Illinois )
Legis. )
SENATE.
äl2th Assen.
2d Session.
FEBRUARY 19, 1841,
Read and laid on the table.
REPORT
of the
SELECT COMMITTEE,
appointed to investigate the contracts for the improvement
of the upper rapids on rock river.
Mr. Gatewood, from the select committee appointed to investigate the
contracts for the impioveinents of the Upper Rapids on Rock river
have again had the same under consideraiion, and after having dili¬
gently heard further testimony, and statements made under oath by
Messrs. Gilbraith and Nichols, have arrived at a different conclu¬
sion from what they did arrive at in a former report. The com¬
mittee therefore, respectfully ask leave to withdraw from the files the
report of the committee wherein were expressed the opinions of the
committee on evidence they had then heard, and in lieu thereof sub¬
mit the following
REPORT:
The imputations upon Nichols and Gilbraith in procuring the contract
that was made and signed by John Dixon to and with E. G. Nichols, by
supposed alteration of the bid, seems not to be well founded. The copy
of the bid as sworn to and by which the committee were chiefly guided on
this part of the subject, together with the quantities was not a true copy
of the bids found on file, a transcript of which bids on file is herewith
reported to the Senate.
It is not easy for the committee, and in truth, it is impossible to say that
Nichols's bid was not the lowest, unless they had the estimated quantities
of work to be done, such an estimate is the only guide for the engineers, in
making calculations, by which the lowest bidder is to be ascertained, such
probable estimates are always made, and in all other cases have been
filed by the engineer, but in this case none has ever been filed in the
office of the Board of Public Works. The committee enquired for such
[434]
2
an official statement, of Stepheiç J. lankiewjçz, Clerk in the office of the
Board of Public Works, viho stated on:Oath that no such estimate was to
be found on file. Mr. A. J. Douglass of Cook county was examined, who
stated that he had a copy of the original specifications, but that the same
was among other memorandums at his own house.
The bids on file, the Senate will observe show the great difference for¬
merly complained of and from which the State has lost so large a sum.
It will be borne in mind that there has been paid near ^42,700 for work
underthiscontract, while the same work if done under the bid of Daniel
Sterling, Mix &■ Co. would have amounted at their prices, to $21,860 50;as
glaring as this appears, it is not satisfactory, without the probable esti¬
mate of quantities of work, before referred to, could be obtained; but for
reasons unknown to your committee and which they cannot arrive at, or
perhaps by accident, it is pot tO; be; found. Official duty would seem to
have been in this iristahce disregarded, and as yoür committee have done
injustice to Gilbraith in their former report, as well as Nichols, they would
now refrain from making any expression of opinion, on this subject, but
respectfully recommend the matter to the attention of the Attorney
General.
In regard to Mr. Sanger, whose name was mentioned in a former report,
no testimony was heard in the former examination imputing to him any
improper conduct, he was only mentioned in connexion with Mr. Nich¬
ols and Mr. Gilbraith as being a partner with them, in the performance
of the work, and no person has signed the contract, but Mr. John Dixon,
Commissioner, and E. G. Nichols.
Accompanying this report will be found the testimony taken on the late
examination together with letters laid before the committee. All-of which
is repectfully submitted, and the committee ask to be discharged from the
further consideration of the subject, with leave to submit the following
resolution:
Resolved, That the Attorney General take such steps to investigate the
contract for the improvement of the Upper Rapids on Rock river, made by
John Dixon with E. G. Nichols, June bih, 1839, as he may think best
calculated to arrive at correct information.
A.
Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed to exandne into the
contract entered into June the 8th, 1839, by E. G. Nichols, with the late
-Commissioner of the 7th Judicial Circuit, for the improvement of the
Upper Rapids on Rock river, and that said committee have power to send
for persons and papers, and after collecting the testimony, to report the
same to the Senate.
[435]
3
B.
Wednesday, 23(Í, December, 1840.
Commitee, consisting of Messrs. Gatewood, Harrison and Hamlin met,
and organized and proceeded, when Frederick R. Dutcher appeared arid
was sworn,
Stated that papers before us, (being copies of bids for the work,) pre¬
sented to us. Were true copies of the Lids on file in the office of the Bbai-d
•f Public Works, copied by himself with prices as then filed.
Q. Do you know what was the reason that Nichols got the bid?
A. There were many bidders for the work on the Upper Rapids on
Rock river, and many present. After the work was let out to Nichols
the amount of bids was generally known, and Nichols stated to witness
that his bid was below the erigineer's estimate, which was about $55,000
as he understood.
Q. Was the contract signed at the time of bidding?
A. The bids weremade29th May, 1839, the contract is dated the 8th
Jrine, 1839. Mr. Nichols stated to witness in December, 1839, in the city
of Springfield, that he had just got his contract signed.
Q. Do you know the handwriting of the contractas signed?
A. It is in the handwriting of Smith Gilbraith, who was understood
to be the private secretary of Mr. Dixon, at the time[of the bids, and paid
by the ' State.
Q. Was Smith Gilbraith at any time after the bids or date of said con¬
tract concerned in the work?
