REPORT
OF THE
SELECT COMMITTEE
RELATIVE TO
AN EXTRAVAGANT EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MONEY
ON THE
DELAWARE DIVISION,
TOGETHER WITH THE
TESTIMONY t55f,Tfr& SUBJECT.
MR. HECKMAN, CHAIRMAN.
Read in the House of Representatives, April 12, 1843.
II ARRISBURG:
M'KINLEY & LESCURE, PRINTERS.
1843.
UfNMftY
•one** m Wit WAY £C0«0*HCS
wagwmcroN & c
%, dauM^hintL
^6:
."P4
mJLj "31
REPORT.
Mr. Heckman, from the Select Committee appointed to investi¬
gate into the charge of an extravagant expenditure of money in the
repairs of the Delaware Division of the Pennsylvania Canal, made
the following
REPORT:
That they have carefully examined such papers and documents
within their reach as they conceived likely to contain information
relating to the subject referred to them ; and have also summoned
and examined as witnesses, several persons, who they supposed might
possess such knowledge of the manner in which the repairs on the
Delaware division of the canal were conducted, as would serve to
explain the reasons of so large an expenditure of the public money.
In reporting the result of their investigations, the committee will
forbear entering into long arguments or reasoning upon abstract pro¬
positions; but will confine themselves to such simple statements and
extracts from the testimony as appear to them necessary to support
their conclusions.
They would, however remark, that the enormous excess in the
cost of these repairs above the original estimates of the engineer,
furnishes another proof, in addition to the many already in existence,
of the evils arising from the practice of allowing too great a latitude
to engineers in their allowances for extra work beyond that which
is specified in the contract. The mere contract prices for these re¬
pairs seem not to have been generally unreasonable ; but the enor¬
mous amount of extra work, the extraordinary prices allowed for
some of it, and the suspicious readiness with which it was increased,
as well as the easy liberality with which the accounts of some appa¬
rently favoured contractors were settled, appear to your committee
to deserve the serious attention of the people of this Commonwealth,
who are now burdened with heavy taxes to liquidate the debts thus
prodigally contracted.
The contract for building the dam at Easton was signed by Solon
Chapin only, but your committee have no doubt James M. Porter,
Esq. was a partner to the contract; and indeed this seems never to
4
have been denied in Easton and its neighborhood. It is stated on
oath by the engineer, that Mr. Porter took a lively interest in the
work, and on one occasion sent for him to his office, where he told
the engineer they were building the abutments too well, and disputed
with him as to the meaning of the term " rubble masonry/' and
when told that the engineer was guided by the specifications of the
work, Mr. Porter said the specification would never stand good in
law.
The whole cost of said dam, which was built in 1840, agreeably
to a report made to the House of Representatives, in accordance with
the provisions of a resolution, passed on the 12th day of January last,
by the Hon. William F. Packer, Auditor General, was $34,755 20.
In this are included the following items of expense, caused by the
repairs of damages arising from the negligence of the contractors.
7,026 cubic yards embankment in breach, at 25 cents
per yard, $1,756 50
Masonry carried oflf in the flood, stone cast out of cribs,
labour and hauling back drifted materials, and preser¬
vation of the same, (estimated,) at 957 00
Repairs of work that was injured by the freshet, 798 48
Amounting to $3,511 48
That this expenditure was caused by gross negligence on the part
of the contractors, and a disregard of the orders of the engineer, is
apparent from the following extracts taken from the testimony of
Martin Coryell and John Boyle, viz : Martin Coryell says, " that I
was at that time the principal assistant engineer and had charge of
the dam that was then building; that I was absent at the time of the
freshet in 1840, on the north track of the Columbia railroad; but
by a copy of a letter which I have, I was at Easton about the first
of November last, and was informed that the two first courses of
the north abutment had been washed off. The damage done to the
work may be attributed to Chapin the contractor, for there had not
been a course of stones laid on that abutment since I was there the
time previous. He raised the comb of the dam before the abutments,
which was contrary to express orders. He also promised to have
a force of twenty masons in addition to the number then employed,
three weeks previous, making altogether twenty-eight; and would
have a gang on each abutment. Instead of twenty, he had only
eight." John Boyle, who was foreman of Solon Chapin, says,
speaking of the freshet above referred to : 44 On the opposite side of
the river it took two courses of stones to raise the abutment to a level
of the comb of the dam, both courses being about 16 of 18 inches." In
addition to this damage, caused by the neglect of the contractors as
your committee believe; the Commonwealth further paid the sum
of $1,620—(viz: Philip H. Mattes, Trustee for the Bank of Penn-
5
sylvania, $750; Joseph Burke $750, and Joseph Burke & Son
$120,) for a brick store house at the foot of the dam, which was wash¬
ed away at the same time, and as your committee believe, in conse¬
quence of the same neglect. In the aggregate amount for building
said dam is included 595 perches slope wall; for which the contrac¬
tors were allowed, by estimate, the sum of $2 per perch, amounting
to $1,190—just about twice as much as the work could have been
contracted for—and that there was further allowed in the aggregate
amount for the building of said dam, extra work on masonry $1,114 ;
and extra quality of stones brought from Wagner's quarry $659;
amounting together to $1,773, over and above the amount for which
the contractors agreed to do the work and furnish the materials. By
what law or by what authority the Canal Commissioners have
granted the last allowance, your committee is unable to conceive.
Christopher Midler, David Bamet, Solon Chapin and Samuel C.
Humes, partners under the firm of Midler, Barnet & Co., were the
contractors for building the basin at Easton; the original estimate of
which was $18,000—but which in fact amounted, as per the report
of the Auditor General above referred, to the sum of $35,735 27
To which add work not originally contemplated in the
plan and specification of the basin, 21,138 53
$56,873 80
In which is included $14,619 39, the whole amount that was set¬
tled and allowed at contract prices; and the large sum of $42,254
41, was settled and allowed at estimated prices varying from 50 to
100 per cent, above the contract prices, as follows, viz :
30,308 lineal feet of timber, estimated at 16|, contract
prices 11 §, excess beyond contract 5 cts. per foot, $ 1,515 40
18,000 perches stone filling in cribs, estimated at 85
cents, contract price 47 cts., excess beyond contract
38 cts. per perch,
2,904 perches stone filling in cribs, estimated at 70 cts.,
contract price 47 cts., excess beyond contract 23 cts.
per pertch,
9,329 cubic yards gravelling, (included in two items,)
estimated at 50 cts., contract price 30 cts., excess
beyond contract 20 cts per yard,
12,484 cubic yards embankment, estimated at 37 cts.,
contract price 25 cts., excess beyond contract 12 cts.
per yard.
Which last five enumerated items allow to the contrac¬
tors above their contract prices, the sum of $6,231 20
684 00
667 92
1,865 80
1,498 08
That extraordinary and unwarranted prices were allowed on cer-
6
tain portions of this work, clearly appears by the itetn of 3,468$
perches of dry stone wall outside of the cribbing of the basin ; which
said wall is from 10 to 12 feet thick at the base, and from 5 to 6
feet thick at the top, estimated * at $3 per perch, amounting to
$10,405 50. That this estimate is about double the proper and
usual charge for such work, is proved by the testimony of John
Boyle, one of the best and most experienced stone masons in the
county of Northampton, who says: "I would have been glad to
have built it for $1 50 or $1 75 per perch, and find all materials
which, at his highest price, would have been $1 25 per perch less
than the estimated price allowed, and would have saved to the Com¬
monwealth the sum of $4,335 875.
The same prodigal liberality of allowance in charges will apply
to the item of 2,338 perches of dry wall, at $1 75, (the estimated
price allowed,) which, from the testimony of John Boyle, he would
have done for $1, which would have been 75 cents per perch less
than allowed, and would have saved to the Commonwealth $1,753 50;
also, to the item of 43 perches mortar wall, estimated and allowed
at $4 per perch, which is nearly, if not quite, twice as much as the
same is worth.
The charges allowed the contractors for timber, are not less ex¬
travagant than those for the mason work, as will appear by referring
to the item of 27,920 feet, board measure, of oak covering, at the
enormous estimated allowance of $32 50 per thousand ; and 103,-
56 feet, board measure, sawed at $18 per thousand, and 3,402 feet
of the same, at $20. These prices, your committee believe, are much
higher than the prices for which lumber of this kind is usually sold
in Easton.
As a further item in this most extraordinary "estimated" job, and
one of which your committee cannot perceive the propriety of the
charge, is an allowance of $800, for " clearing and preparing the
section."
With regard to the manner in which these extraordinary charges
were settled by the accounting officers of the Stale, your committee
would refer to the testimony of William F. Packer, Esq., Auditor
General, himself one of the Canal Commissioners at the time the
contracts were let, but who was appointed to his present office be¬
fore the settlement of these accounts.
Mr. Packer says: "my reason for not auditing and settling the
final estimate for the basin at Easton, when it was first presented to
me by the contractors, to be entered on the books of the Auditor
General, in pursuance of the act of the 7th of April, 1842, was,
that upon examining it, I discovered that there had been such a depar¬
ture from the original contract and specification, as I thought requi¬
red the previous action of the Board of Canal Commissioners. It
was presented to me during their absence from the seat of Govern¬
ment, and I declined acting upon it until they returned."
And again, he says: "I rejected the estimate, because I thought
7
the Engineer had departed too far from the contract and specification,
to permit the account to pass, without submitting it to the Canal
Board. It was settled some time last fall, after the Canal Commis¬
sioners had returned to the seat of Government."
The Auditor General having thus declined to allow these accounts
upon his own responsibility, the present Board of Canal Commis¬
sioners, on the 25th ,day of October, 1842, passed a resolution of
approval, in consequence of which, the accounts were finally
settled.
The necessary repairs to the pier and wharf, at the Bristol basin,
were estimated by Mr. Coryell, the Principal Assistant Engineer,
at about $6,000, as nearly as he can recollect. No public notice
was given, inviting proposals for the contracts on this work, but
the assistant engineer was informed by Mr. Abraham P. Eyre, of
Kensington, in the county of Philadelphia, that the Canal Commis¬
sioners had given him the contract.
Mr. Coryell, in his testimony says: "I went to Bristol with Mr.
Harman, the then supervisor, and saw Mr. Eyre, who informed me
that the Canal Commissioners had given him the contract."
