The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1875-09-18
Extension Of the Water Line.
.fsuxasalaee Raosss zA0H hssaa
STAUNyoN, septeInnerE. 10 IL, 10
To he Edi,ors ofSRe Dispdtch Pa

- sTAuNTos. septe mher 10, 1st'
To be Edi,ors ofsfe Dispdtch Pa
\ Gen.Ienen,-I!ba read with care ana az
teniion fine, letters OF MI. Edmuna renule'
tou,6f Botetourt, and .Frankllin S .
of Richmond, pnbishedsin lsleH NOS. OF
| your paper, In which they undertake 10 ques
| ton the accuracy Of some OF the statements
contained In my letter to General emerson
ION the subject OF the. extension Of Tue 5flts
River canal from Buchanan to Clt'on folge.
Itsfsfrue that MIR. Pcndfetou ncqnits me Oh
any purpose 10 uislesd The pubic, ous oolo
gentlemen. by implication at least, 100 pule co
me degree Of carelessness in dealing "iLn
facts which, if well founded, wouin, 10 my
Judgment, be inexcusable for hold that no
one is justifable in making publication I'M
less he has at least used proper dilgence "
! ascertain that bis statements are true.
In answer to this implied imputation beg
leave to say that I derived most Of the i'm
portant facts contained in my letter IRON
Major Edward Mcmahon, gentleman Vi
great intelligence and unquestlonaoie lnts-
gritty. Major Mcmahon was the contractor
who constructed most of the work on the
canal line above Buchanan, ana L snou'u
therefore have felt warranted in giving the
hut. knowing the fallibiIity of human men,
ory, thought it possible he might be mis-
taken in regard to some matters OF, deta'l,
and 10 ensure precise accuracy my letter, De-
fore publication, was submitted to officers OF
the James River Company for careful scrll-
tiny and revision by comparison "ltn tne
hooks. and repotts. and estimates of their Of
ficers and engineers. This was accordingly
done. and wherever there was any dlscre-
papcy between the recollection OF MsJor
McMabon and the records OF the company
the figures of the latter were adopted. Inc
statement of facts iD my letter, therefore,
rests on the authority Of the gentleman VINO
constructed the work, revised, corrected,
and verified BY careful comparison with the
archives of the james River Company.
/ will add that since my letter was pub
lisbed I have. bad the pleasure of reading
letter. dated 18th August, 1875. addressed 10
Major Mcmahon by Mr.. &. M. Harris, the
skiful engineer and superintendent OF the
James River Company, which sustalns,
almost literally, the statements ard estimates
of Major Mcmahon. In that letter, after dis
cussinp the subject of the extension OF the ca.
nal in various aspects, Mr.. Harris concludes
bv saving. /" think, with 81 100000 in money,
or its equivalent, we can make the conuec.
tion. and hazard some contingencies"
With this narration Of facts | leave 1t to The
public TO decide whether | can be justly
charged with having presented the facts set
forth in nv letter lightly and unadyisedly.
But Mr.. Pendleton charges that. l am ID
error in saying that the work west OF bu'
cbapan has not been damaged more than two
Der cent. of the original cost. And TO make
good bis charge be specifies the particulars
in which it has been damaged. Of course l
did not profess to have any personal knowl-
edge on this subject, as have never seen
the work and, indeed. if bad made per.
sonal inspection of it doubt if | would
have been competent to form an intelligent
opinion on the subject, as am neither an
engineer nor contractor. But here again
[ must oppose the opinion OF the able engl'
neer of the James River Canal Company to
that of Mr.. Pendletop. In the letter of Dir.
Harris, above referred to, he says: ~ have
been over the line lately, and find that the
mechanical work has deteriOrated but little"
This statement ought. [ think, to prove
that Mr.. Pendleton is mistaken In bis estl-
mate of the damage which the work has sls-
tanned; but if there be lingering doubt on
the mind of any one it must vanish when l
say that am authorized by Major Mcmahon
to state that he will cbeerlully undertake for
Two per cent. on the original cost TO restore
the work to as good condition as it was when
the company received 1t from him.
Respectfully, your obedient servant,
ALEXANDER II. FL. STUART.