A. Some time in the month of January, 1841, about a month after
Mr. Nichols had told me that he had just got his contract signed, witness
was in company with Nichols, and either on the way up from Spring¬
field to Dixon, or at Dixon. Nichols told witness that he had let Smith
Gilbraith have a part of the contract before spoken of, and after this last
conversation, Gilbraith has been engaged in and about the Rapids and pur¬
chased lumber for the shantees, &c.
Hiram P. Woodworth, sworn,
Q. What do you know of the letting the Upper Rapids improvement
on Rock river?
A. I was principal engineer on the northern division and examined all the
estimates made by resident engineers. I assisted the commissioners at the
letting in May, 1839, of improvement of the Upper Rapids on Rock river.
I am confident that the bill purporting to be the bid of E. G. Nichols,
was the lowest bid at that time, and I know by my estimate that it was
lower than the estimate which was under $60,000. After the work
was declared toE. G. Nichols, the bids were left with Mr. Dixon and
Smith Gilbraith, then, as I understood the secretary to Mr. Dixon.
Q. Do you know any thing of said Gilbraith being concerned in this
work?
A. I know that after the letting, Gilbraith was a partner in this work,
but when he commenced I do not know.
Q. The bid of Nichols as appears by the bond for 25,000 cubic yards
of loose rock was $1 56 per yard; would you have declared the bid in
favor of Nichols at that price?
A. I would not.
[436]
4
Q. By whom are the contracts made out to be signed?
A. By the commissioner or his secretary.
Samuel M. Bowman, sworn,
Q. In whose handwriting is the contract written, signed by E.
Nichols and John Dixon as commissioner for the improvement of the
Upper Rapids on Rock river?
A. By Smith Gilbraith, with whose handwriting I am well acquain¬
ted, and who was at the time of the letting in May, 1839, and until Mr.
Dixon went out of office, the Secretary of Mr. Dixon, Commissioner of
Public Works.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Gilbraith Was ever interested in this
contract?
A. He was, and I understood his partnership commenced at Springfield
in the winter of 1839 '40. Gilbraith told me that he had settled up and
that he had made about eight thousand dollars on the contract, as I un¬
derstood him to say; he further said that Nichols, Sangerand he, Gilbraith
were partners.
Q. Did you ever hear Mr. Dixon say any thing about the contract?
A. Afterwards, having heard that it was supposed that there was some
fraud in the contract, I mentioned this information to Mr. Dixon and
asked him how it was; he told me the engineers, as he supposed informed
the commissioners, which was the lowest bid, and they declared that Mr.
Nichols's bid was the lowest, and that although the contract was not
signed at the time, yet he supposed it was in accoidance with this
bid, and I understood him to say that if that was not the case he was
deceived.
a
Amount of work let at Dixon, May Q,9th, 1839, for the improvement of the
Upper Rapids of Rock river.
Guard Lock.
1,022 cubic yards of masonry.
3,736 lineal feet of timber.
5,952 square feet of plank.
1,972 pounds wrought iron work.
1,360 " " cast "
Canal.
76,000 cubic yards earth excavation.
25,000 " " loose rock,
6,200 " " solid "
1,500 " " " " under water.
7,700 " " embankment.
3,736 " " slope wall.
50 chains clearing and grubbing.
5 [437J
Contract purports to be entered into June 8th, 1839, and was not
signed until December or January, at Springfield.
Amount of Cooper, McFarnin & Go's, bid - $56,739 00
Henry Weed & Co. " - 61,570 2S
Sterling, Mix & Co. " - 54,207 80
E. G. Nichols & Co. " - 77,540 00
E. G. Nichols & Co. have received for work
done on contract according to Engineer's
estimate.
$42,700 60
Henry Weed ¿f Co's. bid for Guard Lock.
1,022 cubic yards of masonry,
3,736 lineal feet of timber
5,952 square feet of plank
1,972 pounds wrought iron work
1,360 " cast " "
Gate
$14 00
17
13
25
10
$900 00
For Canal.
76,000 cubic yards earth excavation
25,000 " " loose rock
6,200
1,500
7,700
3,736
50
17
60
20
75
loose
" " solid " 1
" " " " under water 1
" " embankment
" " slope wall 1 75
chains clearing and grubbing at
$3 50 per 100 feet
$14,308 00
635 12
773 76
493 00
136 00
900 00
$16,872 28
12,920 00
15,000 00
7,410 00
2,625 00
6,538 00
175 00
$61,570 28
Cooper, McFarnin Sf Co's. bid for Guard Lock,
1,022 cubic yards of masonry - $9 50 - $9,709 00
3,736 lineal feet of timber - 24 - 906 64
5,952 square feet of plank - 9 - 535 68
1,972 pounds wrought iron work - 24 - 473 28
1,360 " cast iron " " - 14 - 190 40
Gate - - - - 12,000 00
$13,014 00
[4381
6
For Canal.
76,000 cubic yards earth excavation
25,000 " " loose rock
6,200 " " solid "
1,500 " •' " " underwater
7,700 " " embankment
3,736 " " slope wall
50 chains clearing and grubbing
Sterling, Mix Co's. hid for Guard Lock.