Why Mr. Eyre received this contract in preference to others who
might have offered for it, had notice been given in the usual way,
the committee will not presume to say; but the following extract
from the testimony of Mr. Coryell, may throw some light upon the
subject:
" When I met Mr. Eyre in Philadelphia, and exhibited to him
the estimate, he said that he would never take it. He said that there
had been a great split in the Democratic party, in Kensington dis¬
trict, and that Judge Porter had been in the city, and told him
that he must allay the difficulty. To do this, and get Governor
Porter re-nominated, had cost him, Eyre, more than $1,400. He
said that he would lose money, and that this contract had been given
to him to help him out, and make up the loss, and that I was not
doing right to keep any back from his bill. In answer, I told him
that it was not my business to secure the Governor's nomination by
any of the work that was in my hands, and that I never would give
a large estimate on any work or contract, to secure his election; or
use the funds of the public improvements for that purpose. He re¬
plied that he meant to have it. I told him he could not get it
through me. He said I was standing in my own light." _
It is but justice, however, to state, that Mr. Eyre totally and un¬
equivocally denies that he ever made such a declaration with regard
to the reasons why the contract was given to him.
The repairs at Bristol, which had been estimated to cost about
$6,000, were so extended by increasing the work, as to Amount,
including extra items, to $13,601 84?, a sum which the assistant
engineer refused to allow; and sent it to Mr. Huffnagle, the Princi¬
pal Engineer, who did not visit the work himself, but wrote to Mr.
Coryell to allow as much as he could consistently. The first esti-
8
mate and measurement amounted to $10,510 63, which was increas¬
ed by Mr. Coryell, in compliance with the letter of Mr. Huffnagle,
to $12,097 4. An interview was had between Mr. Coryell, the
Assistant Engineer, and Mr. Eyre, who refused to accept this con¬
siderably increased allowance made by the assistant engineer. Mr.
Eyre said he "meant to have itand the engineer told him he could
not have it through him. The account amounting to $13,601 84f,
appears to have been made out by the contractor's own measurement
and estimate, and was finally allowed him by the principal engineer,
who, it seems, never measured the work.
Your committee cannot conclude this report, without expressing
their sense of the disadvantages under which they have been com¬
pelled to conduct this investigation. The House having refused
them leave to visit the line of canal on which the repairs had been
made, that they might have a full opportunity to examine into and
inquire upon the spot, with regard to the manner in which the work
was performed, they are sensible that many circumstances connected
with the object of their appointment, must necessarily have not
come to their knowledge. Being thus compelled to conduct their
investigations at the seat of Government, more than one hundred
miles distant from the work, and wishing to make that investigation
as little expensive as possible, they have summoned but few wit¬
nesses, and only such as they deemed most likely to afford informa¬
tion upon the principal expenditures at Easton and Bristol. That
equal prodigality has been exercised at other points along the line,
your committee consider highly probable; but owing to the reason
' above referred to, they have not been able to enter into as extended
an examination as might have been necessay, in order to lay before
the Legislature, and the people of this Commonwealth, a full expo¬
sition of the manner in which the repairs along the whole line have
been swelled to at least twice the amount originally estimated.
They trust, however, that though their investigation has been thus
circumscribed and confined, they have shown enough to unmask,
in some measure, the system of wasteful prodigality which has been
too long exercised upon our public works; and to show to the
overburdened tax payers of this Commonwealth, the manner in
which the funds of the State aie squandered upon favored contrac¬
tors and in useless expenditures.
The remedy is with the people themselves. v Let them rigidly
and sternly insist upon reform and a reduction of the public ex¬
penses ; letnoue but honest and faithful agents be entrusted with the
public business, and a strict accountability be required of them.
Then, and not till then, may we expect a change in the management
of our public works, and a cessation of that wasteful career which
has brought us to the very verge of ruin and repudiation. The
committee offer the following resolution :
Resolved, That the committee be discharged from the further con¬
sideration of the subject.
TESTIMONY.
In the House of Representatives, ?
January 30, 1843. 5
Ordered, That Messrs. Heckman, Trego, O'Bryan, Hood and
Thomas, be a committee to investigate into the charge of an extrava¬
gant expenditure of money in the repairs of the Delaware division of
the Pennsylvania canal.
Extract from the Journal.
THOS. J. GROSS,
Assistant Clerk H.R.,
Tuesday, February 7, 1843.
The committee met in the East Committee Room of the Capitol
Present—All of the committee.
On proceeding to the choice of a Secretary, John S. Ingram was
duly elected.
Adjourned to meet at 3 o'clock to-morrow, P. M.
Adjourned.
Wednesday, February 8, 1843.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment. All present.
After the examination of certain documents, the committee ad¬
journed to meet again at 3 o'clock, P. M. to-morrow.
Adjourned.
Thursday, February 9, 1843.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment; and, after some time,
adjourned to meet again this afternoon at 3 o'clock.
The committee met pursuant to adjournment.
10
i
Michael W. May, sworn.
Was a contractor under the firm of May, Jones and Hamilton,
originally May and Jones, on section No. 4.
Levi B. Reynolds, Esq., one of the Board of Canal Commission¬
ers, asked leave to postpone the examination of witnesses until to¬
morrow, and desired the names of the witnesses who might be
subpoenaed.
On the question of such leave being granted, it was decided in the
negative, by yeas and nays, as follow :
Yeas—Messrs. O'Bryan and Thomas—2.
Nays—Messrs. Trego, Heckman and Hood—3.
The Secretary was then sworn to keep a faithful record of the pro¬
ceedings.
Michael W. May, resumed.
Had some difficulty with the engineers. I think the prices stated
in the contract are correct. Mr. Huffnagle was the Principal Engi¬
neer ; Mr. Houston was the Principal Assistant. They were the only
ones we recognized as engineers. A man named Thomas was very
officious, and created considerable trouble amongst the hands. He
was appointed by Mr. Huffnagle as overseer. Our work was to be
common rubble masonry. Mr. Houston said he thought Mr. Huff¬
nagle would allow.pay extra, provided we would put on extra coping;
because he wanted so good a job well finished. We went on—took
great pains to get the stones—paid extra wages to get the work done
—finished the job, and called on Mr. Houston, but he said he had no
authority to allow any thing for extra work. When he exhibited
our estimate, he said he had no authority, nor would not allow us
any thing for our extra work. The amount of our estimate was ten
thousand two hundred and forty odd dollars, ($10,240.) I know
nothing about difficulties on the work. I am not a mason by trade.
I was not at Easton since bidding for the work. Our job would
have deceived any body. The excavation under water, besides the
cribbing, was extremely expensive. In building the dam we were
allowed the same in proportion as other work, including dam and
aqueduct. Our contract was all new work, every wall, &c., being
erected from the foundation. We were not paid for any extra work.
The dam was included in the rest of our work. We got no ex¬
tra pay for cribbing; but we got so much for tearing down the old su¬
perstructure and clearing away the mud—say one hundred dollars,
($100.) The wood-work of the aqueduct was alone left. I believe
I could have done all the work at the basin which I bid for, and
-made money at my prices. This is my bid for the basin—amount¬
ing to 17 or $18,000. The cribbing is not specified here—without
which the contract would have amounted to upwards of $14,000.—
Afterwards, when they came to read off the bids, I was called into
the room by Mr. Huffnagle, who asked me whether I considered
11
rip-rapping and filling-in the same as ^rib-work. I said yes, and
told him to take my bid on those grounds. I consider the filling-up
equal to the crib-work. My bid for basin, including cribbing,
amounted to seventeen or eighteen thousand dollars. Those who
got the contract, as 1 am informed by Mr. HufTnagle and Mr. Mow-
ry, were about $300 less than mine. I cannot tell what the work
amounted to. The engineer, Mr. HufTnagle, told me I would have
<lone better if I had contended for the basin, for it would amount to
much more than his estimate. His object in estimating, was to get
the canal in use again. I conceive that I could have done the basin
at the prices I proposed. Mr. HufTnagle told me about the basin a
short time before the work was declared off; and said it would
amount to much more than his estimate. He told mel made a close
shot; and he said it would cost double his estimate—at least one-half
more. I have no knowledge of any corrupt means being employed
to induce engineers to increase estimates of . work. I know nothing
about five hundred dollars paid out by May, Jones & Co. to any
engineer; and if so paid, it was done individually and without rny
knowledge.
Cross-examined by Levi B. Reynolds, Esq., one of the Canal
Commissioners.
I was required to do work according to contract, and was dealt
with severely. Got nothing more than we contracted for; and
were treated rather shabbily. Our job exceeded the estimate, but it
was not profitable. We commenced first of April, and finished
about middle of September. If we had been paid in cash, we might
have made something. We have four thousand dollars ($4000) to
get yet. I cannot say what we might have made.
M. W. MAY.
The witness hesitating to sign the foregoing, until he saw his
partner.
On motion,
The committee adjourned to meet again to-morrow afternoon at
3 o'clock.
Friday, Feb. 10, 1843.
Committee met pursuant to adjournment.—All present.
Mr. Reynolds, one of the Canal Commissioners, asked for blank
subpoenas for the purpose of obtaining witnesses, but subsequently
withdrew his request.
John M'Vay, affirmed.
I was the Superintendent on the aqueduct and dam, section 4.—
Know nothing about the estimates. Was on the job from 17th of
12
May and ©ontinued until completion. Know nothing about extra
compensation being allowed. Mr. Huffnagle was Principal Engineer,
Mr. Houston was Assistant, and Mr. Jarrett was sub-Assistant. I
know nothing particularly in regard to measurement on the works.
Mr. Jarrett kept the accounts of the estimates. I know of no un¬
derstanding between contractors and engineers, in regard to measure¬
ment. We done our work according to the satisfaction of the
engineers; at least there was no fault found. The engineers were
very rigid in requiring our work to be done well. The contractors
did not complain about the prices ; but often about being hurried
with work, and scarce of money. The contractors grumbled about
not being paid for the cut-stone coping, for which no additional
allowance was made. No additional allowance was made to con¬
tractors over contract prices on this contract. The contract was
finished, final estimate made, and the contract taken off the hands of
contractors. I was not on the work when the old aqueduct was
removed. I am not acquainted with the contract at Easton ; nor
had I any reason to suppose that any corrupt means were employed
by contractors to procure favorable contracts from engineers.
(Signed,) JOHN M'VAY.
The committee then dispensed with the further examination of
witnesses, and proceeded to an examination of the documentary tes¬
timony ; and at a late hour adjourned to meet again to-morrow after¬
noon at 3 o'clock.
Saturday, February 11, 1843.
Owing to the late hour of adjournment of the House of Represen¬
tatives, the committee did not meet in session.
Monday, February 13, 1843.
Owing to the meeting of the special committee for the purpose of
districting the State, the committee did not assemble for want of a
quorum.
