Democratic Northwest and Henry County news. [volume] (Napoleon, O. [Ohio]) 1894-1905, 1894-02-01
Comissioners of Henry Co., o
Engineer Sehwah Puts in an
Answer.

EDITOR NoRTHwEsT:-Allow me to say a
few words with reference to the statements
made by the examining committee of the
County Commissioners report, as published
last week, in which report said committee
AYERS that the Commissioners allowed ex-
cessive and oppressive fees to the engineer
of joint county ditch No. 700 and county
ditch No, TIC.
They also declare that the fees charged by
the engineer in these two cases are "Fair
specimens Of the charges in all other cases
of like character" This charge deny, be-
cause those two bitches were the most COM
plicated of any surveyed in this county for a
number of years, and consequently the en-
gineer's fees we're away above the average.
The reason why these two cases were singled
out among so many others is, no doubt, be-
cause to anyone not familiar with the his
tory of these bitches the fees charged seem
excessive, but if that was the case with the
committee why did they not examine the
records and get the facts.
The facts in these cases are simply these:
Joint county ditch No. 700, petitioned for by
Herman Holers, commenced on the line be-
tween Fulton and Henry counties, draining
n large scope of land in Fulton county and
enpties into Napoleon creek in Freedom
township, distance of little over three
and one-half miles.
June 18th, 1891. was appointed engineer
by the Joint Board of Commissioners and
ordered to survey said ditch and make my
report Icomplied with said order and sur
veyed and leveled said ditch, made two re-
ports comprising plats and profiles, one for
each county. Atthe hearing, parties living
| near the outlet claimed that the same was
not sufficient to carry off the water and ask
ed the joint board to continue the improve
ment until good and sufficient outlet was
obtained. The joint board thereupon order
ed me to survey and level down Napoleon
creek until where the same is crossed by the
| Wabash railroad. east of Napoleon, and
again report. This being done made the
whole len 9Th of the ditch trife over nine
miles.
My fees for all of this work, including
first report, amounted to $1s6. Then at the
next hearing the Joint Board of Commiss-
toner's cut of the ditch at stake 2o7, drop
ping little over miles, the upper end was
ordered sold and completed. My fees for
making final apportionment, selling labor
of construction, sale reports, experimenting
construction, etc., amounted to ST., so that
the total amount of fees I got out of the
said ditch is $257 aud not $42775 as report
ed by the examiners, who were appointed to
report facts and not falsehoods.
County ditch No. TIC was fully as compli-
Gated as joint county ditch No. 700. if not
more SO, having been ordered out three
times to survey three different routes before
it was finally settled and constructed.
If the examiners found my charges on all
county eitches excessive, why do they quote
only two, and if they did not find them all
excessive, why do they call the charges in
these two particu>sr cases fair specimens of
the charges in all other cases. The fact is
the two bitches quoted are not fair speoi-
mems but exceptions, and anyone doubling
my statements can examine the records Of
county ditchaz in the Auditors office and
convince themselves,
G.. N. SoHwAB.
Engineer.