1,022 cubic yards of masonry - ^8 00
2,736 lineal feet of timber - - 14
5,952 square feet of plank - - lOè
1,972 pounds wrought iron work - - 25
1,360 " cast « <i . . 13
Gate - - 400 00
For Canal.
10 19
- 14,440 00
65
- 16,250 00
89
- 5,518 00
1 95
- 2,925 00
20
- 1,540 00
75
- 2,802 00
5 00
254 00
$56,739 00
$8.176 00
524 04
624 96
493 00
176 80
400 00
$10,394 80
76,000 cubic yards earth excavation $ 20
25,000 " " loose rock - 60
6,200 " " solid " - 1 00
1,500 " " " " under water 1 75
7,700 " " embankment - 18
3,736 " " slope wall - 75
50 chains clearing and grubbing 10 00
$15,200 00
15,000 00
6,200 00
2,625 00
1,486 00
2,802 00
500 00
$54,207 80
E. G. JVichols^s contract, as filed, for Guard Lock.
1,022 cubic yards of masonry - $8 95 - $9,145 90
3,736 lineal feet of timber - - 40 - 1,494 40
5,952 square feet of plank - - 20 - 1,190 40
1,972 pounds wrought iron work - 20 - 395 40
1,360 « cast " " - 10 - 136 00
Gate - - - $1,100 00 - 1,100 00
$13,461 10
7
[439]
For Canal.
76,000 cubic yards earth excavation $0 17 - 12,920 10
25,000 " " loose rock - 1 56 - 39,000 00
6,200 " ' « solid " - 90 - 5,580 00
1,500 " " " " under water 1 60 - 2,400 00
7,700 " " embankment - 24 - 1,848 00
3,736 " " slope wall - 75 - 2,802 00
50 chains clearing and grubbing - 3 00 - 150 00
$78,161 10
Note.—The bids in this paper were sworn to be true copies from the
bids on file, in the office of the Board of Public Works, by F. R. Dutcher.
WM. J. GATE WOOD, Chairman.
December 23, 1840.
D.
The undersigned, in answer to the several enquiries, propounded to him
by the committee of the Senate, sitting on the matter of complaint, says:
To the first enquiry, that he was one of the commissioners, at the let¬
ting of the contract on the Upper Rapids cf Rock river.
To the second enquiry, that he believes that Smith Gilbraith was the
secretary or clerk of the commissioner of the sixth judicial circuit at the
time of the letting of the said contract.
To the third enquiry; That he never knew or heard, until within
two or three days since, that Smith Gilbraith, was interested in the said
contract.
To the fourth enquiry; That the said contract was let to the Messrs.
Nichols, because theirs was the lowest bid, so distinctly understood and
ascertained at the time of the letting.
E. PECK.
Springfield, December, 1840.
Sworn to before me,
Wm. J. Gatewood, Chairman.
E.
Questions to John Dixon.
Ist. Were you sole commissioner on the part of the State at the '•let-
tings" on the Upper Rapids of Rock river on the 29th day of May, 1839 ?
2nd. in giving out the contract for the improvement of those Rapids,
Was it your determination to give the contract to the lowest .bidder?
3d. Why was it that in the contract with E. G. Nichols, the article
of "25,000 cubic yards of loose rock" was let to Nichols at the price of
$1 56 per cubic yard, when there were bids for the same article as low
as 65 and 60 cents per cubic yard?
[440]
8
4th. Had you a private secretary at or subsequent to these lettings?
Who was he? What were the duties he performed, and how long did he
continue to act as such?
5ih. Who drew the contract between yourself as commissioner and
E. G. iSichois, and was that contract carefully examined by you previous
to your signing the same?
6th. When was the contract of E. G. Nichols signed?
7th. Was Smith Gilbraith at the signing of the contractor subsequent¬
ly, interested therein, and to what extent?
To Mr. John Dixon,
Sir: At a meeting of the select committee appointed to investigate the
contract for the improvement of the Upper Rapids on Rock river, between
yourself, as commissioner, and E. G. INichols, 1 have been directed to pro¬
pound toyou the foregoing questions, and your answers thereto under oath
are required, as speedily as circumstances will possibly permit.
With your answers, be pleased to return this sheet.
Respectfully,
WM. J. GATEWOOD, Chairman.
Senate Chamber,)
Dec. 23i, 1840. j
In reference to the foregoing questions, I, John Dixon, answer as fol¬
lows:
To question 1st, answer. 1 was not; Mr. Peck, Commissioner of the
7th circuit was associated with me.
To question 2d, answer. It was my determination to give the contract
to the lowest responsible bidder, and as well as my memory serves me,
there were many responsible bidders.
To question 3rd,answer. If that is the case, and it swells the aggre¬
gate amount of the bid for the whole contract beyond that of others, it is
evidently an oversight or a fraud. My intention was to give it to the
lowest responsible bidder, taking the aggregate of all the items and com¬
paring it with the quantity reported by the engineer.
To question 4th answer. Mr. Smith Gilbraith was clerk in this cir¬
cuit during the whole time that I was acting as commissioner, he had
charge of the office and kept the books, but had no right by virtue ofthat
office, in the management of the Engineer's office, where the bids are re¬
ceived and the contracts executed, after which it would become his duty
to have them sent to Springfield.