Tuesday, February 14, 1843.
Owing to an afternoon session in the House of Representatives,
and the compulsory absence of some of the committee, they did not
assemble.
\
13
Wednesday, February 15, 1843.
Committee met.
Present—Messrs. Trego, Hood, O'Byran and Thomas.
On motion of Mr. Thomas,
Mr. Trego was unanimously chosen Chairman pro tem., of the
committee.
On motion of Mr. Thomas, it was
Resolved, That no papers or documents now in the custody of the
committee, be taken out of the hands of the Secretary without a
written order, signed by a majority of the committee.
On motion of Mr. Hood,
The committee adjourned to meet again at the call of the Chair¬
man.
Thursday, February 16, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Friday, February 17, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Saturday, February 18, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Monday, February 20, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Tuesday, February 21, 1843,
Committee did not assemble.
Wednesday, February 22, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Thursday, February 23, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
14
Friday, February 24, 1843
Committee did not meet.
r
Saturday, February 25, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Monday, February 27, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Tuesday, February 28, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
A
Wednesday, March 1, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Thursday, March 2, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Friday, March 3, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Saturday, March 4, 1843.
Committee did not meet.
Monday, March 6, 1843.
Committee met;
And in consequence of the protracted absence of the Chairman,
(Mr. Heckman,) adopted the following resolution :
Resolved, That the clerk of this committee be discharged until
otherwise ordered ; and that he deliver to the committee the books,
papers and documents in his possession, as clerk of said committee.
Adjourned.
15
Friday, March 17, 1843.
Committee met.
Present—All the members.
On motion,
The Chairman was authorized to issue subpoenas, for the following
named persons, to wit: Martin Coryell, Henry Kreiner, John Neve-
ling, John Boyle, Charles W. Mixell, John D. Harman, Reuben
Hirst, Joseph H. Long and Daniel M'Clane.
Adjourned.
Harrisburg, March 23, 1843.
Committee met.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Trego, Thomas, O'Bryanand H#od.
On the request of the Canal Commissioners, it was agreed that
the examination of witnesses he postponed until to-morrow afternoon,
and that subpoenas be issued for W. K. Huffnagle, John F. Houston
and Charles L. Schlatter.
Adjourned until half-past 2 o'clock to-morrow, P. M.
March 24, 1843.
The committee met at half past three o'clock, P. M. Messrs.
Heck-man, Trego, Thomas, O'Bryan and Hood, were present.
On motion,
Henry K. Strong was appointed Secretary, provided that he shall
not be paid for services for any day on which the committee shall
not actually have been in session.
Henry Kreiner of Kensington, Philadelphia county, was called
before the committee, and being duly sworn, answered to the fol¬
lowing questions:
Q. Who was the contractor for building the wharf?
A. Ab. P. Eyre.
Q. Who was foreman?
A. I was.
Q. How was the work done ?
A. As well as could be done.
Q. What become of the logs and lumber of the old piers ?
A. A. P. Eyre, and several others, I do not know who.
Q. Was any of the logs of old pier sold ?
A. There was.
16
Q. Who purchased them ?
A. A. P. Eyre at first gave them to me, and I sold them to Wm.
Goslin.
Q. What became of them ?
A. Some of the logs were to be taken to Philadelphia, but I do
not believe that they ever reached there. They were attached to a
steamboat and the raft was cut loose.
Q. Do you know of any timber sold to Bouvier ?
A. I do not know of any timber sold to him.
Q. Do you know of any timber sold to James Bush ?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know of any extra pay or allowances to Eyre in that
contract ?
A. I do not.
Q. Was the basin let by contract?
A. I understood so.
♦Q. Do you know the amount of the estimate ?
A. I do not. I heard different amounts.
By Mr. Trego.—Who was the engineer?
A. Mr. Coryell.
Q. Was he the principal engineer?
A. That is more than I can tell.
Q. Was there any other engineer?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Was there any dispute between Mr. Eyre and the engineer?
A. There were several quarrels between them.
Q. What did they quarrel about ?
A. At one time about some gravel, and at another time about
s6me planking. The State had a heap of gravel prepared, if an ac¬
cident should happen, and which Mr. Eyre put in the wharf. Thero
was quite a heap of gravel there. As it respects the planking, Mr.
Eyre wanted to count it as it was in the raft, and Mr. Coryell wished
it counted as it was laid. I can not tell how they settled the matter.
Q. Had they any other disputes ?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. How long was Mr. Coryell there ?
A. Until we finished the job.
Q. How long was you there?
A. I commenced the 4th of March, and made 188f days, ex¬
clusive of Sundays.
Q. Do you know whether the contract was made according to
the estimate of Mr. Coryell?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know who made the final estimates on that job ?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know any thing that will give any information rela¬
tive to an extravagant expenditure of money ?
17
A. All I can say is, that the work was done well and good ma¬
terials put in.
Q. Do you say that Mr. Eyre used the State gravel ?
A. I do.
Q. How much do you think that heap of gravel was worth at
the place ?
A. I think it was not worth more than $10. We paid ten cents
per ton at the quarry.
Q. The logs being given to you, how then comes it that they
were paid for ?
A. They were part of the old wharf, and it is customary to give
old timber to the workmen ?
Q. Has any thing else than timber been sold to Mr. Bouvier?
A. Some lumber was sent away. I am not positive that it was
sent to Mr. Bouvier, but I think so.
Q. Does this Mr. Bouvier live in Philadelphia?
A. He does.
Q. Did this timber belong to the Commonwealth? •
A. Can't say—it came out of rafis. It is new timber, three by
four, hemlock.
Q. Was it measured in the raft or on the wharf?
A. I cannot say. I measured the work, and the}*, Mr. Eyre -and
Mr. Coryell, took it down. The platform was not measured when
I was there.
Q. Was there any great quantity of new lumber that Mr. Bouvier
got ?
A. I do not know—he took it away in a sloop. Mr. Neven
took an account of it. There might have been 8 or 10,000 feet.
Q. Was any timber taken by any one else?
A. Not that I know of.
Q. Do you believe that this timber belongs to the Common¬
wealth?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do you know the year when the work was finished on the
basin ?
A. In March, 1840, I commenced. I was at work between
eight and nine months, and finished in 1840.
Q. Do you think that this job of repairs was done as cheaply for
the Slate, as you would have done it for yourself?
A. It might have been done more cheaply by days work, than it
was done by contract; 1 took the best method which I could, to
make the most out of it.
Q. Was it a very profitable job to the contractors?
A. It appears so.
his
HENRY X KRINER.
mark.
. 2
18
John Neveling was sworn.
I was employed by Mr. Eyre, as a journeyman, and worked un¬
der Mr. Kriner the foreman. There were three rafts and a part of
another raft of scantling" that I took an account of, which was used
by laying it upon the wharf. There was some of the lumber taken
away, but I do not know where it went to; perhaps there was 10,-
000 feet of new timber that was taken away, but not more. I was
directed by Mr. Eyre, to count the timber. The old wharf timber,
the logs, was taken to Kensington bv two of our men, Zachariah
Saylor and Benjamin Oliphant, on one raft. It was not of much
use, unless to be used for some particular purpose. There was a
large quantity of iron bolts taken out of the wharf, several tons; and
such as was not fit for use, were sent to Mr. Eyre at Kensington,
Much more than half of the old bolts were used in the wharf. As
it respects the new timber it went away from Bristol, but I do not
know where it went. I do not know any thing about the quarrels with
the engineer. I understood that Mr. Eyre furnished the timber; it
was counted in the rafis, but I cannot say whether it was counted or
measured in the platform. I do not know any thing more about the
gravel, than that we had it furnished. With regard to the final esti¬
mate, I know nothing more than that it was said he got $13,000, and
1 suppose it was a very good price. There was a mud machine
there, for which Mr. Eyre paid $15 a day, two hands being furnished
with the machine; but I do not know how many days it was used. It
was there two or three weeks, but was not used every day ; most of
the old plank were worthless, but some were good, and were taken
away. Mr. Delany made the iron bolts for the wharf, in Kensing¬
ton ; I do not know to whom they belong. The new bolts were
taken away by Mr. Eyre, as well as other materials.
Signed: " JOHN NRVELING.
Henry Kriner was called again.
The new timber that was left, belonged to Mr. Eyre, and he sold
it to Mr. Hise. All the new iron bolts that I could find, I put on
the scales and weighed them; they weighed upwards of 900 pounds.
I do not know whether they belonged to Mr. Eyre, or the Common¬
wealth ; I took them down by order of Mr. Eyre, in the steamboat
Hudson, to Mr. Eyre's house in Kensington. A blacksmith in
Bristol repaired a portion of the old bolts for the State; I took them
to him, by order of the State Supervisor; a part of the old bolts
were left at the blacksmith's. There might have been several hun¬
dred weight. I do not know who finally got them.
Signed:
Adjourned.
his
HENRY ><1 KRINER.
mark.
19
' #
Saturday, March 25, 1843.
The committee met at half-past 2 o'clock, P. M. Present, Mes¬
srs. Heckman, Trego, Thomas, O'Bryan and Hood.
Martin Coryell was sworn.
I was an engineer on the Delaware division of the Pennsylvania
uanal. and was appointed by Mr. Huffnagle the principal engineer.
The appointment I believe was approved by the Board of Canal
Commissioners. I was three years employed, and there were va¬
rious things done during that time. I was on the north track of the
Columbia railroad, being transferred from the Delaware division.
After the north track was completed, or nearly so, I went back to
the Delaware division, but was not long there, when I was perma¬
nently removed from that division to the Columbia railroad and
Eastern division of the Pennsylvania canal. I remained in that ca¬
pacity until the office was abolished in February, 1842.
I made an estimate of the repairs of the wharf, and the building
of the new pier at Bristol, and submitted it to Mr. Huffnagle, who
transmitted it to the Board. I do not exactly recollect the amount,
hut think it was about $6,000 ; this sum includes the repairs and the
new pier. My estimate was always revised by Mr. Huffnagle.
This work was afterwards let by contract. The letting was not ad¬
vertised, but made on estimate, and the measurement was made after¬
wards ; the prices were fixed by measurement.
MARTIN CORYELL. '
Mr. Coryell not having his papers with him, was discharged un¬
til Monday the 27th, by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes—Messrs. Trego, Thomas and Hood—3.
Nays—Messrs. Heckman and O'Bryan—2.
Joseph H. Long, was sworn.
