The Cairo bulletin. [volume] (Cairo, Ill.) 1872-1878, 1875-08-12
TINE MOUND CITY MONUNENT.

TINE MOUND CITY MONUMENT.
The Mound City Jouy7a. made, some.
time ago, the very serious assertion that
the commissioners TO build the Mound
City Monument had been guilty Of
shameful rascality In its construction.
No specifications were given at tho time
but now the Journal comes forward with |
and asserts its reasons for believing the |
monument commissioners corrupt.
Mark them:
tho contractors, Georgia granite, and is
u soft stone easily worked. Its grain IL
somewhat like sandstone. and 1t crum-
bles somewhat like 1t.
The truth is, the stone is granite, and
good granite, too. The sandstone asser-
ton Is ridiculous. But where Is the or
ruption in this stone business:
2. "Thc design was not the best by
any means that was laid before the COM
missioncrs for acceptance, and this fact.
together with some others in connection,
led to the suspicion that advertising for
and receiving bids and plans was farce,
that a majority Of the commissioners had
previously arrived at an understanding
with the successful bidders. However
this may hayc been, after the design aud
bid Of Emery 4 Co. had been accepted,
a material alteration in the design nc
ccptcd was made, which considerably
lessened the cost Of the work and thus
operated unjustly to others who had sub.
united designs and bids In good faith"
The design was the best; aid gentle
men Of Mound City who were anxious to
have the Chicago design accepted have
acknowledged this to US since the COM
pletion Of the monument. But Mr.. Pot.
ter's suspicion is not evidence of cor
ruption or proof that Messrs. Willis and
LOoney had determined before the com.
mission convened to give Emery 4 Co.
the contract. There Is no good reason
to believe that this is true.
The Charge that, after the contract had
L VI
interest Of the contractors. " An.
swered by the Journal itsslf IL an N
B." to the article In wllHicch the charge /.
made. The Jonrasc,t saws: IN. d. Since
writing the" foregoing we are informed
py commissioner Hambleton that the de-
vasi6n In the design Of the monument
hey which two statues were lett out. was
understood when the bid was accepted
and that the other bidders presen,
5 understood it 80. This is our first intor
nation to this effect. We have Away
: previously understood, from those wht
, protested to know, differently. Blu
Captain II. ought to be good authority
on the point"
3. 1.-THE contractors have failed il
: some instances 10 pay hand!
who worked on the monument
The commission let the contract t
Emery & Co. for $4,000. Emery & Co
let a contract to some persons to d,
certain work tor them On the monument
The sub-cOntractors hired 'hands,
and did their work for Emery a Co. ant
= received pay; but they have failed
s. to pay their ''hands." What could TIN
u commissioners do about this. The mon
Is ument, being completed according 10 con
u tract, the commissioners were compelled
le to pay for II to the contractors, 500, zoo
e Ii the contractors refuse to pay tn
"hands" of their sub-contractOrs, 4
l. whom they have paid all they promised
- what can the commissioners do about II
= how, In this fact, does the Journal flint
y, evidence Of its charge Of corruptiot
20 against the commissioners? =
Is The Journal claims, In this connection
q that the commissioners should hav
~ guarded the appropriation SO it coul
,. not be stolen and the wOrkme
70 left unpaid. True, the commissioner
NJ might have held back money due to tn
m contractors, until the money due to tn
70 hands of the sub-contractors had bee
r paid, and II is to bs regretted they di
not do SO; but that they did not is no ev
dence Of corruption, and II will not
to say that, because tho commission iii
% not DO this unusual thing. Willis an
az Looney are tricksters or incompetent
IS and Hsmbleton honest and competent
he IfWillis and Looney are, tor the reaso
h. given by the Journal, incompetent me
n or trlckstcrs who permitted money to
ID stolen, HambletOn Is also guilty, and III
Ne Journal ought to be frank enough to So
% 20. HambletOn acted with Willis an
i Looney In this matter. The cOinmissio
= was not divided. u the failure Of tn
!. sub.contract0rs to pay hands makes tn
:. charge OF tho Journal good against tn
d Republicans 1t makes 1t also good againi
ID the Democrat on the board. But, In fac'
D. the commissioners cannot be held respon