Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-06-09
When the Reservoir Was
Z First Made it
COULDN'T BE FILLED UP.
Result Of n senrch Among ths Anfiquated
Records nc Harrisburs-How the Dam
Was Built and By Whom-Whaf IL Cost
and How IL Was Paid For.
rar.crAr rs1nesA,e 70 zee Disc Aron..

HARRISBURG, June s.-Among the an
tiquated records In the Office OF the Secreta-
ry Of Internal Affairs are interesting docu-
mentary "reminiscences of the period when
the State went into contract with j. x.
Moorhead and H. B. Packer for the con-
struction Of the Western Reservoir as a
feeder to the western division of the Penn
sylvania Canal, and from that time until
the completion of the work, ID years after
the enterprise was begun.
The land on which the big basin was
built consisted OF 424 acres and IS perches,
and was purchased from George Murray,
who owned 305 acres 108 perches of it,
Joseph Leckey, Philip Myers, Daniel
Baumgartner, estate of Conrad Frye and
Charles Smith.
The land on which the reservoir was
built was cleared of trees and other OBJ
structions at an expense to the State of from
$33 to $40 an acre. The iron necessary to
the equipment of the reservoir was
Furnished Under Contract
with Samuel Kennedy. According to the
specifications 100000 pounds OF pipe, 150,-
600 castings and $4,000 pounds of wrought
iron were used. There were to be five lines
of pipe, two feet in diameter. The size Of
the breastplates of the dam was feet by 6,
and 2 feet thick. The cast iron was fur
nished at 80 cents and the wrought at 8
cents q pound, the best Juniata charcoal
iron to be used in the materials.
The firm with which the contract was
made for the construction of the reservoir
was subjected to rigid regulations. 1t was
not only required to do its work in sub
stantial and workman-iike manner, but it
was held responsible for allowing any dis
order or intemperance among the employees.
The work was subject to the inspection Of
an experienced engineer and the supervisor
of the division. The plans show distinctly
the sluiceway which the South Fork Fish
ing Club is said to have closed. The
of drafting paper,
Resembles an Alligator.
The contractors were allowed for grubbing
and clearing, 81, 200; for common excsya-
tion, 15 cents cubic yard; solid rock, 90
cents; excavation of earth in the water, 81
cents; rock under the water, ST.; slate exca-
vations, 80 cents; embankment,25 cents;worn
stuff, 80 cents; and pudding, 38 cents. For
the masonry about the sluiees they were to
receive s6 43 per perch; slope walls, 81 Ga;
ANU TuODlS udSOHIN, 20 %.
The work was begun in 1840, and in 1912
it was abandoned because of the financial
crisis which lowered the standard of the
States credit On January 81, 1876, the
Legislature made an appropriation Of $780,
900 and $40, 900 for the completion, respect
lively, of the eastern and western reservoirs.
In this law was stipulation pro-
viding that the Canal Commissioners be
required to proceed with the completion of
the reservoirs with thes least prartieable
delay, by placing the same under contract,
after due and ample notice, to the
lowest bidder or bidders, and if the
Commissioners found 1t advantageous to the
Commonwealth, they were
Authorized to Have the Work Completed
by the appointment of superintendent
and workmen under their Immediate direc-
ton and supervision. Contractors Moor
head and Packer claimed that this act
sought to impair the obligations of the con-
tract made by the State with them, and in
sisted on finishing the work they had COM
meuced in 1910. The matter in controversy was
submitted in the communication from tie
Canal Commissioners in 1850 to Benjamin
Champreys (Attorney General under Gov
ernor Johnston), embracing a statement
of the contractors, who desired directions
from the Commissioners to proceed in con-
formity to their contract for the completion
of the western reservoir.
Among the stipulations of the contract
was one that Is per cent should be retained
as security until the first estimate was
made, within 80 days after the completion
of the work. In the opinion rendered by
the Attorney General he said that the posi-
ton was fallacious and untenable,
and that he did not think the
Canal Commissioners, in exercising their
discretion for the public interests from the
lapse of time since the suspension of the
work and the change in prices, would be
justified in renewing the contract. In 1851,
In their annual report, the Commissioners
Moorhead & Packer when they said: "The
necessity Of giving permanent character
To reservoir containing, when full, 480,-
000, 900 cubic feet of available water, pre-
vented a modification of the plan which it
was supposed might be made with view of
decreasing its cost"
The Cost of the Reservoir.
The cost of the work was estimated at
S10O, 900. In 1852 the Canal Commissioners
that the work was almost finished,
and that the reservoir had been constructed
in a most substantial manner, rejecting
great credib up0n tAo couGFdctorS anu o11i-
GERS having it in charge. In 1858 the main
line was opened for navigation on March 6,
and concerning the reservoir the Canal |
Commissioners, in their report, said:
The banks of the western reservoir being |
new, it was considered unsafe to ELL it to its |
capacity. At no time was the water more than
80 feet deep, Is feet lower than its capacity.
In 1854 the Commissioners reported two |
leaks in the reservoir, both of which were
easily repaired.