To question 5th, answer. 1 do not know who drew it. It should have
been the business of Mr. Blanc, the resident Engineer, but there were
a great many to draw, (the Rail road letting having taken place the same
day.) 1 do not recollect whether or not 1 examined it before signing.
To question 6th, answer. 1 do not remember.
9
[441]
To question 7th, answer. I have no means whatever, by wliich to form
an opinion whether or not he was interested from tiie first, it has been
generally understood through the country during the last summer, that he
was interested, butas to what lime lie became so 1 luivo no conjecture.
I knew of nothing wrong respecting it, and it consequently made no im¬
pression upon rcy memory.
JOHN DIXON.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 2nd day of January, A. D.,
1841.
ISAAC S. BOARDiVIAN,
Clerk Co. Com. C. Court, Lee Co.
F.
Questions to be asked A. J. Douglass.
ist. Were you at the letting of the contract for the improvement of tiie
Upper Rapids on Rock river at Dixon in May, 1839?
2d. Were you a bidder either on your own account or in company with
others for said work?
3J. Do you know or have you any means of knowing tiie amount of
work let. or the amonnt of the ditf,;rent items in thes pecitications, if so,
where did you procure this information, and where is the original spe¬
cification?
4th. What was the amount of yourbi 1 in the aggregate?
5th. What was the price bid by you for the different items of work let?
5 6ih. By what means did you arrive at the aggregate amount of your
bid?
7th. Have you the original specifications of the amount of work let and
what was the amount of loose or quarried rock in said specifications?
8th. Did you not understand from the engineer's and commissioners at
the time of the letting that Nichols bid was the lowest?
9th. Can you state to the committee the probable estimate of the quan¬
tity of work to be let?
Answers to interrogatories propond.ed by the Investigating committee of the
Senate.
Answer to 1st interrogatory. I was.
Answer to 2d do. I was.
Answer to 3d do. I have the means of knowing the amount of
■work let according to specifications.
2d. I also have the means of knowing the different items in the spe¬
cification.
3d. 1 procured my information from a specification posted in the office
at the time of the letting.
4th. Where the original specification is I do not know.
Answer to 4th interrogatory. The amount of my bid was about fifty-seven
thousand dollars.
d3
[44-2]
10
Answer to 5th interrogatory. I am unable to state from memory.
Answer to 6th do. By multiplying the quantities set forth by the
specifications by the price at which 1 offered for the work.
Answer to 7th do. 1 have not the original specifications of the
amount of work let. The quantity of loose rock was between 25,000 and
26,000 yards, 1 think.
Answer to 8lh interrogatory. I did.
Answer to 9th do. I am unable to give the different quantities of
the several items of work let, from the fact that my memorandums are
not here.
A, J. DOUGLASS.
Sworn to and subscribed before the committee, February 12,1841.
WM. J. GATEWOOD, Chairman.
G.
Questions pi-oponnded to Mr, Thomas Beale, and answered under oath,
Tobe read as evidence before a select committee of the Senate of the
State of Illinois, appointed to enquire into the contract with E. G. Nichols
for injproving the Upper Rapids of Rock river.
Question 1st. Were you present with E. G. Nichols at the public let¬
ting of the Upper Rapids of Rock river, held at Dixon on the 29th day of
May, 1839, when he made out his bid for said work? If so, state what you
know in relation to his prices for rock excavation.
Answer. I was present while Nichols was making out his bid, but do
not recollect whether 1 saw it. 1 was told by Nichols at the time that he
had bid one dollar and fifty cents for loose, and ninety cents for solid rock.
He gave as a reason for reversing the usual method of bidding, that he
had once obtained a contract in that way on the Illinois and Michigan
canal, and believing that there would be a larger amount of loose and less
solid rock than had been estimated by the engineer.
State of Illinois, ss.
Thomas Beale, being duly sworn, doth depose and say, that the answer
to the questions propounded to him, on the other side written, are (rue
to the best of his knowledge and belief.
THOS. BEALE.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 5th day of January, 1841.
THEO. W. SMITH,
Justice of the Sup. Court, 111,
11
[443J
H.
Springfield, 111., January 31, 1841.
To Hiram P. Woodworth, Esq.,
Sir: You will please make answersunderoath before a justice ofthc peace,
in your county to the following interrogations to be read as evidence be¬
fore a select committee of the Senate, to enquire into the contract of
E. G. Nichols for the improvement of the Upper Rapids of Rock river.
Question 1st. Weie you at the letting of tiie improvements of the Upper
Rapids of Rock river held at Dixon !29th May, 1839?
Answer. I was present at said letting.
Question 2d. Do you know what E. G. Nichols' bid for loose rock was
per cubic yard?
Answer. I do not recollect.
Question 3rd. Do you know Nichols' bid was not $1.56 per cubic yard?
Answer. I do not. It might have been $1.56 and still in the aggre¬
gate his bid might have been the lowest.
Question 4th. Do you recollect whether the quantity of solid or loose
rock upon which the calculation was based was the greatest?
Answer. I do not. I recollect, however, that previous to the com¬
mencement of work, my impressions were that there was more solid than
loose rock.
