The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-01-01
Prosecutor Day Says 1t Is All
Right But Was Not Built
Legally.
GIVES TAXPAYERS A CHANCE
ToEnI DIN the Auditor From Paying Money
In Excess Of the Estimates, But
Thinks the Contractor Ought
-. to Be Paid---Gist of
the ReDOrt.

hey X. III. Day made his report to Au4
ditor Reed relative to his investigation
of the Fulton bridge matter, the au-
ditor having asked for an opinion as to
whether he was authorized by law to
issue warrants upon the order of the
/, commissioners to 4. II. Watson for the
work done on the bridge. The auditor
has so far paid out $4,000. Prosecutor
Days report to him Is in substance as
. follows:
Canton, o., Dec. 81, 1900.
To the Auditor:
:. You have asked my opinion whether
you can legally issue warrants on the
treasury of Stark county upon certain
orders issued to T. II. Watson by the
county commissioners. dated October l.
November and December 10, calling
for an aggregate of $l2.207.79 in pay
ment for stone arch bridge at Canal
Fulton. erected by said Watson under
o contract with the commissioners.
'e An answer to your inquiry involves
q consideration of all the facts leading
up to and bearing upon the construction
of said bridge and the issuing of these
orders.
NtAn examination of the record shows
shat the commissioners duly advertised
for bids for bridge at Canal Fulton.
and. in response thereto received, among
oothers. from T. III. Watson bid to build
"a stone arch bridge as indicated by the
Eplans and specificati tions on file at S. 81
per perch.
Further the records indicate that
transfer of certain funds in accordance
with section S76 of the revised statutes
was made which enabled you to make
the following certificate, which had to
H.
contract could be legally entered intoi
ITO the County Commissioners, Canton,
Ohio.
"Gentlemen: In reply to your request
for statement and certificate as to the
condition of the bridge fund. do hereby
certify that after deducting all con-
tracts on file or entered on the journal
Tthe amount remaining amounts to s10,-
900 available for the use of building
bridges. Respectfully
'(SeaD WILLIAM REED,
~ Auditor Stark County"
The record further discloses that on
July 3, 1900 the commissioners entered
into a contract with Il. ii. Watson for
othe construction of said bridge at $5.81
aper perch.
The details OF the plan are given by
the prosecutor and the fact noted that
WdtSOn gave DOnu OF $lO,UUU IOr Inc
faithful performance of the contract
- 1t Is shown that Watson has been
cpaid on the work $5,0OO and that three
additional orders have been given by
The commissioners that have not been
I presented for payment. s. ...,,.f,
20 The resolution passed by the commits
fysioners declaring the plans as prepared
gby the county surveyor wrong and in
adequate, Is quoted by Prosecutor Day,
and the fact noted that thereupon the
commissioners sent County Surveyor ].
VS.. Hoover and Architect Guy Tilden to
Canal Fulton to take measurements
Z and correct the plans.
N' Their reports to the prosecutor are
embodied in two letters. one by the
county surveyor and the other by Ar
chitect Tilden.
rs Hoover's report shows that there was
e found to be 1853 perches of stone in
:, the work done, and then he takes up
this question propounded by the prose
cutor.
you ask me why II Ia that this
bridge which estimated would cost
in the neighborhood of $500 in the
T. beginning has cost several thousand
more?
my answer to that is. that II the
s masonry In my original plans had been
figured In the customary manner of
figuring stonework and the bridge az
drawn by me in the first place had been
built with as much weight and size as
the one that has been built. there would
have been no great difference in the
cost of the bridge as built and the cost
of the one originally planned by me.
~ Respectfully submitted,
.a JOHN S. HOOVER"
Architect Tiiden also stated his find
ings In a letter to the prosecutor He
reports that he found 1857 perches and
says that the structure is well built
and in accordance with the revised
plans. The letter says:
This work was let, not for lump
Z sum, but by the perch tot. II. Watson
for $751; and he has done a very cred
liable piece of work, and believe that
this bridge Is all things considered, a
wise and economical expenditure Of the
county funds"
The prosecutors report further says:
In addition to the two above engi-
2 neers sent by the county, I have sent
the city engineer from Massillon to
2 inspect this work and he writes me the
following letter:
Massillon, o., Dec. 20, 1900.
"Mr. Robert II. Day, Prosecuting Attor-
- ney Stark county. Ohio. s.t.A
Dear Sir: At your request have
examined the Fulton bridge and CAL
culated the amount OF masonry. The
measurements were made according to
the customary manner of measuring
masonry. I measured the exposed SUR
face and calculated the other measures
ments from the plar.s. find that the
:. masonry includes parts taken down and
4 trebuilt and amounts to 2.675N perch.
M II aiso examined the construction
and find II to be of good material and 4
we'll built ~ ~ 4
= regard q ne w. q br'ck nj tis