Perrysburg journal. (Perrysburg, Wood Co., O. [Ohio]) 186?-1965, 1883-10-05
REPLY TO MR.. MAWER.

Ed. JOURNAL: 1.-THE reply o Mr.. Mawer to
my article in JOURNAL rejecting upon his
transaction with reference to culverts, or
bridges, needs little sitting. II will bo seen
that he convicts himself.
To make this matter more plain will first
state that the law at that time required the
Commissioners to put in all bridges and cul-
verts without reference to cost az the trustees
had no authority TO levy any tax for that pull
pose. The custom generally being to let the
smaller ones by the linear foot for timber in the
work and plank by the thousand, the price per
foot and thousand 10 include all labor, spikes
&C., to make the work complete. So 1t will be
seen that a supervisor putting in these culveris
b y poll-iax would bo defrauding his dis,ric,
out Uf the amount OF work which should have
been used in improving his roads. On the cul.
verts in question the old plank were used, so
the bi! was only for timber.
Nr. M. says: here give copy of the
only letter lie can produce. Inclosed you will
find bill Tor timber furnished for two small
culverts and one stringcr for bridge over Sug.
ar Greek. charge only for the timber as the
work Of putting them in was done by poll.tax.' u
lie then says: IL called on tue Commis.
| sioners in open session, when you asked me all
| about the labor, who scored, hewed, hauled
and put in the timber, all the time keeping nv
letter in your pocket I" see If you could no,
| trap me-" Now II Mr.. Ms statement be true
as to his letter, was not this very singular
conversation and his alarm about being ira pp.d
entirely uncalled for i? !. he had only charged
for the timber what difference would it have
made where tho letter was and how would il
have bsen possible tor me To trap" him, a,
| the only thing that could have been in contro.
| versy would have been the price OF the timber ?
The statement Of Mr. NJ. as to saying, III
charge only for timber as the work was done by
poll. 10 not true. The conversation as
| stated by Mr.. NJ, or one similar. did take place
| in the AUDITORS office and when Mr. NJ. iuund
that he was trapped" as he terms it) he then
first conceived the i'd a Of the bill only being
for the timber or logs laying in his choppiug,
possibly in log heaps, as II number oi them
| we're badly burned.
He says. that, "the point OF verscity between
you aud me 10 easily ascertained by your pro-
ducing the originals" So far as 1 am con.
ceined, ana satisfied TO let the matter stand as
tits, but as be appears to be anxious to have
sumething original will compare the only
Transaction that is matter OF record with the
ngures gwen by him. lie says you paid me
DO. per loot which would stand thus: ITO foot
OF timber, cts per foot SIS. so. Now If Mr.. 81
or any other will look at bridge order No. 662
dated May o, 1874, they will find ii to read as
follows:
Auditor of Wood County hereby certify
that there Is due Thomas Mawer the sum OF
Sb.I2 for timber furnished for culverts in Wash
inetol township. You will therefore draw or
the same.
(Signed) JH PIERCE, Com.
Then II you viii hunt up the stub aud fine
The same number yOu will find il signed by
Thomas Mawer. Now this goes to prove /
depends entirely ON who makes the figures
whether they lie or not. His bill and letter
kept IN siRbl for some time as curiusilies, bul
don't reeuiiret seeing then for some years, bu
have NO doubt but that they cnuld be found
among Tue old papers packed away in the aud.
TORS vault. But AS have no use tor them
shall not take the lime II look them up.
hr. nj. says, 10 wind up; "The laimer you
talked with, MIR. Pierce, was l.. NJ. 1urn.y, d
man who luves me aboui like you d." Nnw
VIII say Tor Mr. us benefit, that never spok.
u Mr. j. about The matter In my knowledge.
30 II there ID any paint which iail ~ see !
he must have oIher lovers in his neighbOrboud
besides Mr., Tuiney. So far AS ] am person-
naily cOacerned will say that have p1 cause
TO either love or hate Mr.. NJ, as tho transsc
lion in question is The only Que | ever had with
him. ~ that ksow but very little about him.
Nr. j. B. Newton, who was then Audi or, a nd
lhe only person conyersant with the facts, whom
l have spoken 10 on the subject. agrees with
lne in saying that Mr.. Ms original bill was not
less than s23. This sum would have been
ample pay al that time for the bridges, includ
ing both labor aud timber. leave the reader
To form his own conclusions.
Any person wishing further information on
tue subject, reftr them 10 j. b. Newton, then
auditor, i. W. Kelly and \. Q. Potter. then