Question 5th. Were there nota great number of bids received at said
letting, in the calculation of which several Engineers were engaged, each
calculating a separate bid, and exhibiting the agrégate amount of each,
upon which the commissioners awarded the contract?
Answer. There were several Engineers employed in summing up the
bids. Among whom was Mr. Clark, resident at Dixon ; Mr. Blanc, who
had charge of the Rock river improvements, and L. H. Woodworth, res¬
ident engineer at the Rapids.
State of Illinois, 1
La Salle County, j
Hiram P. Woodworth, being duly sworn by me, deposeth and saith
that the answers to the within questions by him made, are true to the
best of his knowledge and belief, and further saith not.
H. P. WOOD WORTH.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 3d day of February, 1841.
HARVEY LEONARD, J. P. La Salle County.
H.
Statement of Smith Gilbraith,
And sworn to by him, to be read as evidence before the select com¬
mittee of the Senate, appointed to enquire into the contract of E. G.
Nichols, with the State of Illinois for improving the Upper Rapids of
Rock river, and in relation to his secretaryship to the commissioner of the
6th circuit, and in relation to his interest in said contract.
[444]
12
First, m relation to Nichols' bid on file with the Treasurer ofsaid State,
and accepted by the cominissioner of tiie 6ili circuit on the 2ythot Alay
Í8d9, thefii-it time that ever 1 saw said bid was at the city ol Spnngheid in
November or December, 1039, when it was handed me by John Dixon,
with request to make out a contract tor the above mentioned work, ac¬
cording to said bid, with directions to date the contract Sth June, 1839,
which 1 did according to said bid and directions, which was careluily
examined and compared by Messrs. Dixon and Nichols belbre executing
llie same.
I was Mr. Dixon's secretary during the whole time he acted as com¬
missioner, my duties were to copy into books ail tlie estimates of Engin¬
eers, paid to contractors by him, and to do such other writing as he should
direct. But no papers whatever, appertaining to his otMcial acts were de¬
posited with me, or in any way wliere 1 could have access to them more
than any other citizen.
The bids for said work were never in my possession or exhibited to
me or seen by me, until handed me by Mr. Dixon, as albresaid, to the
best of my knowledge.
In relation to the contract, Mr. Dixon requested me logo with liim to
the Rapids, some time in the month ol June or the lore part of July, 1S39,
to execute Nichols' contract; when we arrived Mr. Dixon asked Nichols
it he had got the papers. Nichols said he had not. Mr. Dixon then said
that Blanc must have them, at the Lower Rapids. Therelore, they coula
not execute the contract. Mr. Dixon told ixichols to go on with his
work the same as though he had a contract, and he would make out his
contract as soon as lie could get his papers Irom Blanc, and the delay of
the contract should make no difference with Nichols, and Nichols went
on with the work.
Mr. Bianc was employed as Engineer by^ J. W. Stephenson,in 1837,
to take charge of the Rock river improvement, he meandered the river,
and prepared the work at the Lower and Upper Rapids for contract,
which were both let in the spring of 1838. The Upper Rapids were let
tobe improved by dam canal and lock, after which letting the commis¬
sioner ordered the Upper work to be abandoned, lor reason that the
appropriation w as not sufficient to complete both w orks. Mr. Dixon,
commissioner, successor to Mr. Stephenson, in the spring of 1809, order¬
ed Mr. Blanc to prepare the Upper Rapids improvement lor contract.
Mr. Blanc was employed at the Lower Rapids, and came up but a day
or two before the letting; when he arrived' Mr. Dixon told tiim that he
had concluded to alter the plan of improving said Rapids by dispensing
with the dam, and make a eanaljock and guard lock, to which Mr. Blanc
replied, that he would not have time to lay off the work and make plans,
before the letting; but said the work could be let, and the plans could be
made after the work was let; he then went to the Rapids and continued
his centre stakes from where the dam had been previously located, to the
head of the Rapids. Immediately after the letting the work was put
under the charge of L. H. Woodworth, Engineer, who has frequently
told me that he had never been furnished with plans for said canal or
locks; also that he had been obliged to change Blanc's" centre stakes by
13
[445J
carrying them further on to the bank, which would increase the quanti¬
ty of excavation.
As to tny interest with Nichols in said contract. The first that I re¬
coiled of ever talking with him upon this subject wasat iSpringfield, after
the contract was made, at which time Nichols requested meto take an
interest in his work, as he had not the necessary means to carry on said
work as rapid!}' as he would like to do. I told him I thought I would,
but could not say what interest, until I went home. The matter stood in
this way until the April term of the circuit court, when I made a bar¬
gain with Nichols for one-fourth of his contract, and until then I had
made no positive agreement wltatcver for said interest. Ard, that we
have now set led up our partnership, and 1 have no interest at this time
in said contract.
SMITH Gli.BRAITH.
State of InniNois,
Sangamon County,
Personally came before me Smith Gilbraitli, who after being duly
sworn, deposes and says, that the foregoing statement is true to the bestof
his kit).vied ge and belie/.
Sworn and subscribed (o before me, this 7th day of Februar} , 1S4J.
W.m. J. Gatewood, Chairman.
I.
Statement of E. G. Nicäols.