I know that Thomas Serfoss got pay for his horse last summer
while he was standing in the stable ; the horse was called the scow
horse, for bringing gravel up and down the canal. I cannot tell ex¬
actly how long he got pay, but I know he stood still nine days at
one time, from and after the 28th of July ; and some days in every
week, the horse was idle more or less. I know that the horse was
idle, as I kept the weekly roll under Benjamin Walter, the head
boss. On the 20lh of May, Mr. Walter told me, that the Canal
Commissioners and Mr. Connor said that I must put down every
day of the month, whether the horse worked or not; I told him it
would not do, as it would look bad on the check roll, to have the
horse have moie days than the men. He told me if I did not like
to put it down, he would get some one else that would. I then told
him, that I had sooner he would, than that I should be compelled to
keep the lime in that way. So that I believe, that after that, he did
keep the time himself. I can state further, that Jerry Carroll took
20
the Stale plank to line the loft over his shed. Jerry Carroll waff
under boss, under Mr. Reichart, and kept the weekly roll. Jerry
kept the weekly roll to hand over to Mr. Reichart. I did not know
the plank, nor see him put them up. I came up towards Easton,
when John Romig called me in and showed me the plank, and asked
me whether 1 knew them ; I said that I did ; he then told me that he
helped to bring them down from the gravel pit, and unload them at
that place, and that the next he saw of them was on the loft. 1 also
know that Josiah Kerbaugh has time on the check roll, while he was
making garden fence, and white washing his building. One day I
am certain of, but 1 believe it was a day and a half. The plank
taken by Carroll, were good hemlock, three inch plank, and they
covered the whole building, 16 feet by 22 feet. May 11, 1842, Mr.
Overfield came up the tow path ; we were at work at a place called
the Narrows, in Bucks county, just above Abraham Wyker's mill..
There was a piece of wall which had been bad for two or three
years. There was a leak in the canal at that time. Mr. Wyker
complained to Mr. Overfield, that the supervisor had not been down
for thirty days, and Mr, Overfield said that he would go up, and
give him a rowing up. He said that his wife might attend to the-
business at home, and that he, the supervisor, should come along
the canal to attend to it. I lived close to the canal and heard
every body complaining of the want of attention to the canal by
Mr. Connor. 1 know of my own knowledge that he was not
along there for thirty-six days. He could not come along without
my knowing it; I do not exactly know, but believe that he has
not been down and along the line below me, not more than thirteen
times, from April 1, 1842, until last week, I live twelve mile below
Easton ; Mr. Connor did not come down the tow path on foot or
horseback but once during that time, but came down in a little dear-
borne wagon. 1 was under boss from the 20th May, 1840, to 20th
of May, 1842. In February, the time Mr. Connor was appointed,
he gave me the choice of being head boss at the building of the
aqueduct over Callow's run. He said that he would keep me, but
he had made a promise to Mr. Walters. He said that Mr. Walters
had thrown his influence for him to get his appointment, and he had
to remember him. 1 was turned out as under boss, because I would
not put the time down for the horse when he did not work. Mr-
Walters is now dead. After he took sick, Mr. Keichart was ap¬
pointed in his place ; he, Reichart, then appointed Mr. Serfoss as
under boss. From the time I refused to put down the time when
the horse did not work, I ceased to be an under boss. The duty of
the under boss is to be constantly with the hands, and put down the
time of the men, and make return weekly to the head boss, who
swears to the check roll. My head boss was not seen some times
for a week. I do not know that it is his duty to be there. The head
boss keeps the check roll. The horse was in the service of the
State nearly three years. The last summer the horse did not work
one quarter of the time.
21
Cross-examined—Questions by Mr. Wilson.
Q. Did you ever inform Mr. Connor that the time was charged
■on the check roll, when the horse was not at work ?
A. I never did—but I know that he knew it.
Q. How do you know that he knew it ?
A. I saw it on the check roll. When he come down to pay for
the month of May, 1842, he asked my wife why I did not work any
more; and she told him that I would put no time down for the horse,
when the hands were not at work. *
Q. Did Mr. Connor know that Mr. Carroll took away the tim¬
ber ?
A. I never informed him.
Q. Do you know whether Mr. Carroll paid for it, or not ?
A. I do not.
Q. Do you know whether Walters, the head boss, was sick or
not, when he did not come along the canal ?
A. I believe he was not sick, but ailing.
Q. Is it usual for other bosses to be absent so long ?
A. Mr. Reichart was not down for several weeks, at a time, last
fall along.
Q. When Mr. Connor was so long from the canal, during the
thirty-six days that you speak of, was he sick ?
A. He was not sick—it was about rafting time.
Q. When was it ?
A. In 1842.
Q. Do you, or do you not know, that he was at Harrisburg set¬
tling his accounts ?
A. I know that he was not, at that time. He was in Harris-
• •
burg before that time.
(Signed,) JOSEPH H. LONG.
Reuben Hirst, was sworn.
I was employed on the Pennsylvania Canal, eight miles below
Easton, in building two bridges over the Delaware division. One
was a public road bridge, and the other was a farm bridge. I was
employed by Henry Hambright, a contractor. The contractor was
present at the building of the public road bridge ; but was not there
at all, at the building of the farm bridge. Jesse Reigle, furnished the
most of the timber; and Alexander Quinn, the remainder to the
contractors. Solon Chapin furnished the iron for the public road
bridge, and Thomas Protzman some part for the farm bridge, to the
contractors. I superintended the wood work of the bridges. Mr.
Mowry, the engineer, furnished the draft. Hambright told me, that
the contract was between himself and Jesse Reigle, for sawing the
timber; and I was to give orders for any more which might be wanted.
I think it was charged to Hambright, but am not certain. I employed
the hands for building the wood work, by order of Mr. Hambright.
I received two dollars per day for superintending, and one dollar and
22
a half per day, for each hand ; we boarding ourselves. I had to pay
for some lumber; and also, for some spikes and nails, <fcc., from my
own pocket. I have never received but fifteen dollars for my work,
and materials, of Hambright. Settlements were made between me
and the engineers, by which Hambright was to receive eighty dollars
profit for the two bridges. He was to pay all the expenses, and
receive that sum. My whole claim for both the bridges was one
hundred and thirty-eight dollars, besides the lumber and nails which
I furnished, making the whole sum one hundred and fifty-three dol¬
lars. Mr. Houston was the Principal Assistant Engineer, and made
the settlement with me ; and George R. Mowry was present. Mr.
Reigle wanted me, and other .persons having, claims against the-
bridges, to come to Harrisburg^, and attach Hambright's estimate.
(Signed,) REUBEN HIRST.
Adjourned until Monday, March 27, at 2 o'clock, P. M.
0
Monday, March 27, 1843.
Committee met.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Trego, Thomas, O'Bryan and Hood..
Without proceeding to the investigation, the committee adjourned^
Tuesday, March 28, 1843.
Committee met at 3 o'clock, P. M.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Trego, Hood, Thomas and O'Bryan
John Boyle, was sworn.
I am a stone mason by profession, and reside in Easton. I have
seen the work done at the basin, having walked on it. I was several-
times there during the building, but did not work on it. I have
paid attention to the wall on the outside of the crib. It is worth
from $1 50 to $1 75 per perch and find the materials; and it is
more than I have been in the habit of receiving for such work. The
most that I have been in the habit of receiving, is from ninety cents
to one dollar, and find the materials; I built a wall opposite to Easton,
and do not think it better than the one I built, for which I got one
dollar and found the materials, and I did very well at it." But I
would not like to build the wall at the basin for one dollar, in conse¬
quence of the disadvantages of the situation; but would have been
glad to have built it for $1 50 or $1 75. I built the pieis of the
chain dam for the Lehigh canal company about three miles above
Easton, and got $1 06|, the company finding the materials. I built
for this company 500 or 600 perches of dry wall, at twenty-eight
23
cents per perch, the company finding the materials, and did well at
it. This dry wall, is some of it slope wall, and some vertical. I built
abutments for twelve bridges on the Delaware division, and found the
materials, for $1 25 per perch. The price was pretty fair. I
would put up slope wall on the canal, when the materials are found,
for twenty-eight cents—when I find the materials, it depends upon
what distance they can be procured. I was foreman for Chapin, and
worked by the day at the Easton dam. I could not make an estimate
of the worth of putting up this dam, as the stones were very heavy
and hard. I, however, would cut the stones for fifty cents per foot
running measure. The outer surface of the pier is faced with cut
stone, and the inside is composed ^of rough stone. I have seen
the abutment which was raised six feet by Barnet, Medlar <fc Chapin ;
and the facing is not as neatly done as the old wall. This whole
abutment ought to cost about $12 or $13 per perch, as nearly as I
can judge of its value.
Cross-examined.
Q. Where did they get the stone for the outside wall ?
A. About half a mile down the canal—they were limestone.
Q. What would the stone be worth delivered at the dam ?
A. About sixty cents per perch. I would have taken the con¬
tract to deliver them at that price.
Q. How many perches can a man lay up in a day ?
A. Eight or ten.
Q. Had you a conversation, relative to the price of the wall, with
Mr. Barnet ?•
A. I do not know that I had.
Q. Did you not tell Mr. Barnet, that you did not know how
much the outside wall was worth ?
A. I do not know that I did.
Q. Do you not recollect that you told him .that this wall was ex¬
pensive to build ?
A. I do. This makes the difference which I have mentioned,
between this and other walls which I have built. Bv the direction of
the Engineer, Mr. Guest, I took up stone which were not well embed¬
ded on the abutment of the dam several times. Chapin and the
engineer had some difficulty about taking up these stones. On the
opposite side of the river it took two courses of stone to raise the
abutment to a level of the comb of the dam—both courses being
about sixteen or eighteen inches. I do not know that this occasioned
the damage at the time of the freshet. I think the abutment on the
Easton side of the river the highest.
Q. How was the freshet occasioned ?
A. By an unexpected rise in the Lehigh. This occasioned the
damage at the wharf when the work was nearly closed for the season.
The contractors had as many hands at work as could well be em¬
ployed.
(Signed,) JOHN BOYLE.
24
Daniel M'Clane, was sworn.
I was a contractor on the Delaware division at Lumberville. I do
not know of any extravagant expenditures of money while I was
there. I had some difficulty in settling my account with the engi¬
neers relative to clearing out the lock at Black's Eddy, when Mr.
Knouse, the Engineer, was sick at New Hope. In consequence of
Mr. Knouse being sick, there was no measurement made of the
work, and the engineers were unwilling to allow us the compensation
we wanted for doing the work. After several interviews and expla¬
nations to their satisfaction, the accounts were settled. The difficulty
was only with the engineers. 1 never stated that I would make any
disclosures relative to the Easton dam, unless they would settle, as
I had none to make. There is some work not mentioned in the
contract. It was estimated by the Supervisor, General Rogers.
