Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1899-09-26
BLUNDER OR NEGLECT :?
Continued From First Page.

The loss was reported to the County
Commissioners and they decided that
it was their duty to get at the bot
tom of Wash's dam. With this in
view Mr.. Thornton was visited
when the Commissioners viewed
the destroyed bridge. He adds spice
to the narrative. His conversation
with Captain Hiltabidle is entertain
ing.
A few days before the work of con-
struction commenced he says he was
visited by the Captain, who had been
deputized by Johnston to make the
arrangements for the pile of sand.
The following conversation ell
sued:
"Whose land is this?'' asked the
captain.
at belongs to me-" was Mr. Thorn
toms answer.
"Well, the State is going to build
a dam here
Suppose L object to its construc-
tion."
''That makes no difference to the
State. Why. don't you know that if
the State wanted to, it could cor,e
and take away the side of your
house. l knew that you were ig-
norant of the Jaw, Thornton, and for
that reason called on you. 1t was
not necessary that do SO, because
we could have commenced work
without saying anything to you at
all. But / thought would let you
know Just as favor
What would the State do if 1
should resist?"
To this. Captain Hiltabidle made
no answer. Instead he looked wise,
winked his eye and patted his hip
pocket. This little pantomime was
suggestive enough to silence Mr..
Thornton, and the conversation
ended right there.
In few days work was commenc-
ed on this remarkable example of
Wash .JohnstOn's craftsmanship"
as Col. Sanford calls it. 1t was COM
pleted at cost of $40O to the state.
But it was built upon sand and
the floods came and beat
against it and washed it away" The
next day it was announced by Wash
that unknown parties had malicious
ly destroyed the "big dam founded
on sand and built on sand" This
statement was made for the purpose
of releasing the state from liability
because of the loss of the county
bridge. The sand dam or as others
call it 1.-The dam sand" gave way
Friday night.
The following Tuesday Commits
sioners Moore and Fillius called at
the Office of Captain Hiltabfdle in
this city, where they found the canal
superintendent and Mr.. Johnston.
Col. Johnston seemed to be in ex-
ceedingly high spirits.
President Moore explained the OBJ
ject of the visit. The Board believ-
ed that the state was liable for the |
loss which had followed the break
ing of the dam. They were there to
demand that the Board of Public
Works build new bridge at Foun-
tain crossing.
Mr.. Johnston laughed at the idea.
He brought Mr.. Moore around to
his way of thinking in less time than
it takes to write it. His argument
was unanswerable. He thought it
was mighty bad policy for Repub-
lican office holder to antagonize the
Board of Public Works, especially a
member of it that stood in with the
"Office Holders Trust and Col.
Dick.
President Moore took the hint. He
had nothing more to say.
Mr.. Fillius, however was under no
obligation to Col. Dick or the
Trust Wash's bluffs did not
terrify him. He wanted to know why
the taxpayers of Summit county
should go down into their pockets
for $500 to pay for a bridge that was
destroyed because Wash Johnston
had ''built IA big dam founded on
sand"
Johnston claimed that the State
was not liable because the dam had
been cut by unknown parties, who
had written threatening letters of
then intention SO to do.
Mr.. Fillius then wanted 10 know
why the State, having knowledge of
this, had neglected 10 have the sand I
dam guarded. lie received no ans
swer.
During the interview Johnston got {
into towering passion at the sug-
gestion of Mr.. Fillius that the State,
and not the county, was liable for the
$500 expense OF repairing the bridge.
Mr.. Fillius stood firmly, however,
for the rights of the county's taxpay-
ers, but the support given him by his
two Republican colleagues was in
different at the best.
-Four days later the two Repub-