Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1900-02-11

those OF the Messrs. Hannaford, is very
and as this Is about all the
reference you make regarding the
'Statuatory Board. am informed by
my colleagues that they accept your
endorsement and have no reply to
make.
AS the balance of your lengthy arti
Gle, however, is a personal attack on
the writer, ask you in all fairness to
publish this brief reply.
do not remember, but probably did
say that l considered Yost & Packard
the best court house architects in the
country. was OF that opinion, and
am now convinced that such Is true,
since comparing their plans with 9TH
ers in competition. But notwithstand-
ing this, and the fact that | was per-
sonally acquainted with one of the
firm, Mr.. Yost, a reason given by you
as one for which would sell out the
county, | called on Mr.. Strecker, one
of the Commissioners, after he had
sent out the Letter to four architects,
and urged him to add another most
excellent architect, Mr.. Osterling, of
Pittsburg, to the list of the invited
competitors. Mr.. Strecker will verify
this statement Does this look as
though l had been bought by Yost &
Packard.
Now as the Commissioner trip to
Chicago and other points, the Board,
not on their own motion, but on the
constant urging of myself and other
members OF the Advisory Board, made
that trip. So am partly responbisle
for that trip, also that cost the coun-
ty some money.
AS to their trip through the state,
the Commissioners requested me to
make up one weeks route, which I
did, but which they did not take, but
changed it without my knowledge or
advice.
think you are mistaken, to put it
as mildly as l can, when you say that
one OF the members of the old Board
told you that l had changed their
route, etc. do not think that either
Mr. Grubb, Mr.. Randolph or Mr.. Had
ley will verify this statement of yours.
AS to Mr.. l. X. Roses connection
with the matter, know nothing about
and can therefore say nothing.
The only thing have to regret, If
true, is that Judge Jones, an innoce ent
stranger, through the grossest misrep-
resentation, and contrary to the advice
of your wise paper, appointed me as
the seventh member of the Court
House Board. Your eulogy CD of me
as a citizen of Marietta l am too mod
est to speak of, except to say, some
men have to run for Office or die be-
fore their virtues or good works are
mentioned, and in this connection, i
want to thank my friends. whoever
they were, for their very kind and
strong recommendations of me to
Judge Jones, viz: "The whole thing.
Now, as to the plans of Mr.. O'Nell
not being considered or his name men
toned when reviewing the plans, taa:
Is a square falsehood. Mr.. O'Nelll
.plans were carefully considered
measurements taken and the feeling
expressed by every one of the ''out Ilde
members" of the Board, that all things
being equal, o'Neill ought to have it.
We said so then, and we say so now.
You say, THE writer of the card sigC-
ed by the gentlemen, undertakes de-
fence of a suspicion that has existed,
that he and others were for Yost &
Packard, and would attempt yet TO Sc
cure the work by charging that the
Register was in deal, the inference
being that we were well paid, etc"
Here Is what We did say: AT the
same time 1t would not be out of place
to tell your readers if you know OF
any plan long since made, or more
recently made and expected to be car
ried through by the aid OF your val
liable paper" This is a simple, plain
question, and you have not answered
it yet.
Here is what you charged in your
editorial: 1T appears to be the abor-
tive elimination of a plan long since
made and expected to be carried
through by political influence, ETC."
l answer your insinuation, and will
make affidavit to it, If questioned by
you, and also secure the affidavit OF
Yost & Packard, as follows:
First, that know of no plan made
before or since my appointment, to
throw the work to Yost & Packard
Second, that l have no selfish, y
personal or financial interest in Yost
& Packard securing the work.
Third, that 1 have never, verbally
or otherwise promised Yost & Pack
ard my influence.
Fourth that had no choice in the
personnel of the architect and have
not now.
My one object has been, and is still,
to secure for the county the best and
finest looking court house possible for
the amount appropriated and believe
that the majority OF the Board have Sc
lected plan and style that will be
highly approved by the taxpayers
when completed.