New-York tribune., 1901-01-08
MONUMENTS FOR SHILOH.
CHARGES AGAINST THE OHIO CONIsus-
SIONERS
THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD REPLY Tc
THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM.

THE CHARGES AGAINST THEM
The plan TO erect monuments by the various
States on the battlefield of shiloh called forth
letter from George e. Harrison. in which .po-
litical intrigue, bribery and corruption" are
charged against some Of the men connected
with the undertaking
Mr. Harrison's letter and the answers Of sew
eral of the members of the Ohio Commission
which are given below. form an interesting
feature in connection with the shiloh monu-
ment scheme.
To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: The writer assumes that the construction Of
OF Shiloh is OF National Importance.
Battlefield Monument Commission appointed by a
Republican Governor OF the State of Ohio has been
has acted in exceeding bad faith in the execution
erai r. B. Brown president OF that Commission
and Mr.. Milton Turner. Of Columbus. one of its
Commission in indignation openly making charges
sgansiE tine ma10fsy & OF the members Of the
tracts which did not give intrinsic value for the
definite that jobbery prominent feature OF all
the negotiations attending this alleged competition
States strongy considered the question of with
have our own misfortunes here in the way Of ofi-
cial corruption charged alike against Tammany
been. alleged that either party has ever been
onS suity IN New-1or6 OF using m9rtusTy eonstruc-
tined 30 be disgrace to Ohio when it's vaior en-
titled it to the highest honGTs: ,
New-York. Dec 15 1900.
The members of the Shiloh Battlefield Com
mission are follows;
r.; Brown. president. John Mitchell. Port Clinton.
T.. J. Lindsey, secretary. y: R. Park. Ada Ohio.
washington C. h, Ohio Milton Turner Cambridge.
sidney. Ohio.
Copies Of Mr.. Harrisons letter were prompt
ly mailed TO them. and the following answers
have been received:
To the Editor of The Tribune
IS, Sir: M In reply to your favor Of INST It Is true
alleged contract for the monuments for the Shiloh
5at r NJ m ha s we sS the eo
Petitors but am not ,y without hope that Justice
what we esteem as a wrong shall have failed; I
deepy epIors the stnaon Serv rf fT I've vouTs
GAINESVILLE Ohio. Dec. 22 1899. r. B. BROWN.
To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: In reply to yours of 21st, in reference to
is fabrication Of falsehood Respectfully yours
Sidney, Ohio, Dec. "a, 1900 J. S. LAUGHLIN.
To the Editor of The Tribune
with In TePy 6 70 yoST 4o agSr Of the st instant int
closedl permit me TO state that General Brown OF
one connected with the shiloh Commission But
charges were freely made by competitors. regi-
ness and favoritisTn which thought were not en-
Ilfeiy without IOun0aUOn- so Wnen met. on
December ls. having in view the above charges
moved that we postpone the letting OF contracts
vestigation OF charges made. and offered in sup
port OF my notion copy o. & Letter sent out to
ing before final action taken contracts
eneTa Bro%n SGus BEING hg' in SCI the s Gne 20 @ To
fnally vacated The chair and seconded my notion
only Brown and voting In the affirmative We
tract. and did not We then appealed 20 the Gov
ernor for a hearing, which he has granted to US.
future action win be decided In conclusion. viii
6oIiticaI lines c;enerai Brown Is RepIbIican the
Editor and manager OF "Thc GAINESVILLE Courier. .
your humble servant is Democrat. and was a
candidate. for Secretary Of State in Hs4 on the
Democratic ticket Thanking you for your disposi-
ton to give every one fair hearing IN this matter
Cambridge. Ohio. Dec. q 1900
To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: The article over the signature OF George e
Harrison representing the Harrison Granite Com
Ohio Shiloh monuments, contains no word OF truth
in any particular The Ohio Shiloh Commission Is
partisan and composed Of three Democrats and
Hughes Granite and Marble Company OF Clyde.
Ohio because they were in every way the best
competitor that there could be no question in
awarding the S eSntrset to them This was done on
oughly examined and compared all the bids Of
vote IN awarding the contract to The Hughes COM
pany, and the statement that Brown and Turner
IL was Brown who first proposed 70 give the en-
tire contract 20 the Hughes Company.
/ After the designs submitted the COELfnlS-
sion employed three Of the best experts that could
be found and selected and submitted 1O9 designs 20
them, with instructions that they figure the exact
cost Of each monument 10 the contractor on board
cars where manufactured. These experts worked
thirty-fve days and submitted their report. which
furnished the basis Of awarding the contract The
law fixes the maximum price OF 1880 for twenty
four and $1,000 for nine monuments. II also
understood by both the bidders and the Commits
sion that the bidder giving the greatest value fOr
each class of monuments would get the contract,
and this TO be determined by the report Of the
the Harrison Granite Company selected: the rest
OF their designs would be a disgrace 90 a country
graveyard. For two 81 monuments the cost TO
them OF each was 1858 Is and soI2 20 and for one
900 monument the cost 20 them $2s1 10, while
the Hughes Company. for $500 monuments, aver
aged s1.224S and for $1,000. $SS4 s. The figures