The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1883-12-22
COMMISSIONER GERWIG
Defends MillhOf and Dundee
Stone,
Claiming that the Marks Stone is Not
Durable, But Dundee is lust the
Thing.
CANroN. December 18. 1883.

| city is paid for writing the articles
signed Taxpayer" which appear from
time to time in the DEMOCRAT, and see
in your issue of the 18th inst. an article
in which he has again exercised what
he, no doubt, considers an attorneys
| prerOgatiVe of peTVerting the truth, mis-
| stating facts and illogical reasoning, in
| order to make out case for his client.
\ He says Mr.. Gerwig does not pretend to
| deny that many culYeTts and bridges
were built of Dundee" stone. Certainly
not; leave all pretence to Taxpayer"
! What denied was the assertion made
| by Taxpayer" that they were all made
with Dundee stone" And if the readers
| of the DEMOCRAT will read the articles
written by Taxpayer" and my reply,
over carefully, they will see that Tax
| payer accepts most of my denials as
| true, and therefore admits that his as
| seTtIOns were false.
He also refers to the fact that l re-
| jected many of the Dundee stone that a
| contractor attempted to use for the
| county, no doubt as proof that "MT.
| Gerwig" is a nOnenity on the Board of
| Commissioners and a "cat's paw" OF MIR.
MillhOfs.
However, l will not agree with TAX.
payer" but make a plain statement of
| facts in regard to this "stOne" business,
and refer the readers of the DEMOCRAT
to the Trustees of any or all of the town
ships in Stark county for proof as to
whether Taxpayer" or MIR. Gerwig"
tells the truth.
The Commissioners have never built
any bridge or culvert that was not first
asked for by parties living in the imme.
diate neighbOrhOOd of the bridge or cul.
vert asked to be Quilt or asked for by
the Trustees of the township III which
the bridge or culVert was situated.
Before the Commissioners let any con-
tract for stone work the Trustees OF their
respective townships go with the COu-
missiOners and point out where a cul-
vert or bridge should be built, and in
almost every instance the Trustees ask
for more than the Commissioners will
allow. The Township Trustees are
always invited to be present when the
contracts are let. and they can testify
that no contract is let without cOmpetl-
tiOn. Therefore "Mr. Gerwig" cannot
explain why work costing "such enOrm-
Gus sums" was let without competition.
1t is impossible to explain the cause of
something that never occurred. These
contracts are let at the place where the
work is to be done, and the Auditor,
who is, by law, the Commissioners
clerk, is not present, and therefore does
not record them. The expenditures
from the county bridge fund were very
before | explain the necessity of these
large expenditures let me call the at
ten tiOn of the readers of the DEMOCRAT
to the very fair comparison which Tax
payer" makes of these expenditures
of former years. He compares the eX-
pendituTes of the IL months ending Sept.
lat, 1881, and the II months ending Sept.
lst, 1882, which were much smaller than
the average, with IA months ending Dec.
4th, IS83 He does not tell that debt
of over $4,000 (paTt of which was CON
tracted in 1880 and part previous to
that became due in the spring of 1888,
and that the small expenditures of 1881
and 1882 was the result of the deteTmi-
nation of the Commissioners to pay off
that debt (and which was paid last
spring. and that the large expenditures
of 1882 were partly caused by paying off
the part of said debt which was due
from the bridge fund. Nor did he tell
that very large proportion of all the
bridge work done during each year is
finished and paid for between the 1st of
September and 4th of December, and
that in fact, that nearly One-hAlf of the
$3.50 600 which he says was expended for
bridges in the IA months ending Dec.
4th. 1883, was paid between Sept. 1st,
1888, and Dec. 4lh, 1883. viz. $23,0l 5.59.
Now the reason why the expenses
from the bridge fund was so large, was
because in last February there was a
disastrous flood visited Eastern ONO,
and which flood damaged and destroyed
many large bridges and culverts i'll
Stark county which the Commissioners
were compelled to rebuild or repair,
and that three-fourths of all the expen-
diture during 1883, was in cases in
which the Commissioners had no option
whatever, but were compelled to incur,
much as they would have preferred not
to. Or does Taxpayer" think he can
lead the readers of the DEMOCRAT to be-
lieve that the Almighty was a seats
paw" Of "Millhof'' in sending that flood
and causing bridges to be washed out
in order that he (NillhOf) could sell his
Dundee" stone, OF that the Trustees all
over the county are ''nOnenities" and
were induced to ask for culverts and
| bridges where wooden box" or few
sewer pipe would have ansW cred.
refer especially to the Trustees of
Plain and jackson townships, who have
used sewer pipe and have, in several in
stances, asked the Commissioners to re-
place them with stone culverts because
| they fOund sewer pipe a costly failure.
Now, in regard to those abutments
near MapletOn the Marks stone was ire
| jected because every year the Commits
BiOneTs have found it necessary to re-
place stone culverts that were built
with 0snaburg stone, but which stone
| fIom the action Of water and frost, are
| in few years reduced to sand. Now,
Mr.. Delap and others interested, claim
| the Marks stone will not do this, but
are as durable as any sand stone. The
| Commissioners, in order to satisfy the
parties interested, were willing to test
the Marks stone in culverts, but they
| felt that the risk was too great to put
stone whose durability were not estab
lished beyond doubt, in abutments
that cost 81, 600 or more. | said that the
contractors who put up those abutments
could not buy those Marks stone, and [
say now that even if the Marks stone
had not been rejected they could not
have been bought by any one unless Mr..
Delap had an interest in the contract
for building the abutments, and in proof
of which 1 submit the following letter,
the original of which am ready to pro-
duce at any time:
0SNABURG, o., Dec. Ia, 1883.
MIR. j. G. GERwIG-Sir: Ireceived your
letter last week, and of course too late