(Signed :) DAN'L M'CLANE.
Martin Coryell, resumed from Saturday last, the 25th inst.
The matter I referred to on Saturday, relative to giving out the
work without advertising, I did not know the work had been given
to Mr. Eyre, and wrote to Mr. Booz a specification (here a copy was
produced) of the amount of work required, as a notice to him or
friends that said work was to be done. I afterwards went to Bristol
with Mr. Harman, and saw Mr. Eyre, who informed me that the
Canal Commissioners had given to him the contract, and that Mr.
Harman and myself were to set him to work. When Esquire Har¬
man and myself were at Bristol, Mr. Eyre objected very strongly to
the method and mode that we were conducting this business. He
said that it was never intended by the Canal Commissioners to have
all this competition. He said we were doing wrong, as they in¬
tended to give him the contract. We asked him what his prices
were, and he replied, "the same" that he had received at Philadel¬
phia, and on the Camden and Amboy railroad. I think he stated
the prices, but do not recollect what they were, but thought they
were very high. Notwithstanding all this, we received proposals
and compelled Eyre to give us one also, and state his prices. It
was evident that Eyre found out the prices in the bids of other per¬
sons and put his below them. We then had some definite grounds
for making out the contract. Eyre asserted that he was entitled to
that contract, and that we were almost robbing him by making him
bring those prices down. I can not now recollect whether I made
out the contract and forwarded it to the Board or not, or that I have a
copy. If there was a copy sent, it is probably in the office of the
Auditor General. The contractor commenced the work—I can not
give the day and date. I went down and showed him what was to
be done. I had charge of sixty miles of the canal, on which there
was a great deal of work that required my attention, and unavoida¬
bly kept me away from the work at Bristol. The foreman of Mr.
•25
Eyre tore up a great deal more than I directed. I agreed to meet
Eyre at a specified time, and when he came, I gave him my views
in regard to the work. In reply, he said, he knew what we wanted
—the Board had directed him to make a complete, or good job out of
it. I admitted that it would make a complete "and good job, but that
the circumstances did not seem to warrant such heavy expenditures.
Well, the work was finished in that way, which was more expensive
than I thought necessary, under the circumstances. I made out a
final estimate and measurement, which was $10,510 63 for the
work. After making this estimate and forwarding it to Mr. Huff¬
nagle, Mr. Eyre made out an estimate and measurement, and sent it
to Mr. Huffnagle, which was sent to me, by him, with directions that
I should examine it, and allow Mr. Eyre every thing that I could,
consistently, enumerated in the extra items charged by him. I wrote
back to Mr. Huffnagle, stating my disposition to do all that I could,
and he desired me to meet Mr. Eyre in Philadelphia, and settle the
matter if possible, as he was unacquainted with the circumstances
connected with that job'. I did meet Mr. Eyre in Philadelphia, at
the Indian Queen, about the fifth of January, 1841. I allowed him
all that I could, after having a free conversation with him; and al¬
though my estimate was raised considerably, it did not meet the
approbation of Mr. Eyre. The amount of the raised estimate was
$12,097 41. This was the last time that I have had to do with Mr.
Eyre.
As it respects the materials in the old wharf, he cut down two
feet, and gave it to his workmen and charged them with it. It is
usual to allow contractors the old timber.
MARTIN CORYELL.
The committee then adjourned to meet again to-morrow at half-past
two o'clock, P. M.
Wednesday, March 29, 1843.
The committee met according to adjournment.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Thomas, Trego, Hood and O'Bryan.
Adjourned.
26
Thursday, March 30, 1843.
The committee met at 3 o'clock, P. M.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Thomas, Trego, Ilood and O'Bryan.
Martin Coryell, resumed from Tuesday, March the 28th inst.
This is a copy of the estimate which I made and sent to Mr.
Huffnagle, amounting to $12,097 41. (Here a paper was exhibited.)
I am informed, and it is iny impression that Mr. Eyre's account
was sworn to by him, and allowed by the Canal Commissioners,
Auditor General, or some one else, as it never came back to me. 1,
as Engineer, never allowed his account. Mr. Huffnagle was the
Principal Engineer at the time, but I do not know that the account
was settled with his approval. It is not customary for contrac¬
tors to make out their own estimates. I am sure that Mr. Huffna¬
gle never measured the work. When I met Mr. Eyre in Philadel¬
phia, and exhibited to him the estimate, he said that he would never
take it. He said that there had been a great split in the Democratic
party, in the Kensington district, and that Judge Porter had been in
the city and told him that he must allay the difficulty. To do this,
and get Governor Porter re-nominated, had cost him, Eyre, more
than $1,400. He said that he would lose money, and that this
contract had been given to him to help him out, and make up the
loss : and that I was not doing right to keep any back from his bill.
In answer I told him, that it was not my business to secure the Gov¬
ernor's nomination by any of the work that was in my hands, and
that I never would give a large estimate, on any work or contract to
secure his election, or use the funds of the public improvements for
that purpose. He replied that he meant to have it—I told him he
could not get it through me. He said I was standing in my own
light. I was removed from that division, shortly afterwards. This
took place in January; I was removed in April. I raised the last
estimate above the hrst in consequence of the work being well done,
and because, Mr. Huffnagle wished me to do all that I could; consis¬
tently, for him. The increase in amount of the last estimate, was
in consequence of extra work allowed.
I was Engineer.on the Delaware division at the time of the great
freshet in 1841, and made the estimate for the repairs, which I think
was about $83,000, and included the Easton basin ; but the esti¬
mate was made in unfavorable weather and under unfavorable cir¬
cumstances. The letting was advertised. The bids were received
at Easton and forwarded to Harrisburg, without being opened. The
prices bid were under my estimate. I had some difference of opin¬
ion with James M. Porter at the time of the building of the new
dam abutments. He took me into the back room of his office, and
asked me what rubble masonry was; and said that they were build¬
ing the abutments too well, and that their contract called for rubble
masonry, and showed me several books as authority. I told him
27
that the specification was the book we went by, and no other book
should be our guide; and that it was better to be turned off the line
for having the work too well done, than for having it done badly*
He stated that our specification would never stand good in law. He
took this lively interest in this work, I suppose, because he was in¬
terested in the contract.
I was absent at the time of the freshet in 1840, on the north track
of the Columbia railroad, but by a copy of a letter which I have, I
was at Easton, about the first of November, and was informed that the
two first courses of the north abutment had been washed off. The
damage done to the work may be attributed to Chapin, the contrac¬
tor, for there had not been a course of stone laid on that abutment
since I was there, the time previous. He raised the comb of the
dam before the abutments, which was contrary to express orders.
He also promised to have a force of twenty masons, in addition to
the number then employed, three weeks previous, making altogether
twenty-eight, and would have a gang on each abutment. Instead of
twenty, he had only eight.
There is an item for extra work on the dam for masonry $1,114,
and also an item for extra quality of stone from Wagner's quarry,
$659; making together $1,773. I allowed for these two items
$1,340.
Cross-examined.
I do not believe that I was removed from that line for the pur¬
pose of enabling contractors to get better estimates from other engi¬
neers. Mr. Houston took my place, when I was transferred to the
railroad and Eastern division of the Pennsylvania canal. I was
given to understand that I was not popular with the contractors and
others along the line.
MARTIN CORYELL.
George R. Mowry, was sworn.
I was sub-assistant for ten miles on the Delaware division of the
Pennsylvania canal, from Easton to Monroe, during the whole time
of making the repairs. I took measurements of all the work that
was done, but have no copies of the estimates with me, nor do I
know that I have any, correct copies at home. I was absent from
the basin a considerable part of the time. I was concerned in a con¬
tract on the Lehigh canal when the basin was building. The longest
that I was absent, at one time, was between one and two weeks, and
Mr. Houston was to supply my place, but had gone when I came
back. I do not know who were partners in building the basin ; nor
do I know that the contractors were allowed any estimates for work
which they never did. They claimed for work which was not
allowed. I made out the prices which were allowed. The increase
in the estimate for timber, was in consequence of the increased price
which they had to pay for it—the increased price of crib-filling, in
28
consequence of raising the height of the crib six feet, and the in¬
creased expense of obtaining the stone. In reference to the extra¬
ordinary price for lumber, I refer to Mr. Schlatter's report for an
explanation, as I cannot recollect the particulars. Mr. Schlatter
and myself fixed the prices. The difference of price in the two
items for gravelling, was in consequence of being obliged to boat a
part of it from a distance, and the expense of raising it higher.
In estimating the price, per perch, of the masonry in the outside
wall, at three dollars, I did not enquire of the stone-masons about
Easton, nor of contractors. Mr. Houston, the principal engineer,
and myself, had a conversation in relation to it. I did not make out
either of the final estimates. My business was to measure the work,
and furnish the items to the principal engineer. The item of $800,
" for clearing and preparing section," consists of various jobs re¬
quired to be done before the work is commenced, and while it is in
progress, and was allowed without an actual measurement. I do
not know that any extra allowance was made to any contractors in
consequence of not receiving payments regularly.
GEO. R. MOWRY.
Friday, March 31, 1843.
The committee met at half past 7 o'clock, P. M.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Trego, Thomas and Hood.
Mr. Reynolds, one of the Canal Commissioners, appeared before
the committee, and asked for subpoenas for the following named
persons, to wit: Abraham P. Eyre, David Connor, Jerry Carroll
and David Barnet.
Mr. Heckman objected, on the ground of the examination being,
in his opinion, ex parte.
The yeas and nays being called on the proposition, it was nega¬
tived by the following vote, viz:
Yea—Mr. Thomas—1.
Nays—Mr. Heckman, Mr. Trego and Mr. Hood—3.
Martin Coryell resumed from Thursday, March 30.
John D. Harman had a contract about four miles below Easton.
Daniel Y. Harman, Esq. was formerly supervisor. He did not sign
a contract that was allotted to him. He wished me to correct the
contract, as he said it was not right. I replied, that it was out of
my power, and that it belonged to the Board of Canal Commission¬
ers. He did not accept it. He said that it lay in my breast to do
it, as other engineers did such things, and that he would have one
f
29
on the line who would do it. Clark <fc Brewster had thai contract.
I would not let him have that contract, and wrote on immediately to
the Board, and they then awarded it to Clark & Brewster. I was
very soon removed from the line, after Daniel Y. Harman said he
would have an engineer oil who would alter contracts, but do not
know what bearing it had on my removal.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wilson, Clerk of the Canal Commis¬
sioners.