State of Illinois,)
Sangamon County ^
Personally came before the undersigned, E. G. Nichols, who after be¬
ing duly sworn, deposes and says that the bid now on file in the Internal
Improvement office for the improvement of the Upper Rapids of Rock
river, is in his handwriting, and the prices therein areas he wrote them,
and that no part has been altered or disfigured, iiut is now just as he.
made it to the best of his knowledge and belief.
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 7th day of February, 1841.
ERASTUS G. NICHOLS.
Wm. J. Gatewood, Chairman.
J.
H. P. Woodworlh to Mr. Sanger.
Peru, January 28/Ä, I84I.
Mr. Sanger,
Dear Sir; Yours of the 25th inst., is now before me. I have regretted
extremely that there stiould have been so much difficulty in relation to
the contract, on Rock river Rapids in which you were concerned, for 1 am
well aware that be there fraud and knavery or not, you are entirely inno¬
cent. I must acknowledge that while I was in Springfield, the subject
[446]
14
assumed a very suspicious aspect. When before the investigating com¬
mittee, 1 simply answered the questions put to me, without comment. I
was not asked for explanations, consequently deemed it improper to
make any. I labored under the impression, (believing the committee
would act upon some data) that the calculations before them in regard
to the amount of different bids were based upon the Engineer's esti¬
mate of material, &c. which was carefully made by Mr. Blanc, and ac¬
cepted by tlie Commissioner previous to the letting.
It was this estimate that guided in summing up the different
bids at the letting. It will be impossible for the committee to ascertain
the relative amount of the bids, without the engineer's estimate of quanti¬
ties; for example, suppose the Engineer's estimate gave 10.000 cubic yards
quarried rock, at $1 56 per cubic yard, it will make $15,600, if he gave
50,000 it will make $78,000, so it is plairi to be seen that whether Mr.
Nichols' bid was highest or lowest depends upon the quantities of materi¬
als given by the Engineer. 1 have never until the subject was agitated
in Springfield, thought for a moment that there was apossibility of wrong,
although I noticed the extravagant price for quarried rock, when the
first estimate to the contractor was presented for my inspection. I thought
at once that the bid was a ruse of the contractor, that he had noticed the
very low estimate of the Engineer on that material and bid accordingly, it
is not unfrequenfly the case. I mentioned this very circumstance to Air.
Nichols, which he will recollect, joking him for his sagacity, and asking him,
what he would do if the rock excavation, turned out to be solid rock, in¬
stead ofquarried. He replied, that that was not the reason, for his making
such a bid, that it was on account of some difficulty, he had had, or had
been acquainted with on the Michigan canal, when to hreak contractors
dcwn, Engineers had estimated solid rock instead of quarried. He said
he bid as he did to give them a chance to estimate so if they chose.
This conversation, mind you, took place after he commenced work, and Í
was called upon to sign the first estimate, for not until this time did I notice
the peculiai'ity of his bid. You say that calculations have been made
there, without the original estimate of quantities; this is wrong, and I am
astonished at it. If such is the case, J believe that my first understanding
of the matter was correct, and that Nichols' bid was the lowest.
I have no data in relation to that work except a copy of the contract,
and could throw no further light upon the subject, by direct testimony;
however, if it should seem necessary to have further testimony from me,
please have the committee write out the questions and send them to me,
audi will answer them before a magistrate in this place. Aly business
is sucli at this time, that I could not go down to Springfield. I hope,
therefore, that you will get along without me. If what you write me
is correct. I think there is no doubt of the result.
I understand that Burnett is the most prominent candidate for Chief
Engineer. He has the advantage of me by being on the ground, how¬
ever, I trust my friends will do all they can for me, audi place no little
reliance on yourself.
ilemember my compliments to friend Nichols, &c.
Yours truly.
H. P. WOODWORTH.
15
[447]
K.
H. P. Woüdworth to Mr, Gatewood,
YERV, January M, 1841.
Mr. Gatewood,
Sir: I understand by a communication from Mr. Sanger, that the case
in relation to the Rock river improvements is still unsettled, and one re¬
mark from him has led me to suspect that perhaps the data upon which the
summing up of the bids was predicated as laid before the committee was
entirely erroneous. When 1 was before the committee and understood
that by calculations made, it was ascertained that Nichols' hid was not the
lowest. 1 was astonished and could not account for it bi-t one way, not
even having the first thought but that your results were obtained by
comparing bids with the original Engineer's estimate. The same that
was used for a similar purpose at the letting and which was filed with the
bids in the central office. If I understand Mr. Sanger, Blanc's estimate
has not been found, "iou will readily perceive the impossibility of arri¬
ving at the same result with the commissioners at the letting without
this estimate.
At the time of the letting I did not notice the peculiarity of Nichols' bid,
and was not aware ofit until a year after the lotting, when his first esti¬
mate for work was handed me for examination and approval; I referred
to his contract and found it correct, and immediately concluded that he
had made such a bid on account of the comparatively small quantity of
loose rock, calculated upon in the original estimate. It is a privilege
the contractor has to take advantage of all circumstances relating to work
he bids for, and it is not an uncommon occurrence that the superior tact
and judgment of a contractor, will give him even more ad van tage over his
competitors, than that obtained by Nichols. I hope the thing will be
thoroughly investigated and all justice done the contractor.
