The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-12-20
Lemonade Charles" Advance
BlUldGrblS Spiked.
A CLEAN RECORD SHOWN AND
COMPLETE VINDICARION.
The MasSiIlon Bridge, Heating
the Mfrmary, &c., fully
Explained
The Law, the Facts, and the Tes-
timOny VindiCate the County
Commissioners & Refute
Slanders Foul Tongue

Many charges having been made
against the County Commissioners re-
Gently some in matters of slight, and
others in matters of the greatest i'm.
portance, we deem it proper to make a
statement for the information of taxpay-
ers and others who may be interested.
We do not intend to enter into contro-
versy with those who make it their bust
ness to find fault with whatever we have
done or MAY do; nor do we expect to sat,
isfy those who are determined not to be
satisfied, but to give truthful, and if
possible, clear account of our acts in
respect to some of the matters in which
the public are most interested. We are
willing to admit our mistakes where we
find we have made them; but must insist
that we were right where our mature re-
hection leads us to believe we did right,
THE MAsSILLoN BRIDGE.
About four years ago the Commission
ers then in office established a county
road, crossing the river in Massillon.
Application has frequently been made to
us for a bridge over the river. We re-
fused to act, as the road for time was
not finished for public travel. This year
the road was completed, but required
the bridge to make it fit for public use,
A contract was made for the building of
a bridge, Many objections have been
made, the chief of which we will refer to.
I. 1t is objected that we did not, before
advertising for bids, have plan prepar-
ed with specifications, estimates, &C., pre-.
pared. The law does not require this to be
done. The act of Feb. I6, 1871, sec.7, Say.
lers Statutes. p. 2,4I7, provides that
where it shall become necessary to erect
or cause to be erected, any bridge, such
commissioners shall determine the length
and width of such bridge, whether the
same shall be of single or double. track;
and shall advertise as in the 9th sec.
of this act provided, for proposals for
performing the labor and furnishing the
materials necessary to the erection there.
OF; and the commissioners may, but are
AOtregatrSd to prepare, or cause to be
prepared, plans, descriptions, specihca-
tions for such bridge" We thought prop
er not to do so for the reason that differ>
ent bridge builders have different plans;
and if we had adopted certain fixed
plan in advance, some bidders who hap
pened not to build that particular plan
would be prevented from competing.
Q. 1t is objected that the plans, speci-
fcations and estimates so to be adopted
before the letting, were not approved by
the County Auditor and Surveyor, and
then filed in the Auditors office. AS we
had not prepared, or caused to be pre-
pared, any plans, specifications or esti'
mates before the letting, there was moths
ing to submit to the Auditor or Surveyor,
and nothing to file with the Auditor
Sec 8, Sayler's Statutes, p. 1877, only
applies to cases in which plans, &C.,
have been prepared under sec. 7.
3, 1t is claimed we did not advertise
for bids as the law requires. This is
mistake. We gave notice in the two
Canton papers, Democrat and RebOsi-
terry, for the time required by law. We
may say in addition that the letting was
very well known, and more bids were
made than forany other bridge built by
us.
a. 1t is said we opened the proposals
secretly, and refused to make known the
bids until after the contract was awarded
to the Massillon Co. This is not correct.
We opened the bids in our room, the
one in which all our business is done
when in session. Bidders were in the
adjoining room; no one, to our knowl>
edge, asked to be present. After opens
ing the bids we made them known, and
said we desired to get the opinion of
some engineer asto the relative merits of
the plans. This was readily assented to
by the bidders, and no decision was
then made. There certainty was no
fraud practiced by us, or any one, in re.
spect to the bids. The bidders then
took statements of all bids, and thereby
it was impossible for any change to be
made before the final award. The bids
were as follows:
Hope Iron Bridge Co. of Canton, Arch bridge
per lineal 4S
Canton Wrought Iron Bridge COny Truss
bridge per lneal 26 As
per iineal 25 90
Massillon w. l. Bridge Co. Truss bridge
per llneai 20 so
iineal "a rs
Massillon W. 1. Bridge Co, Arch d bridge per
yonnSStoyvn W I Rridge Co bridge ner lin.
cal aift.,..............,.................,, 90 27
Youngstown W. l. Bridge Co. bridge per lin
cal ............. IL "a
No /, per lineal II q 30
Keystone W. /. Bridge Co. Pittsburgh, Truss
No. q per lineal 81 80
Keystone w. 7. Bridge Co. Pittsburgh, Truss
No. g. per lineal tt.'....... 20 30
Keystone w. 1, Bridge Co. Pittsburgh, Truss
No. 4, per lineal "a 25
keystone W l. Bridge Co. Pittsburgh, Truss
No s. per lineal Is 05
Keystone W. l. Bridge Co. Pittsburgh, Truss
No 6, per lineal ~ so
We did not award the contract to the one
who bid the lowest figure, but did give it |
70 the party, 1.-THE Massillon Iron Bridge |
Co., J whose bid we thought the best and |
cheapest, considering plan, material and
method of construction. In this we may
nave been mistaken, but we believe not.
others may differ with us; the disap.
pointed bidders doubtless do, but we des-
,air of ever awarding.a contract to the
of all bidders.
6. 1t is further urged that we did not
rive notice by handbills of our intention
o build the bridge, so that objections
night be raised to it. This We admit to