The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1877-12-20

wrong, The fact, and it is a fact that
no such notice has ever been given by
Commissioners in this county, although
in some years heretofore tens of thou
sands of dollars we're spent for bridges,
does not justify, but may in a measure
account, for orr oversight But we did the
best we could. As soon as our attention
was called to that point, we cancelled
the contract with the Massillon company.
7. In the petition filed by John Pontius,
Daniel Hoover and others, it is alleged
that the bridge is located where the pub
lie convenience does not require it, and
its building at that place was brought
about by the connivance of certain in
terested parties. We know nothing OF
the alleged connivance. We connived
with no one; but we know we were urged
by many persons who had no special
private interest to build the bridge.
Among others two prominent and disnN
terested taxpayers. Messrs. Pontius
and Hoover themselves commended the
project. In fact, doubtless from pure
public spirit, they visited Commissioner
Raber, at his home in Lake tp,, and call
ed 70 see Commissioner Poorman in
Tuscarawas tp., and we are informed,
went to see Commissioner Woods in
Lexington tp,, about this very bridge
long before the day for the letting of the
contract, They said they had visited
the bridge site and commended the ma
sonry, inquired about the length and other
details, but never expressed the least
disapproval. We cannot suppose that
those gentlemen, who have of late done
so much to protect the Treasury, were
led to make these long journeys because
Mr.. Hoover's son (Mr, Pontius's nephN
ew), was to be one of the bidders. No
doubt had the contract been awarded to
young Mr.. Hoover, they would never
theless have sought the injunction on
the ground that the bridge of which they
repeatedly approved, was not needed by
the public, and that no notice had been
given of our intention to build a bridge
in the letting of which they took such a
deep interest. We believe they were
both in and about the Court House at
the time of the letting.
THE 1NFIRMARY HEATER.
During last October the Infrmary Di-
rectors called our attention to the heat
ing ofthe Infrmary. We found the fur.
mace burnt out and useless. The pipes
through the building were worse than
worthless, and in the highest degree dan
gerous. We were told the building had
been set afre several times through
their defects. But a short time was left
us for action, as the work ought to done
before the winter commenced. We ad-
vertised, and made contract which is
now being rapidly fulfilled. To our ac>
ton many objections have been made.
Among others, substantially the same as
objections, one, two and three above
noticed about the bridge. In respect to
the heater contract we were and now are
of the opinion, that the sections of the
law upon which those objections are
based, have no reference to such con-
tract.
We did not suppose that if a man was
putting a furnace in his house, he would
speak Of it as building an addition TO his
house; not claiming, however, to be com.
petent to decide nice legal questions, we
took the opinion of the Pros, Attorney
and Others competent in such matters
before carrying out the contract, and
were sustained in the view we had taken.
We gave notice by newspaper publica-
ton for the time required by law. Two
bids were made. One for 81, 600, the
other for $500. We awarded the con-
tract to theparty who bid $500. Of this
serious complaints have been made,
and to those who have not fully exam
ined the matter, the complaints may
seem quite just. Of course no one will
claim, or does claim so far as we know,
that we were bound to look to the amount
of the bid only. That bid is lowest which
is the cheapest and best for the county,
considering price, quality, and every
thing involved, and considering every.
thing, we believe the higher bid was the
cheapest and best for the county. The
building is Poor House. In it are kept
the county poor and insane, about 200
persons, besides the superintendent and
his family and help. The paupers and
some Of the insane are allowed a good
deal of liberty about the premises, and
it will be difficultto prevent them having
access at times to the heater in the cell
lar, and apparatus through the building.
We felt that every consideration of hui
manity, prudeRce and economy required
us to adopt a heater that would be per-
fectly safe, eff cient and durable.
Thatthe public may Judge between the
two proposals, we furnish both for publi-
cation, and hope we are not asking too
much Of the gentlemen of the Press Of
the county when we ask their publica.
ton in full. We wish to add, that Messrs.
Kelly & Jones are experienced in
that line of business, ami we know what
their work is. 1t is in use in the Court
House and other public buildings in the
county. Mr.. Dillon has never done any
job, certainly no large job of the kind,
and could not refer us to any work of his
that we could test his capacity to do good
work. He could not do a job like that
in the Court House, for some parts are
covered. we were informed, by patents.
The boilers, he admitted, he could not
build or procure. The non-explosive
boiler may be good joke for newspa.
per squib, but we thought we could see
great differencein point of safety between
a plan of heating, in which the boiler
may have fifty or sixty or more pounds
of steam pressure, and one that will new.
er have more than eight or ten pounds.
Certainly we would not be justified in
placing the boiler proposed by Mr.. Dill.
Ion in the cellar under the In6rmary.
Every one knows the great danger in
such boiler, especially when it is used
for heating, and not constantly under
the eye of an experienced engineer.
We believe the boilers furnished by
Kelly & Jones to be as nearly safe as