With much consideration and respect, I am yours,
H. P. WOODWORTH, Civil Engineer,
L.
H. P, Woodworlh to Mr, Sanger,
Peru, February 4, 1841.
Mr. Sanger,
Sir: I forward to you by Mr. Mott, answers to questions proposed by
yourself in relation to the Rock river improvement. My answer to your
second query is that I do not recollect wiiat E. G.j Nichols bid on loose
rock. This will not seem strange to you when you recollect the great
[448]
16
number of bids 1 had to examine on that day. I am liable to confound
numbers when 1 rely upon my memory; hence, I never make a practice
of it when the figures are a matter of record. And further you ate aware
that 1 had lor some weeks, been engaged in preparing for the lettings at
Peru and the Central Railroad at Dixon, and was at that time preparing
for the letting of'A) miles of Road on the Mississippi, and under such cir¬
cumstances, I think no one could expect me to remen.her cither prices
or quantities which were or should have been made a matter of record
by the Commissioner. I have never considered the making of contracts
any part of my profession. I have, therefore, left that business entirely
to the Commissioners.
In relation to ) our fourth query, I was always of the impression that
there would be more solid rock excavation in this work than of loose
rock, and thought that in ail probability,stone suitable for Ihe locks would
be obtained in their excavation, and supposed that Nichols' impres¬
sions were the same from the (act of his very low bid upon masonry in
lock.
In relation to the calculalions upon bids, it is true there were necessari¬
ly several assistants employed. This is universally customary, ] believe,
and it is possible, not probable, that there might have been an error, or
oversight in some of the calculalions, if so, it is the first time that such a
thing over happened at a letting where I attended. 1 had a! ways believ¬
ed the young men who assisted in summing up, to be very accurate in their
caiculaiions. I was bound on account of the responsible situalions the
Commissioner had given tliem, to have all confidence in them until by
some act they should forfeit that confidence. One of the Engineers as¬
sisting on this occasion, I knew had iiad much experience at lettings, hav¬
ing assisted at all the principal lettings on the Black river Canal.
1 am puzzled to understand this business. I cannot believe there was
any error in sunimiiig up, neither can I believe that Mr. Nichols would
do or countenance any thing not strictly honorable. There were several
estimates upon this work made at ditferont times and for diflerent plans
of im()rovcinent. Are you sure that you have the estimate made for
the plan of improvement adopted, and approved and accepted by the
Co.mmi.ssioner, the identical one upon which calculations were predicated
in summing up?
There were estimates made upon that work, in the spring of 1838,
which were filed in the Ceiural Office. Estimates under which
Dutcher got a contract, which was subsequently abandoned. These
were made by Blanc, and were very different from the su!)sequent esti¬
mate- made for the re letting. I think the difficulty is, you have not tiie_
same data to go upon in summing up the bids that was'used at the let
ting.
Dutcher, I understand, was the first to examine these papers in the
office. He no doubt, had his objects to accomplish, and if by palming the
wrong estimate upon the committee,or even altering the tiue one, before
it reached them, he could gain his ends, be sure it was done. Look to this
and you may find the secret of your trouble.
Be sure also, that you have Nichols' bid summed up, with every item
bid upon, locks and all, then compare, them with the amount of other bids,
including the same items.
17
[4491
There may be bids for the work exclusive of the masonry, locks, &-c.
lower than Nichols', but the locks, &c. must go with the excavation, for
no contractor would take them without.
I wish this matter ferreted out, for I do believe that so far as Com¬
missioner, Engineers and Contractor are concerned, the business is all
correct.
With all respect and esteem, I am yours,
H. P, WOODWORTa
[450] 18
abstract of Proposals for the Canal and Guard Lock,
CANAL.
For earth excavation, per cubic yard
Cemented earth and grave), do
For loose roclt, do
For solid roclr, do
For embankment, do
For earth excavation, below water,)
per cubic yard J
For cemented e irth and gravel, do
For loose rock, do
For solid rock, do
For slope wall, including quarrying of )
the atone - - - J
For the same, if the stones are found )
in thé hank of the river and paid for>
as rock excavation - - j
For puddling, per cubic yard,
For grubbing and clearing, per lineal)
chain of 100 feet - - )
GUARD LOCK.
For regular coursed masonry, if stone)
be procured at the Rapids, per ou->
bicyard, - - - )
If from the quarry, one and a half )
miles above Dixon's - - )
For timber in guard lock foundation,)
per lineal foot - - j
For three inch plank, for foundation,?
per square foot, - - J
For sheet piling, per square foot -
For wrought iron—in straps, bolts,^
screws, collars, &c., and all other[
wrought iron about the guard lock,i
with the exception of spikes, per lb.)
For cast iron, including the capstan,?
wheels, and shafts, per pound - 5
For gates and mitre sills, inchtding the
timber & plank, framing, planking,
fitting the paddle gates, and all the
irons—doing all the work represent¬
ed in the drawing, and hanging the
gates, for the gross sum of
Edward Cody & Co.
;o 18
50
60
1 00
20
30»
50
60
1 00
2 85
1 25
40
5 00
etj
rt
Of
S
<!
