TERMS OF PUBLICATION.
' 00 per annum, in'advance—or
g 2 50, if not paid within the year.
No Subscription taken fora less term than six
months, and no .discontinuance permitted .until
all arrearages are paid. A . failure to notify-a ,
discontinuance at the expiration of a term; will
,be .considered anew engagement.
'^Mverlisch ienrt—-gl 00 per square for the
three first insertions, and twenty five cents for
every subsequent one*
P O E T R Y.
COURTSHIP.
BY THOMAS JUOOBE.
‘•Oh Caura! will nothing I bring thee
E’er soften those looks of disdain? '
Are the songs of affection I sing thee
’ AU doomed to be sung thee in vain?
I offer.thee, fairest and dearest,
A treasure the richest I'm i gSjlh;
I offer thee love, the sincorcsef^J'
' The warmest e’er glowed upon earth!’’
But the maiden, a haughty look flinging,
Said, ‘cease imy compassion
For I’m not very partial to.singing,
they’re poor* whose sole pleasure is love!’
iMy name will be sounded in story - ~ *
I offer thee'dearest my name;
3 have fought in the proiid field of glory!
.. Oh Laura'comc share in my fame! .
j bring thee a soul that thee;.
And loves thee wherever thmi art,'
Which thrills as its tribute it brings thee - - 1. -
Of tenderness fresh Irom tire heart. 9
lint the maidcn ff said “cease to ftnporlune!
TJiVc Cupid-lhe-use of his wings;
Ah. fame’s but a jJitiful fortune—
And hearts arc such valueless things!*
A *Oh Laura, forgwe if I’ve spoken
'l*oo tnddly—nay turn not away
■For my heart .with afflicth.'n is broken—
My uncle died only today!
Mv uncle, the nabob'-wlm tended - •
My ymitlrwith affection and
My manlno 1 who kindly befriended—
HaS“-dicd—-and—has^—lths^-me—his—hiir!*
And the maiden said,. !iw.eep,not srncercst^—
My: heart hT.s be'en Vour’s all ahuigV
hearts arc of treasures the
I) >, Edward go on with yi.ursong.”
REPORT.
Mr. BitoADiiEAn, from the committee appoint--
cd to examine Into the several lettings du 7
ring-tlie last year, by the late hoard of
Canal Commissioners, ■ with respect to
frauds alleged to have becn T conimitted
by them and their agents, upon the Com
monwealth, and into cases referred to
them by the legislatures and into cases,
where damages have been paid, where
they had been theretofore paid, and re
leases) givpn, and also, into the improper
payments of public money or allowances
uponpontracts beyond the actual letting,
and such other incidental frauds on the
yjv&evenue of the State, as may coine under
'i observation; made the following
REPORT:
That on the 15th day of May last, having
first given due notice to the late board of
Canal Commissioners, the committee enter
ed upon the discharge of the duties assigned
them, and have prosecuted the inquiries di
rected, at times when the house was notin
session; and occasionally when in session,
and the interests and lights of their consti
tuents did not require their, presence. ■
It has been the object df.your committee
to investigate, not to criminate, and it itrnow
the object..to exhibit to the house, and the
public, the trutlr without perversion or dis
guise. i The re'sultuf the investigation, diffi
cult as it has been, because of the distance
from the place where the wrongs were al
‘ leged to have bein' committed,'and the se
crecy and adroitness with which peculation
and misuser of thefpublic treasury are al
ways committed—has satisfied the comriiit
' tee, that the public, funds have been pervert
ed to party purposes.. aiid..piLv.atu.cnds.-and
the high and. responsible office ofuanal
Comifilssioner used, not to carry out, sus
tain and render prpfitab’e to the.pcople, our
.„riobleysystem—of—internal improvements; -
which has cost so many millions, hut for
partisan etfect.and political advancement.
Your committee will now proceed to bring
brieflytotlic j,ieW-<>f-tJ)e.house,.theinaterial
. partS - .oflfhe. evidence, substantialjyjn the
language of'the witnesses themselves, all of j
which is 'herewith exhibited, and is a part of
■ this report, upon which these allegations are
founded, and to suggest most respectfully,
the mode by which in some cases, the frauds,
may be prevented from being cqnsumated,
and much money yet saved to the Commpn
, wealth. . *
By the act of 14th of April,-1838,-large
appropriations were made to the Wisconis
co. the North and West .branch Canais.and
the Canal Commissioners directed -to put
■certain parts of. the.said Canals under con
‘ tract. They did so during tire last summer,
■and. during the last winter, before the ap
pointment of the present board, re-let cer
tain parts of the work, which they allege had
been/abandoned. Allegations -were mqde,
thgt the work was not let to the lowest, good
and resporisible.bidder, as is fhe practice,;
, and is obviously correct,, buffo men alone
who were of their own political creed, and
who Wmild,' in consideration of receiving
high prices, contribute largely, to promote
flie view's of the Commissioners at the eleo
tipjpT-and that thg re-letting wri 3 without the*
jfriSSil notice, Slid to’the original contractors,
-without an abandonment of-.the work.Tri
-point of facthaving-occurred. .> These high"
'nndi'grave chafges, the committee think.are,.