Q. 1. In your examination relative to the Bristol wharf, yoti say
that Eyre told you that the Canal Commissioners had given him the
job. Did you give him the contract on his assertion, that he had
obtained it ?
A* No. Either he or Squire Harman produced a letter con¬
taining a resolution of the Board.
Q. 2. Did you not give him the contract at the lowest bid given
in at the letting ?
A. Y~es.
Q. 3. You have said Eyre performed more work than you di¬
rected, because, as he said, the Canal Commissioners told him to
make a good job of it. Is it usual for an engineer to permit a con¬
tractor to do his work contrary to orders ?
A. No. When he can avoid it.
Q. 4. Did the Canal Commissioners give you any directions to
allow Eyre to do the work as he pleased ?
A. No.
Q. 5. Why then did you permit the work to be done contrary to
your directions ?
A. I stated the facts to the proper officer. I could do no more.
Q. G. Who was the proper officer?
A. Mr. Huffnagle was the principal engineer. I also reasoned
with Mr. Eyre.
Q. 7. You say that you had charge of sixty miles of canal, and
that you were unavoidably absent from Eyre's work. How long
were vou absent at a time ?
A. I am unable to say. I do not think I was absent for more
than eight days, at any one time. I was there often when Mr.
Eyre was not.
Q. 8. Was there any work done by him during your absence?
A. The work was constantly progressing during my absence.
Q. 9. How did you obtain the measurement of the work executed
during your absence?
A. I measured from certain known marks. For instance,, the
flooring of the pier. • -
Q 10. Could not lumber have been put in during your absence,
of which you had no account?
A. Not that should have been paid for.
30
Q. 11. Did you measure the work in company with Eyre ?
A. I did.
Q. 12. Did your accounts agree, after the measurement ?
A. I made out my account with the assistance of the young man
under me, and it did not agree with that of Eyre ?
Q. 13. Could not Eyre's statement have been correct?
A. No; not of that work, as measured, according to con tract and
my judgment.
Q. 14. Are you willing to swear that his account is not so?
A. I was a sworn officer, and engineer, and as such, made out
my account accordingly.
Q. 15. Is it not the usual course to remeasure work upon the
disagreement of the contractor and engineer ?
A. It is very frequently done.
Q. 16. Could Eyre's job have been accurately remeasured?
A. No; it could not.
Q. 17. What was the course then to be adopted ? ^
A. That would depend upon 'the confidence reposed in the en¬
gineer, and the disposition of the Board.
Q. 18. Was it not the only course, under the circumstances, to
have the account sworn to, and a final estimate made thereon?
A. Yes.
Q. 19. What was Mr. Eyre's reputation as a wharf builder?
A. I do not know, except what he told me himself. His work
was very wejl done.
Q. 20. Do you believe, that the difference between your es¬
timate and the final estimate, was allowed to Eyre, in consideration
of political services?
A. No ; but I believe that the whole contract was given to him,
in consequence of political services ; and I came to this conclusion,
from his manner and language, at our settlement.
Q. 21. Is it not common for contractors to make such represen¬
tations, when settling?
A. It may be asserted, but it never had any weight with me.
Q. 22. Was the original plan of the Easton basin changed ?
A. It was. *
Q. 23. Why was that change made ?
A. I have not heard the reasons.
Q. 24. W as it not on account of the original crib-work being
too small to admit of the outer slope ?
A. I know nothing about it.
Q. 25. Did not the change of plan necessarily increase the cost
of the work ?
A. Yes; by increasing the quantities.
Q. 26. Was there any work added to the section, after the con¬
tract was given to the contractors ?
A. I do not know.
Q. 27. Did you not tell him, Barnet, that the estimate was full;
31
and that the quantities would not exceed those shown at the letting;
and that they must not engage more than those shown ?
A. I do not think I did. I do not recollect any such thing.
Q. 28. Did not lumber sell very low that spring, especially tog¬
gle lumber ?
A. Yes. It was cheaper that year, than previously.
Q. 29. Did it rise in price, after the contractors had procured
their supply, according to your estimate?
A. I am unable to say. I do not think it did in Philadelphia.
Q. 30. Was the Easton dam let to the lowest bidder?
A. Yes.
Q. 31. You have said that you had a dispute with Judge Porter,
as to what constituted rubble masonry. Do you intend to convey
the impression that the abutments of the Easton dam are of rubble
masonry ?
A. I mean to say that the specification only, was to be adhered
to.
Q. 32. What is the difference between rubble masonry and
hammer-dressed range-work ?
A. The difference between rubble masonry and hammer-dressed
range-work has nothing to do with the question ; I go by the speci¬
fication.
Q. 33. You have said that you estimated the item for extra
work on masonry of the dam and extra quality of stone from Wag¬
ner's quarry, at $1340. Was that estimate a running or a final one?
A. It was a running estimate.
Q. 34. Are you positive, that your running estimate of that item,
included the whole of the work done ?
A. No.
Q. 35. Did you make the estimates for the Delaware division re¬
pairs ?
A. Yes.
Q. 36. What was the total amount of those estimates ?
A. I think $83,000.
Q. 37. Do you believe that your estimates of quantities were
correct ?
A. The quantities were estimated, and I made them as near
correct as I could at the time.
Q. 38. What was the condition of the line and the weather,
when you took the estimates of the quantities ?
A. There was a great quantity of snow on the ground, and the
weather was cold and unpleasant.
Q. 39. Was it not impossible at that time, and under the circum¬
stances, to make a correct estimate of the quantities ?
A. Yes ; it was impossible.
Q. 40. Was it not your own impression after you took the quan¬
tities, that they were too small ?
A. I was not there long enough to have my opinion changed.
3*2
Q. 41. Is it not a matter of frequent occurrence, that after care¬
ful examination, and surveys under favorable circumstances, the ac¬
tual cost of the work exceeds the original estimate ?
A. Yes.
Q. 42. Is a contractor ever permitted, as far as you are informed
to change his bid on account of an alleged error, after the work has
been alloted ?
A. No ; not by the engineer.
, Q. 43. Was not Harman's section declared abandoned?
A. Yes.
Q. 44. Was it not re-let to Clark and Brewster, at a public
letting ?
A. .1 do not know.
Cross-examined.
I think that Messrs. Packer, Hubley and Keys, were the Canal
Commissioners at the time. They never gave me any orders about
the work. I gave information to Mr. HufFnagle, that Eyre was
doing the work more expensively than I directed ; and his answer
was, that he wanted to come up and see it. It is the duty of the
assistant engineers to keep accounts and take the measurements ;
when there is a disagreement between theengineers and contractors,
it is customary for the contractors to make out accounts, and state
facts for consideration. No engineer can alter the contract. In
making estimates, they are not often made too hijjh.
MARTIN CORYELL.
The committee then adjourned to meet again on Monday, the
third day of April. On Saturday, April 1, the committee did not
meet ; and the secretary prepared the testimony of Martin Coryell
and George R. Mowry, for signature.
Monday, April 3, 1843.
The committee met at three o'clock, P. M. Present Messrs.
Heckman, Thomas, Trego, Hood and O'Bryan.
Geo. R. Mowry, resumed ; and was cross-examined by the com¬
mittee.
Q. Did you allow for the cribbing that was carried away by the
flood ?
A. I did.
Q. How often was any of the cribbing carried away ?
A. I think but once, but I cannot tell certain.
Q. In your estimates, did you make any deductions for the tim¬
ber ?
A. I did.
33
Q. From your notes, can you tell how much timber and filling
you allowed ?
A. I have no notes with me, and cannot tell from recollection.
Q. How did you make your measurements, as you say that you
were sometimes absent ?
A. Where they put cribs in deep water when I was absent, the
contractors kept an accurate measurement of the timber put in, and
afterwards I made an examination to see whether it was correct or
accurate.
Q. Do you know how many final estimates were made for that
job?
A. I made no estimate, but Mr. Schlatter requested me to put
down the prices of the work, which 1 did. I think it amounted to
$53,000, including the whole amount of the work. ,
Q. Did Mr. Schlatter make out his estimate from measurement?
A. He did, and from information derived from other sources.
Q. Have you a copy of your estimate ?
A. I have not.
Cross-examined by T. L. Wilson, clerk of the Canal Commis¬
sioners.
Q. Was there any change made in the plan of the work at
Easton ?
A. Yes ; it was made, I believe, in July or August.
Q. At what time was the change made ?
A. I do not recollect exactly.
Q. What was the effect of the change, as it respects the quanti¬
ty of the work ?
A. It increased it.
Q. Was the cost of work increased materially by a change of
an?
A. Yes.
Q. How did it increase the cost of the additional lumber re¬
quired ?
A. Before the change was made, they bought their lumber from
first hands ; after the change, they had to purchase it second handed,
and were obliged to use sawed lumber, in part.
Q. Did it increase the cost of the additional gravel required ?
A. It did; in consequence of having to bring it a greater dis¬
tance; three miles was the nearest place from which they could get
it; the first gravel they obtained near the work.
Q. Did the change of the plan increase the cost of the additional
embankment required ?
A. It did ; they had much difficulty in getting embankment; the
original quantity of embankment shown on the specification was
handy.
Q. From whom did Mr. Schlatter get his information, upon
which he founded his first estimate of $58,000 ?
3
P'
34
A. It was not an estimate, but an approximation to an estimate J
and when Mr. Schlatter made it out, he was in Easton but one day,
and had not time to satisfy himself about the prices of that approxi¬
mation.
Q. Do you know whether there was any work thrown into the
basin section after the work was commenced ?
A. There was.
Q. Do you know what the work cost ?
A. I do not know ; it was shown on the final estimate.
Cross-examined by the committee.
Q. Do you know what the additional price of the lumber was,
which they purchased after the alteration of the plan ?
A. I do not.
Q. How many cubic yards of gravel do they load upon a scow ?
A. The scows carry from 15 to 20 and 30.
Q. Did they pay any toll on the gravel?
A. I do not know.
Q. Did they not get a considerable portion of the gravel in the
basin ?
A. Thev got a large quantity.
Q. H ow do you know that the contractors kept an accurate ac¬
count of the timber used in the cribbing, when you were absent?
A. By examination ; by measuring the depth of the water, I
could tell very near the number of logs and cross-ties it would take
to raise the crib to the top of the water.
GEO. R. MOWRY.
Mr. Wilson, on behalf of the Canal Commissioners, proposed to
call Abraham P. Eyre, of Kensington, as a witness.
