The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1901-03-08
County Surveyor Hoover
Tells His Story.
HIS PLAN IGNORED
Excavated Three Feet Inste a d
of Five--Watson Got His
Authority From
Com missioner
Com missioner.

affidavit has been filed and made q
part of the papers in the case of the
state of Ohio against the commission
ers and others, to stop payment in the
Canal Fulton bridge contract. Mr..
Hoover states in his affidavit that the
contractor did not excavate for the
foundation of the bridge five feet be.
low low water mark. as required in
the specifications, and that when his
attention was called to the fact, he
stated that Commissioner Summers
had told him not to go lower than
three feet, lest he should strike quick
sand.
In the discussion of the bridge mat.
ter and in the affidavits of the com.
missioners, Architect Tilden and the
mayor of Canal Fulton, great stress is
placed on the fact that had Hoover's
original plans been carried out the level
of the bridge would have been so high
above the road grade that it would
have ruined the street and damaged
adjacent property owners. Mr.. Hoover
states that the bridge as built is one
foot and one-tenth lower than if it had
been finished as originally commenced,
and that by reason of not going down
to the depth he had planned an extra
!. course of stone was placed on the top
of the bridge by the contractor which
Hoover had him remove.
MIR. Hoover also AYERS that the COM
missioners knew when the plans were
originally accepted that the level of
the bridge would be above the grade
of the street, and that the approaches
or fills would not have been objection
able.
The commissioners claim that Hoov-
er advised the contractor not to go
lower with the foundation excavation,
and the affidavit of the county sur
yeyor raises question of veracity be-
tween himself and the commissioners.
The affidavit is as follows:
Before the undersigned authority
personally came John S. Hoover, who
being by me first duly sworn accord
ing to law, deposes and says, | have
n
ty, Ohio, for five years last past. In
the month of August, 1899, the affiant
was ordered by the county commission
ers of Stark county, Ohio, to prepare
plans for the construction of stone
bridge across the Tuscarawas river at
Canal Fulton in said county. After
making preliminary measurements he
prepared plans for said bridge which
provided for a stone bridge of three
segment arches, each having a span of
81 feet and rise of IL feet with abut.
I ments and 2 piers. The plan further
provided that the bridge have width |
of 80 feet with 26 foot roadway and
that the piers and abutments extend
8 feet below low water mark and
feet above low water mark or a total
height of 10 feet to springing lines.
Said plans also provided for depth Of
keystone of feet.
Affiant says that he also prepared an
estimate of the number of perches of
stone required in the construction of
said bridge; that according to his said |
estimate 1t required 1881 perch of stone |
at an estimate cost of $3.50 per perch |
or total cost of sS,651.50 for con-
structing said bridge. That said plan |
and estimate was adopted by the com.
missioners of said county and the plans |
for said bridge filed in the Office of the
auditor of said county with said esti. |
mate prepared by him at the time said
contract for the construction of said |
bridge was let and were the estimate |
and plan used and on file in said au-
ditor's Office and according to which !
(, the contract with the defendant Thorn
as Watson, was let. After the con-
tract was let permanent bench mark
was established and Watson was told |
to What depth excavations should be
made, but Watson did not excavate !
for the west abutment to the required |
depth of IS feet below water mark but |
instead excavated to a depth of feet |
below said water mark. | thereupon |
and before the foundation timbers
had been put in place. called Watson's |
attention to the fact { at he had not |
excavated to the required depth and /
he replied that County Commissioner |
j. b. Summers had directed him to go
no deeper as he might encounter quick |
sapd. No further excavation was made
Aut an extra course of stone about 2
1 feet thick was added to the top of the |
lEabutment which caused the arch frame |
work or centers to extend above the |
grade of the street higher than pro- |
'fYlded by the plan. called Watson's
attention to this fact and he thereupon |
removed this extra course of stone but |
y after the removal of this course of
stone he did not try the centers as pre-
usred by my plan in order that the |
ke2ghth of arches might be compared |
with the street grade.
Il u usual and customary In the con-
G<ruction of arch bridges to have
'1&9a1 roadway for the reason that if
4 fches are constructed on grade the
(1Rer arch when subjected to great |
might have a tendency to thrust |