The Van Buren press., 1871-08-15
L. r. 4 p. 3. RAILROAD.
Letters from Nsssrs Peirce, Steacy and
Yorston in Reply to Mr.. Pratt.
LITTLE Rock, Aug. 5, 1871.

! regarding the present status Of the Little
Rock and Fort Smith railway, but until
we read in your valuable paper of the 4th
inst, communication over the sigma
ture Of" c Pratt, President OF the
Little Rock and Fort Smith railroad com
pany. dated Boston, July 25, 1871, Sc
riously rejecting upon ourselves, and
virtually accusing Us Of being the sole
cause of the suspension of the work up
on the said road, we have not felt called
upon to interfere; and perhaps even this
may not call for more than passing no
tice, since many of your readers are ia
miliar with the true state Of affairs
However, we will lay before your many
readers several facts pertinent to the case,
and leave the public--which We have thus
far found to be generous-to form its
own conclusion.
The burden of Mr.. Pratts communica
ton appears to be tyunction," "in-
Junction, the over-payment Of Warren
Fisher, jr and an effort to prejudice the
public mind against us. Why, Mr.. Edi-
tor, was any injunction applied for 2
Simply that those who in good faith have
thus far supplied the bone ard sinew,
and the materials, toward the present ad-
vanced state Of the road, through our rep,
resentotions, shall to the last dollar re
ceive their just and equitable dues.
The representations of Mr.. Pratt in
particular, and Others in general, of the
new board, placed in possession Of the
road-according to their statements-at
the time Of their visit to Little Rock in
November last, were to the effect, and in
so many rords, that the money and ma
terials would be supplied without any de-
lay, for the full and immediate compile
ton of the road TO Fort Smith mot
Clarksville), while ia fact we have had
nothing but reratious del0ys, .faliacious
inducements, and mtulfNed promises ever
since, or until we could no longer eontin
ue for rant Of means to pay the just ar.
rearages due our suffering laborers, to
whom we had so long reiterated the
promises Of Messrs. Pratt d Co, when
during the eXisteuce OF the former board
the pubic will call to mind that every
obligation of Peirce, Steacy d Yorston
was promptly met and cancelled.
Was Warren Fisher, jr., overpaid at
the time the road was turned over-as al
leged-to Messrs. Pratt d Co. ? Are
they supposed to have been in ignorance
of the true state Of affairs at that time ?
If so, we are very much mistaken in the
business qualifications, as practical rail
road men, of Messrs Pratt d Co.
Did Mr.. Pratt turn over to W. Fisher,
jr, in whole OF any part thereof the S3,-
900, 900 in land and first mortgage bonds
which he took with him on his departure
from Little Rock? If so, who is to be
blamed for the inertia which has so long
characterized this great enterprise ifnot
so where is the money promised and still
withheld to prosecute the work to its
successful completion? We do not ask,
we never have asked for one dollar be
yond a sufficient sum to pay our present
Indebtedness, amounting to 1920, 600
and, as the work shall progress, that
our payments shall be according to the
letter and terms of the contract.
We're we eXactng the full amount Of
our claims, which under our contract, we
would be fully justified in doing, Mr.
Pratt would have better grounds upon
which to base an allegation, but as it is,
he has neither in law nor in equity, the
shadow of reason Tor his unwarrantable
attack
That the work may be indefinitely
delayed" rests entirely with decision
as to whether or not sufficient means
shall at once be provided to pay our in
debtedness, that the road will be "cx-
tingushed. +" We feel assured that the
old board will faithfully guard the inter
ests of the stockholders and prevent the
expiration of the land grant, besides sus
tanning any legal decision which shall
protect the interests Of their fellow. citi-
zens and forward an enterprise of such
incalculable benefit to the STATE and the
public at large.
We feel certain, from the generous
manner in which the whole community
have endorsed the course we have been
compelled to pursue, that it will not be
misled by any er pdrte statements, and
we here assert that, though desirous to
see the road rapidly approaching com,
pleton, still we will not consent to any
compromise which will jeopardize the in
terests or claims of those who have so
generously contributed labor, materials
and money to forward work, projected,
commenced and thus far continued, as
public benefit, instead Of a lemon to be
squeezed by favored few
Nj. Pratt says: Fisher has been
over paid by the company for all the
work that has been done on the road by
any one. " Now, Mr.. Editor, the terms
Of the contract made by the company for
the building of this road were to the eff
feet that the contractor should be paid
pro rata upon monthly estimates APPROX
ed by the consulting engineer
If this article Of the contract has been
faithfully observed, how does it happen
that Mr.. Fisher has been overpaid; If
not. why did the company depart from
the letter Of the contract? Why depart
from a custom common to the construc-
ton of all Railroads.&c. custom no busi-
ness man would allow himself to violate
without strong and justifable reasons.
1t is, however, not custom, it is not
common, on the contrary, it is rerg un-
usual and strange for company to orer
pay a contractor. Why, then, did this
company depart from an established
usage, and in a manner, thus far unac-
counted for, overpay Mr.. Fisher?