Mr. Heckman objected, on account of his being a contractor on
the work, and as he thought, an interested witness.
The ayes and noes being called, Mr. Eyre was permitted to testi¬
fy by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes—Messrs. Thomas, Trego and O'Bryan—3.
Noes—Messrs. Heckman and Hood—2.
Mr. Packer, a member of the House of Representatives from
Carbon county, appeared before the committee, and presented a com¬
munication from David Connor, Superintendent on the Delaware
division, protesting against an investigation into his official conduct
without being heard, and upon ex parte testimony ; and asking that
his communication be entered upon the journal of the committee.
On motion,
The communication was laid on the table.
Abraham P. Eyre was sworn.
The lumber taken from the wharf at Bristol was mine, and was
not charged in my bill to the State. Part of the lumber charged in
35
the bill, was used along the line of the canal. I think it was used
for bridges and waste weirs—it is stated in the bill. With regard
to the old timber, I never got one stick of it, nor did I use it in any
wharf. Mr. Morris Buckman, at Bristol, undertook to tow the old
timber to the city. He got about half a mile from the wharf at
Bristol, when it went to pieces. It lies now on the shore between
Bristol and Philadelphia. In regard to the old plank that has been
mentioned, it belonged to the Lehigh Coal company. Mr. Watson,
the president, told me that I might have it for taking it up, as it was
useless to the company. My vessel was lying at the wharf at Bris¬
tol, having discharged a load of stone there. Mr. Michael Bouvier
told me that he would like to have some of it for stopping muskrat
holes along the banks. I told him that I would send it to him and
charge little more than freight on it, and take furniture for it. Part
I gave to Mr. Kelly, the tender of the lock. John Besonette got a
part of it. I was to charge him something for it, but never asked
him for the monev.
w
(Here the witness was shown the following, being his final esti¬
mate, which he recognized as having attached to his affidavit:)
" The undersigned, A. P. Eyre, the contractor for the repair of
the basin and wharf at Bristol, hereby certifies that the following
is a correct return of the work done by him under said
contract
•
•
5,363j cubic yards com. excav.,
©
o
35
$1,877
13|
2,887 5-8 " 44 filling,
24
693
00
39,925 sq. ft. timber,
14
5,589
50
30 44 44
8
2
40
227 small fenders,
2
50
567
50
56 long "
5
00
280
00
2,165 ft. old work cut down,
50
1,082
50
141,789 44 b. m. plank,
13
00
1,843
25
8 ring bolts,
3
00
24
00
12,676 lbs. wharf bolts,
6
760
56
4,455 44 spikes,
6
267
30
371 tons stone,
70
259
70
Boiler iron and expense of putting it on
corners of new pier,
30
00
13 days' work with mud machine,
w *
25
00
325
00
$13,601 84|
Dauphin county, ss.
Personally appeared belore me, a justice of the peace, in and for
the borough of Harrisburg, the above mentioned A. P. Eyre, who
being duly sworn according to law, doth say that the above bill is
correct to his best knowledge and belief.
(Signed) A. P. EYRE.
Sworn and subscribed, March 3, 1841.
(Signed) JOHN DAVIES.
36
As it respects the iron, I received pay for no more than for what
was used. I charged the Commonwealth with the whole amount of
the iron, and gave credit on the bill for the quantity that was left.
(Signed) A. P. EYRE.
Question by Mr. Wilson, Clerk of the Canal Commissioners :
Did you ever tell Mr. Coryell, at an interview with him at Phila¬
delphia, that there had been a split in the democratic party in the Ken¬
sington district—that Judge Porter had been in the city—that he
told you that you must allay the difficulty—that to do this, and get
Gov. Porter re-nominated, had cost you more than $1,400—that
you would lose money—and that this contract had been given to
you to help you out, and make up the loss?
This question being objected to, and the yeas and nays being
called upon allowing the witness to answer, it was decided in the
negative by the following vote, to wit:
Yeas—Mr. Thomas—1.
Nays—Messrs. Heckman, Trego and Hood—3.
John F. Houston was sworn.
I went on to the Delaware division as Assistant Engineer, in April,
1841. The work had all then been put under contract. Section
A at New Hope, had been allotted,T understand, to Daniel Y. Har-
man, and had been thrown up, and was already advertised for re-let-
ting. I attended the letting, and forwarded the bids to the Canal
Commissioners at Harrisburg. The work was allotted to Clark and
Hague. Hague refused to sign the contract, and the work was pros¬
ecuted under the firm of Clark & Brewster. I met with Mr. Mar¬
tin Coryell at New Hope, and received from him such information
as he was able to give me, with regard to the line I was about to
take charge of. Mr. Coryell gave me the specifications which had
been exhibited at the letting; most of them were in his own hand
writing. I had some of them copied into a book for greater conve¬
nience, and in the specification of the works at Easton, the basin
being included, occurs the following passage, to-wit:
** There being such a variety of circumstances on this line, to
alter the character of the work, it must be distinctly understood that
the engineer on the line shall have power from time to time, to
make any alteration in the plans, or give any directions, and make
any improvements that shall suggest, however different they may
be from any of these specifications ; and if the contractor should be
injured by so doing, the engineer will make due allowance, as will
appear just to him for such change or alteration."
This specification is the act of the engineer, done by the authority
of the Board of Commissioners. The quantities required by the
plan, were also given to me by Mr, Coryell, from the paperexbibited
at the letting. There is a clause in the contract for the basin of simh
lar import with th# foregoing extract from the apgeiilcciliom There
37
was a change made in the plan of construction of the basin. I can¬
not recollect the time when this change took place, but I think it was
in the month of August. The change was made after a consultation
with Josiah White. I was not present at the interview between
Mr. Huffnagle and the contractors, but I understood from both par¬
ties, afterwards, that the contractors were to be allowed for any ad¬
ditional expense to which they would be put in obtaining materials,
above what they would have been at, had the contract remained
according to the first plan ; and it was understood at the time, that
the difficulty of being paid by the Commonwealth was to be taken
into account. The contractors told me at the time, and authorized
me to say so to Mr. Huffnagle, that they were willing to throw up
their work, upon conditions that it should be measured and taken off
their hands.
Cross-examined.
I was on that work from April, 1841, to February or March, 1842.
I kept no accounts of the measurements—that was not my business.
The contractors said that they were willing to throw up their work,
if any one could be got to take it off their hands. This was said at
the time of the change. There were only a portion of the con¬
tractors, but a majority of them, that signified their willingness to re¬
linquish the work. I never seen Samuel C. Humes on that work,
and do not know that he furnished any materials for the job.
Question by Mr. Wilson.
Is it required that all the parties of a contract should give it their
personal attention ?
A. I should think not, when there are several in the firm.
With regard to the timber in the old aqueduct, mentioned in the
testimony of Mr. May, a part of it was used in the crib work and
dam, and was estimated at half price, by Mr. Jarrett, the Sub-Assist¬
ant Engineer; that is, just one-half of the timber so used was esti¬
mated at full price.
Q. What was the reason that May and company, contractors for
section No. 4, got no extra prices for work done over their estimated
amount in the contract; and that the contractors on the basin were
allowed extra prices for all the work they did, over the amount es¬
timated in their contract?
A. Because there was no change made in the plan of the work,
after the contractors had commenced their work, which could operate
to their injury, or which could increase to them the expense of pro*
curing materials.
JNO. FRED. HOUSTON*
Adjourned.
38
Tuesday, April 4, 1843.
The committee met at 7 o'clock, P. M.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Thomas, Trego, O'Bryan and Hood.
John F. Houston, resumed.
The item of 9,115 perches of stone filling was included in the
original contract or considered as being so, and was estimated at the
contract price. An amount of 1800 perches was estimated at 85
cents, on account of greater difficulty in procuring it, and on account
of having to raise it to a greater height than was contemplated in the
original plan. The stone-filling for the original was obtained near
the work, and part without quarrying, while this item was quarried
and hauled at a distance of a mile, and then boated to the work and
raised by barrows to the height required by the change of plan;
2,904 perches was considered to be procured and deposited at less
expense, and was estimated at 70 cents. The dry wall estimated at
$1,75 per perch, connects the out-let lock with the weigh-lock, and
the weigh-lock with the guard-lock, forming the pier heads between
those locks. I do not consider $1,75 a high price.
Question by Mr. Wilson.
Do you consider the price paid for the abutments of the bridges
near Reiglesville, as extravagant ?
A. I do not. The superstructure of those bridges was estimated
from the bills obtained from the persons from whom the contractors
procured their materials, allowing a very small profit to those con¬
tractors.
- Question by Mr. O'Bryan.
Was the estimate on the basin, and the work generally on the line,
taken from actual measurement?
A. Yes, as far as my knowledge extends.
JNO. FRED. HOUSTON.
Charles L. Schlatter, was sworn.
I was appointed Principal Engineer on the Delaware division of
the Pennsylvania canal, in February, 1842, and visited the line of
canal in March following. I did not take the estimate then of the
basin and works around it, as Mr. Connor, the Supervisor, was de¬
sirous that the contractors should finish some work which he had
not time to attend to himself, the causes for which are given at
length in my report on the subject. I visited Easton again in April,
for the purpose of making out an estimate on the basin. I remained
there but one day, being called away by the Canal Board. During
that day, I examined the works and received information relative to
the quantities and prices of the work done by Medlar, Barnet & Co.,
but did not remain there long enough to make out an estimate that
was satisfactory to myself. I again visited Easton in August, when
I made the final estimates from measurements, made by Mr. Mowry,
39
the Assistant Engineer, whb had charge of the work during its con*
struction. For more detailed information, I refer to my report on
the subject.
Cross-examined by the committee.
I had no more difficulty'with the contractors than is usual in such
cases. My first estimate, made out before a consultation with Mr.
Houston, was $53,138 54, and I found out after an examination of
the papers which I had received from Mr. Mowry, that there were
3,203 cubic yards of excavation at the contract price, left out of the
estimate. The items which were added to the estimate, after my
consultation with Mr. Houston, will be found by referring to my
report on the repairs of the Delaware division, made to the Board of
Canal Commissioners, and now in the possession of the committee.
CHARLES L. SCHLATTER.
Wednesday, April 5, 1843.
Committee met at 7 o'clock, P. M,
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Thomas, Trego and Hood.
The evidence taken at the several sessions of the committee was
read by the secretary, when the committee adjourned.
Saturday, April 8, 1843.
Committee met at 3 o'clock, P. M.
Present—Messrs. Heckman, Trego and Thomas.
William F. Packer, was affirmed.
