The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-01-01

stone and is generally used In that class
of work. Yours respectfully,
ID. c.. BORTON. c. f."
From the above measurements. the
commissioners have taken the county
surveyors report of 1859 perch. which,
at $5.81 per perch, the contract price.
equals $14.S67.79, in addition to which
was allowed $3.50. occasioned by rea-
ron of the multiplication, of plans of
the bridge. the total of which would
be s17,7O779, being the full price of the
bridge complete. 5000 of that amount
having already been paid.
From the above letters the deduction
can be drawn that the facts relative to
This structure are that the county has
across the Tuscarawas river In the vii
age of Canal Fulton, a well-built stone
arch bridge, containing In the neigh
borhood Of 1859 perch of stone, for
which It agreed to pay s5.sl per perch.
Certain statements have been made
% me with reference to this bridge
which IL Is proper for me to consider at
this time:
First--It Is said that this bridge cost
vice as much as originally intended.
I was expected in the beginning. and
the commissioners were informed and
understood and relied upon the fact
that the proposed bridge could he built
for something between eighty-fve hun
1red and ten thousand dollars. This
estimate. however. was in fact far too
small for the reason that 1t was based
upon measurements not founded upon
nor in accordance with the measure
ments of stone work as custom has
established.
Another reason, | am informed. why
The cost of this bridge was i'm excess uf
what any one originally thought 1T
would be is that when the bridge was in
process of construction an extra amount
IF stone was found necessary to proper
y take up the thrust of the arches and
o render the bridge a safe and sound
structure.
Again 1t Is said that the use of vitri-
fed brick i'm certain portions of the
structure in place of stone was an un-
wise move. and one which would result
ravorably to the contractor. Upon in
vestigation, / am informed by one en-
yineer that 1t would result more favor
ably to the contractor than the use
IF pure stone. and by another engineer
{ am informed that the use of brick
was at a financial loss to the contrac-
tor.
I am, however, informed by all en-
gineers and builders with whom l have
talked, that the use of vitrified brick
set in cement and sharp sand is superior
n work. of the kind under consldera.
ton, to pure stone. and that some of
he largest viaducts and bridges in the
country contain such material. All the
authorities and engineers consulted by
ne agreed upon that point.
Further 1t is aid that during the pro-
gress of the work some notifications
were made in the plans of this bridge,
to-wit: On or about September 7, this
fact should be taken advantage of as
n means of Debating Mr.. Watson in
his claim for compensation. The facts
n reference to this matter are that on
that date. when about two months or
more work had been done on this bridge,
and 1t was about half completed, GER
tain mis- calculations were discovered
with reference to the same. which alb
solutely necessitated the changes above
indicated. If the. work had not then
been allowed to proceed. great incon-
HNhiVitC anu NOulu nave re-
suited to the public by the delay, and
the contractor would have had a right
Of action for damages against the
county for not being permitted to pro-
ceed under his contract when the mis-
take In question was in no wise attribu-
table to him. What was done resulted
in the prompt and speedy completion of
the bridge ready for the use of the
public without any suit for damages
against the county by the contractor
and at practically the same cost as
would have been under the original
plan. .' 4
Agani. ! have heard that this bridge
should have had sidewalk or foot way
and that 1t Is not set at a proper angle
across the stream. and that the village
Of Canal Fulton did not need to have
so good bridge and one costing so
much money for their use
In reply to these latter suggestions.
am informed by citizens of Canal Full
ton that the use o fthis road Is very
general; that 1t Is situated on one OF the
most Travelled streets in the village. and
that the road itself Is one of the lead
ing highways in that part of the coun-
Try Ine ohter elements are ones over
which the contractor had no controle
and need not be discussed in this
opinion.
The above are substantially the oh
jectiOns that have come to my know
ledge concerning this bridge and hay e
investigated the same with the above
results. 1t therefore remains for us to
consider in what position the county is
placed with reference to the contractor,
T. H. Watson.
The legal relations of a county and
one contracting with 1t for the con-
struction of a bridge. are regulated in
this state entirely by statute. and the
Ohio supreme court has construed the
same In the case of the Buchanan
Bridge COMPANY VS.. Campbell. found in
the sixtieth o. $. report, page 4o6. which
provides: THAT a contract made by
county cOyn MI aaionars FOR tho purcb q @ a