Hervey in never bidding
moro than q cent below his competitors
with the fact that tho stone recently
broken on the road falls 10 per cen
below the quantity called for, and TIT
conclusion that there is collision between
Ferrel md uervey is unresistible.
Mr.. Hubbard undertakes to escape thu
crushing force Of the argument derived
from the bids, by referring 10 tho bids O
former years. No fair Inference cau b.
derived from them without we had all thu
bids for the years referred to.
We gave oil the bids given in 1860, ant
Mr.. Hubbard is mistaken in supposin|
that the bids for that year were in oul
possession when he wrote his argument
They were returned 10 Mr.. Ferrcll on thu
first evening that tho parties met to argut
the cause orally, and on that evening Mr.
Hubbard told US no had not commenced
his argument.
Whether tho bids made in 1868 wcrc nj
referred TO by Mr.. Hubbard we are not
Informed. II the bids wero very hume
rous, the chances for close competition
would be greatly Increased.
But there 10 therein this marked and
striking difference between the bids in
1865 and the bids In 1869,
In 1850 each of the bldueFH got BOnI