I am the Auditor General of Pennsylvania. My reason for not
auditing and settling the final estimate for the basin at Easton, when
it was first presented to me by the contractors, to be entered on the
books of the Auditor General, in pursuance of the act of the 7th of
April, 1842, was, that upon examining it, I discovered that there
had been such a departure from the original contract and specifica¬
tion, as I thought required the previous action of the Board of Canal
Commissioners. It was presented to me during their absence from the
seat of government, and I declined acting upon it until they returned.
The estimate presented to me, was, in my opinion, for the same
amount as was afterwards allowed by the Canal Commissioners. It
was between $50,000 and $60,000. 1 had never seen the work,
and hence personally knew nothing of the facts. I rejected the esti¬
mate, because I thought the engineer had departed too far from the
contract and specification, to permit the account to pass, without
submitting it to the Canal Board. It was settled some time last fall
after the Canal Commissioners had returned to trie seat of govern¬
ment. The time will be found stated in my annual report to the
legislature.
WM. F. PACKER.
On motion, it was unanimously
Resolved, That the following letter of David Connor be inserted
on the minutes of the committee, to wit:
Easton, March 28, 1843.
Gentlemen :—The undersigned has heard, that in the investiga¬
tion now going on before you, relative to the repairs on the State
improvements, a certain Joseph H. Long has been examined as a
witness, and s given in testimony, involving serious charges against
me as a public officer.
These charges, so far as the same have been detailed to the under¬
signed by Mr. Hirst, (in whose presence the testimony was given, and
who passed through this place yesterday on his return home,) are all
of them untrue in point of fact; and the undersigned can make good
this assertion, as well by undoubted proof of the falsity of the charges
themselves, as of the want of veracity of the witness.
The undersigned, inasmuch as he has had no previous notice, of¬
ficial or otherwise, that the investigation, with which the committee
are charged, would extend to an enquiry into his conduct, cannot
avoid expressing his surprise that his official reputation should be
thus impeached, in an ex parte investigation, without a specification
of the charges first made, and an opportunity given to him of repel¬
ling them by proper evidence—and he therefore objects to the pro¬
ceeding as irregular and oppressive.
He therefore takes this method of interposing an unqualified and
public denial to the truth of the alleged charges ; and respectfully but
earnestly protests against any investigation as to his official conduct,
until he has the opportunity of producing countervailing proof, and
being heard in his own defence.
This communication is made by the undersigned, not from any
fear entertained by him as to the result of any investigation of his
official behaviour, but under a proper sense of his rights as a citizen,
and the duty he owes to himself of protecting his reputation when¬
ever it is unjustly assailed. On the contrary, he publicly invites
the most rigid and impartial scrutiny ; but he at the same time de¬
mands that the same rights and privileges should be extended to
him that are guaranteed to every other citizen of the State.
The undersigned respectfully requests that this communication be
entered on the journals of the committee.
Very respectfully, yours,
(Signed,) DAVID CONNOR, SupV.
To Messrs. J. K. Heckman and others,
Committee of the House of Representatives.
DELAWARE CA3(AE~.
Statement of t!-e various articles which
"No of boats cl'd...
Tanure.
10 813 8,56«/ 10,086
- 135,114 1,838^58.3,6^,^1
[ at and cleared from Bristol, hv the Delaware wcngers. miles. 3^837 ,,!i on
[vision-of the Pe.vxstlva.viA CAnal, during Irnt toll received.$26,345 19 $23,468 44$26,401 -
years 1852,1853 and 1854, as made up for the -
mercial List:
arrived at bristol .
Articles. 1852 - ms 1854
Agricultural pro¬
ductions not spe¬
cified lbs
Barley bush
Bran&ship stuff, do
Com do
Cotton ...lbs
Hemp lbs
Oats bush
Potatoes do
Seeds do
Wheat bush
Hides, dry lbs
Hides, green... .do
Leather do
Wool do
Bark,ung'd. cords.
Boards, &c.... feet
Laths .... number
Hoop Poles do
Post and rails...do
Shingles do
Staves do
Timber, cubic feet
Wood cords
Cider&Vinegar .bis
Dry Goods lbs
Groceries do
Hardware...... do
Liquors ,foreign.gai
Paints do
j Ropes&eordage .do
I Salt bush •••• .... 2,550
! Tobacco, man..do 23,463 19,191 6,920
Whiskey galls 1,50-2,352 1,815,365 1,624,371
Clay, German..lbs .... 279,000
CoalMinl.gross tons 565,742 440,500 5-23,628
Copper lbs .... 400
Iron, pigs lbs 85,934,897 88,738,803113,900170
Iron, castings...do 636,600 285,286 133,040
13-2,613
1,200
125,566
198,068
220,181
23
592
602
5,132
7,199
5,798
3,940
40,066
7,355
5.000
6,492
4,791
H247
4,400
*456
7,354
189
•293
196
259
•2,411
39
1,900
4,1*36
....
....
4,000
....
2,000
275,912
258,565
176,400
27,575
21,730
....
....
99
>,052,980 17
,117,967 11 617,300
501,950
303,000
71,900
....
300
4,800
1.183
1.235
90,000
15,600
47,700
5,100
6**12*3
9,377
19,777
1,103
598
904
395
■ ■..
....
•281,255
179,667
116,500
29,440
2,000
2.500
• • ••
600
5,500
355
19,200
1,434
74,000
10,320
28,708
5,600
33.770
....
1,000
6,059
....
...
16
21
118
1,481
A
COO
2,438
74,2^1
61,62*5
2
27,979
1,400
COO
1,200
24,405
1,800
5-20
....
42,396
55,189
37,950
700
....
5,200
2,600
....
4,574,913
4,092,248
5,724,671
20,890
22,679
29,773
10,440
6,850
3,000
36,614
8-2,166
96,550
1,907
107
799
53,804
19,466
116,984
351,668
1,018,549
218,551
....
19,700
4,680
0 * . .
850
6,040
83-2,039
381,405
1,078,767
703,984
864,209
39,920
63,724
162,941
1,342,046
1,436,217
1,12-2,326
Iron, bar&sheet..do'
Nails & spikes..do
Iron Wire.... .do
Zinc Ore do
Steel.. do
Bacon .do
Beef and pork..brls
Butter lbs
Fish brls
Flour do
Lard, lard oil...lbs
I Tallow do
| Brick number
| Lime bush
i Marble lbs
I Mill Stones....do
Slate do
Stone perches
Ag implements.lbs
Furniture do
Oil galls
Paper lbs
Rags do
Straw paper....do
Tar and Rosin..do
Sundries do
Iron Wire
Machinery
Live Stock
shipped FROM BRISTOL.
Agr'l Productions
not specified.lbs
Barley bush
Bran&breadstuffdo
Corn ,.do
Cotton ..lbs
Hemp do
Hops do
Oats ....bush
Oil cake lbs
Potatoes bush
Seeds..........do
Tobac.not man.,lbs
Wheat bush
Hides, dry.... .lbs
Hides, green., .do
Leather do
Wool do
Boards feet
Heading&bolts. No
Hoop poles do
Laths do
Posts and rails.. do
Shingles do
Staves dp
Ale, &c brls
Cider &vinegar. do
China ware lbs
Coffee do
Drugs & med....do
Dry goods do
Dye Stuffs do
Glassware..;-. ..do
Groceries do
Hardware do
Lead, vyhite.. ..do
Liquors, for...gals
Paints .lbs
Ropes, &c do
Salt bush
Tobacco,man.. .lbs
Window glass, bxs
Machinery lbs
Anvils. -"..lbs
Coal tons
Copper lbs
Gypsum tons
Iron Ore ..lbs
Iron, pigs lbs
Iron, castings.. .do
Iron, blooms... .do
Iron, bar&sheet.do
Lead do
Nails qnd spikesdo
Railroa'd lrn:i.. .do
Spanish whitingdo
Steel i do
Tin do
Bacon do
Beef and pork. brls
Cheese tdo
Fish brls
Flour do
Lard, lard oil., lbs
Oysters do
Tallow do
Brick number
Grindstones.... lbs
I .ime bush
Mirbls lbs
Mill stones do
Slate... Jo
Stone perches
Ajr'l iroplem'ts.lbs
Fjirnitqrp., ....dp
Oil galls
Papar...- lbs
Rags do
ive Stock do
-i Rosin..do
177,145
600
845,659
356,290
456,842
155,250
5,647,727
3,138
2,412
6,033
100
200
....
19,941
2,058
13,778
397,815
359,758
195,581
156,4}1
109,898
74,181
7,260
3,939
25,23-2
232
....
500
5-21,360
174,720
4,600*
1,975
1,723
145
120
327
21
406,294
193,049
493,037
14,584
6,511
54,600
194,023
73,644
65,352
472,039
637,834
850,117
36,832
•29,956
10,643
10,107
16,193
5,814
1,483,691
1,436,290
2,254,350
13,476
11,600
7,570
200
1,500
124,560
227,000
585,000
19,2-26
10,775
14,450
1,468,657
1,862,205
1,249,334
....
1,000
23,100
77-2
1,007
1,183,211
624,544
337,268
927,747
151',635
8.316,056
1,269,820
114,522
135,586
82*770
58,560
174,053
1,037
203,846
901
604
560,099
498,165
2 91,050
98,6590
2,523
148,043
11,060,748
L013.014
34,34-2
' 114,905
148,708
94,730
64,583
•268.214
3,154
541,705
l'ier
481
2,516
3,549 3,236
140,390
54-2,978
809,497
2,21-2,121
13,153
777,#2
1,7-21,083
23,761
16,139
121,838
637,597
757
7,269
8,391
1,288
•23,816
71,164
10,064
215,803
45,354
1,530
489,107
5.109
87,360
47,740
229,395
88,138
27,805
2,548
291,041
1.285.691
2,085,234
1.894,066
5,037
309,648
2.061,523
2.476
3,430
34,133
447,368
404
14,786
3,115
882
33,766
79,520
28,850
485,412
37,284
2,712
328,933
8,065
32,
201
,455
1.234
77,566
7-2,605
419
936
1,314,522
721,550
141,075
665,538
185,465
6,877,134
1,50-2,095
16,535
77,365
7,587
11,646
70,357
90,700
3,062
99535
1,327
362
-2,864
• 134,400
795,553
1,162,000
1,859,500
1,745,500
35,774
227,686
4,751,226
19,472
126*343
. 710,734
451
10,987
3,066
3,601
3,198
37.061
14,011
583,220
38,150
300,563
4-26,563
3,000
27,815
183,571
55,-85
17,500
"56,854