The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1898-11-01

privileges and emolumcnts appertaining 10
said appointment
In dischareing tbs duties under this COM
mission. the Inspector Is instructed to be
governed by the opinion OF the attorney
general, a copy OF which is lssrewith en-
closed. and TO review the work heretofore
done by the contractors, and when not done
In accordance vita the law or their contract
10 require all DEFICIENCIES and shortcomings
properly removed, so as to bring 1t up fully
| 10 what should have been done He Is
furtner instructed. whenever an inspection
Is to be made of work. to make II in the
presence OF the commissioners. or a ma
jority OF them. aird when he and the COM
missfoners or majority OF them, may
differ in opinion as to any point growing
| out of or connected with the work, that the
View Of the commissioners shall control
The said I. A. Washington is also in
structed, whenever an inspection is made,
to report his action through this Office, to
the office named in the law.
In testimony whereof l have hereto
signed my name pnd caused the seal Of
State to be affixed. at the city Of Austin,
this I'd day OF October, A. D. 1876:
(Signed) Richard Coke.
BY the Governor:
(S!gned) A. w. DeBerry,
| Secretary OF State.
az That under said act John Advance,
| H. G.. McNiel AMI j ). H.. Sh;,oard were
1 dppuIuAcN ny Tue EDNeTuOT 10 Az as, COM
missoners on the San Bernard river to
contract for and superintsid the CLEANING
out of the same, and that J. X. White, II !.
w. Bowie and Felix Gibson were appointed
like commissioners for Caney creek.
t5.) That j.. H.. Shapard and j. C.
McNiel. two of the commissioners for the
Bernard river made and entered into
| the following contract, to- wit:
State of Texas. County OF Brasora. This
indenture made and entered into this. the
Gath day of May, A. d. 1875. between John
Adrfance. J. c.. McNiel and j.. H.. Shap-
ard, commissioners appointed by his ex-
cellency Richard j. Coke. governor of the
| State OF Texas, to contract for removing
! distractions to the navigation OF the Ber-
rard river of tbs first part, and J. II I.
Dance and Andrew Bunker and such other
persons as the said Dance & Bunker may
| associate with them of the second part
witnesseth, that the parties of the first
| part have contracted with. and do hereby
| contract with the parties of The second part
to open and clean out a. channel in said
Bernard river az least sixty feet in width
by cutting or saving off, digging ont or
otherwise removing all distractions below
what is now considered low water for nayi-
CATION on said river
And the parties of the second part fur
thermore agree and bind themselves to
remove all obstructions 10 navigation in
| said river Up TO Underwoods bridge on said
| river and as much further up said Ber-
nard river as may be deemed advisable by
said board of commissioners or the engi-
| neer appointed by the governor of the
State OF Texas to inspect said improve
| ments of the Bernard river. And the par
ties OF the second part further agree and
hereby bind themselves to clear said river
| from all distractions to navigation from
the mouth Of said river UP to said Under
woods bridge. demanding payment of the
State under said law for all that portion
OF said Bernard river on which they may
| bestow or perform labor that is necessary
to the thorough ranoyal of all obstruc-
| tions to navigation of said river as re-
quired by the act of the legislature o, the
State of Texas. passed on the 18th day
| of March, 1875.
And further the parties of the second
| part agree wiuhin ten days from this date
| 10 give good bond and security in the
| sum of $4,000 conditioned on the faithful
| performance of said. work according to the
requirements of said law and also to COM
| pensate said commissioner for all loss of
| time, trouble and expense that they may
incur or be at In superintending the i'm
| provement of sold river, and to do and per-
| form all such things labor or work that
may be necessary to be done or performed
| in oader TO the complete execution of the
provisions of said act of the legislature of
| the State of Texas.
J. II. Shapard.
| j. C. McNieI.
| Commissioners
| Andrew Bunker
j. n. Dance.
| Contractors.
| Which contract was afterwards assigned
:" j. II Gibson before any work was
uone. And that a like contract in same
| terms was made by the commissioners for
Caney creek with said Gibson. or his as
| signs. with reference to Cancy creek.
| U) That under said contract j. ii. Glib
son worked upon Caney creek from its
mouth to Thompsons bridge the poin,
| where the work involved IN this suit on
! said creek began, and that his work WEE
approved by the acting engineer and GER
tificates issued 10 him for such work which
are not involved in this suit
| I'D That j. III. Gibson, under said con-
tract. also worked upon Caaey creek, pull
ing out and saving off snags in .he chan
mel and cutting down trees and overhlngng
limbs On the banks of said stream. from
Thompson's bridge to Gibson's plantation
which was The head of navigation on ssid
stream. distance of 10 "a miles, fol-
which he received the ITO certificates num-
bered from 44I to $50, both inclusive, In.
yolved In this suit.
49, That the commissioners appointed
to make the contnact as to CYnsy creek and
10 suPerintend and cantrol said work, dc
make the contract as set out in the fifth
finding herein, but they never saw, di.
rected, superinteEded. controlled or in any
manner designated where, CIR how an,
work was to be done uI.npr said contract
and did nothing but make said CONTRACT
and after said contractor claimed TO hay,
completed said work ON Cane. said com,
missionsrs, in company with the contractor
and engineer. T. a Washington. appointed
to inspect said work, did inspect the 10 s.,
miles involved in this controversy and sale
commissioners refused to receive or ap
prove said work MS hivira been done II
compliance with the contract therefor. ana
they never at any time approved or 40
cepted said work as satisfactory or i'm com
plisnce with the contract.
t9) That while work was done by sait
contractor on said CaOey creek for tn,
10 ga miles In controversy, vel he did no
open and clean ont a channel in said creel
sixty feet wide nor did he remove all OBJ
siruct'ons In said channel for the space o
sixty feet below what was then considered
too low wafer for navigation for such boat.
as then usually navigated said stream, no
did said contractor substantially do sucl
work or comply with fhe provisions OF sale
act.
AS TO this 10 IA miles the o5struct:oa
In The channel OF the same were nearly al
removed to point bsn'sath the surface o
the water by pulling come ous entirely an
saving Others off beneath the surface O