A. F. Brown.
X
Pli
;o 20
34
1 00
1 75
25
30
1 20
2 00
1 50
50
1 00
10 00
Dated at Dixon.
Edward Cody & Co.
s
9
O
a
<
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
A. F Brown.
* J 1 20, for rock excavation under water, if any.
19
at the UpperRapids of Rock River, Dixon, May, 1839.
[451J
Michael O'Conner,
Day & Dorty.
$0 18
18
65
96
18
50
1 00
1 25
2 00
1 50
60
25
400 00
2 50
18 OOt
5 00
30
30
40
18
900 00
allov'r
a
300 ft.
sect'n
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
Mich'l O'Conner,
Jehiel Day,
Levi Dorty.
A. J. Douglass.
;0 16
I 00
67
I 22
1 CO
1 50
1 50
1 50
1 50
1 75
70
34
17 50
20
16
a
c
At engin
24
12è
1000 00
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
A J. Douglass.
J. L. Alexander.
John Cooper, John
H. M'Farran and
Edw. Southwick.
$0 13
64
94
1 40
20
80
1 00
1 14
1 70
1 56
60
40
24 00
7 00
9 00
14
•5
3
25
13
1000 00
a
d
ê
p
a
o
a
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
J. L. Alexander.
•c
Ph
$0 19
39
65
89
20
80
95
1 39
1 95
1 50
75
50
5 00
9 50
15 25
24
9
9
24
14
1200 00
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839,
John Cooper,
J. H. M'Farran,
Sd. Southwick.
t If cut, jointed, heded, and sized, according to the specifications.
{453]
20
ABSTRACT—
CANAL.
For earth excavation, per cubic yard -
Cemetiteil earth and gravel, do
For loose rock, - do -
For solid rock, - do
For eiiibanknient, - do
For eaih excavation helaw Water, per
ctibio yartj
For cemented earth and gravel do
For loose rock, do
For solid rock, tlo
For slope wall, including the qttarrying
of the stone do
For the satne, if the stones are found in
the bank of the river and paid for as
rock exctivation,
For ptidilllng, per cubic yard
For griibbitjg and clearing, per liueall
»bain o( lllO feet - J
GUARD LOCK.
For regular coursed masonry, if stone he)
procured at the Rapids, per ctibic y'd^
If from'ptarry, U miles above Dixon's
For timber in guard lock foundation, per)
linetil foot, - -
For three inch plank for foundation, per)
sqtiare foot - - .J
For sheet piling, per sqtiare foot
For wrought iron, in straps, bolts, col-\
lars, screws, &o., and all other wroughtt
iron about the guard lock, with the!
exception of spikes, per lb. )
For cast iron, inchidiug capstan, wheels,)
and shafts, per lb - J
For gates anil mitre sills, including tim ]
her and plank, framing, platiking, fit- |
ting paddle gates, and all irons, ihdng }-
■all work represented in the drawing, |
and hanging gates, for the gross sum of J
E. G. fi E H. Nichols
,V, Co *
0 17
.77
1 56
90
24
40
35
65
1 60
50
75
39
3 00
8 95
15 00
40
20
20
20
1150 00
S
<
Dated at Dixon,
iWiiy 29, 1839.
E. G. &E. H. Nichols
Co.
Frederick R. Dutcher
& Co.
$0 20
50
75
1 25
18
30
60
1 00
1 75
1 75
1 00
60
7 00
11 00
12 00
121
12
121
25
10
500 00
S
<!
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 18.39.
Frederick R. Dutcher
A ftr,.
* Their bid accepted. May 29, 1839.
JOHN DIXON, Comm'r.
21
[453J
Continued.
Daoiel Sterling, Mix
& Co.
$0 2(1
25
60
1 (JO
IS
35
50
1 GO
1 75
I 75
75
40
10 00
8 00
10 00
14
lOi
10 i
25
13
400 00
a
E
Tilomas Bealeai.tl
E. Diirijin.
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
Daniel Sterling,
Mix Co.
$0 16è
4tl
88
1 12
21?
65
75
1 UU
2 00
2 50
1 00
89
5 00
15 00
18 00
40
20
20
22
14
1000 00
3
<3
John Van .\rman &.
J:icb Stioenioker.
$0 17
30
80
1 20
25
44
1 00
2 00
2 79
3 50
2 50
40
10 00
5 50
16 00
17
15
25
16
400 00
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
Thos. Beale,
E. Diirein.
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
J.Van Arman,
J. Shoemaker,
VVillanl Earl & Co.
$0 20
45
70
1 15
19
35
55
90
80
80
1 10
65
8 00
11 50
13 00
14
15
14
25
15
400 00
Dated at Dixon,
May 29, 1839.
Willard Ear!
& Co.
I hereby certify that the above abstract contains a true copy of the original proposals
for the Canal and Guard Lock at the Upper Rapids of Rock River, filed in the office of
the Itite Board of Public Werks. STEPHEN J. XANKIEVVIEZ, Clerk.
Springfield, Illinois, February 9, 1841.
Sworn to, this 12th February, 1841.
WM. J. GATEWOOD, C.h'n Com. Investigation.