■ fully sustained;; by theevidencc,'.aiid in
consequence offtnis 'impfdper'leftirigr’and
-reVletnng r yefydarge sums of: money: frist to
theiGommopwealth, _ • „ ■; y:;
Oil ihe Bth of August last? a letting was
had at Halifax, of work on the Wisconisco;
Vafwhichralt Ole (Jqmmissiotiei-s attended!—
'Janies’Bradley,;fhe..late^
■ engineer on - this! Canal, was subpoenaed and
testified,,concerning theoharges m 1 substance
.risfollowayTO
BY G. SANDERSON: & E. CORNMAN.]
Witold No. 1304.
eel; ami he and others were about to register
them., Mr. Pennypackcr, one of the Com
missioners said, in regard to the bids of de
mocrats, or Porter men, that we should send
them aid ways, Mr. Stevens then took a
seat at the table, arid the bids that were to
be registered, he put on the table, and threw
a large-number im the floor,—that he found
from the conversation of the Commissioners,
that the reason these,bids were thrown a
way, was becatise they were bids of Porter
that the import df.Ttheir.conversa
tion was, that they would not give contracts
to Porter men. . -
In making the allotmcnts.of the work, af
ter some of ; the bids had been registered,
Mr. Bradley further testified, that vyhen a
person’s bid was for a fair price, who was
notknoWn to the Canal Commissioners, they
.sent the superintendent out to inquire into
Ids moral character, or religious principles,
which meant his political character, that, in
one or two instances,; where they desired to
give work to particular individuals,and their
bids were too high, they seht them back to
have them altered, and in onejnstancc.ihey
altered a bid themselves; without sending it
back, and in several instances, they did not
give the work to the lowest bidder.
From this inquiry into, the religious, prih;
ciplcs or political character of bidders,.and
declaratio.ri-that.thoiv-.ownfrienUs alonewere
to have work, it would be fair to infer that
some improper purpose was to-be accom
plished. But it is not left to inference, Mr.
Bradley and other witnesses, clearly prove
the object. He testified th,at about two
weeks previous to the inspector's election,
Mr. Rutherford, the superintemleut receiv
cd a letter irom-Mr.. Stevens, that lie (Mr.
R.) after having read it himself handed it to
him to read, that it contained instructions in
regard to conducting-the election at-Halifax;
that it stated five hundred men ought to be
on the works by the time of the election, arid
that he..must be Careful to have “no Porter
Posses ” on the liiic, and that'the contract
ors must bring their.,men up to the polls and
see,(hat they deposited their ballots, and
that he.well recollected this-expression in
the letter— -take care of the missionary fund.
On the 28th day of September, the day of
the inspector’s election, Mr. Bradley testi
fied that Mr. Rutherford the superintend
ent, brought to hiift' the .subscription to the
missionary fund—it was signed by eighteen'
and the sum subscribed was
twelve hundred and forty dollars. The
writing to which the contractors'subscribed
was of the following import: "we the under
signed agree to pay Jo.hn P. Rutherford the
sum set opposite our names for the purpose,
of diffusing useful - knowledge among" the
people”—Mr.. Rutherford stated to Mr.
Bradley that this was the missionary fund,
and that'it was to pay for handbills, circu
lars, and for other electioneering purposes,
that each contractor was to subscriber a sum
equal to one percent, upon the amount of
his contract, and he (the-engineer) was to
allow it in the estimates, (|iat is, pllow so
much more.than the aniount of theft- work,
and that this was the only'way they could
get at the State Treasury. Mr. Bradley
refused toauld this ainount to the estimates,
and was discharged. . ,
This, testimony of Mr. Bradley, who tes
tified frankly and honestly, was strongly
corroborated by (he testimony of several ci
tizens. . Mr. Conrad Kneply, testified-that
he had just finished a contract on the public
works, had all the tools, tarts, horses &c.
necessary for-canalling, was a bidder at the
lettings on this Canal, and bid for eight dif
ferent sections much lower, than those to
whom they were let. He-was-informed by
the officers, that it was in consequence of
his politics that he could not get a job. The
testimony of George W. Finney and Philip
Etter was of-the same import. N. F. Jones,
who was a rbdman on this Canal, confirmed,
the statement of Mr. Bradley in relation to
.tbc_receipt-oLt]ie-lct!or-from-Mr.-Stevens-to-
Mr. Rutherford, saw the subscription to (he
.missionary fund in the hands of Rutherford,,
and heard.. Mm say, that was the only way
-tiiey-cuuld-get-atthc~67g7)Mr.jrrainlTinrrir
larger sura than was then subscribed to the
paper (about 700 dollars) had already gone
into-Berks-county. James M, . Foster at
’tend.ed ajnccting.ofJhe-contractors,:which
Ruthcrfoid attended. The object of the.
meeting, was to obtain more men on the Ca
nal, and raise money.; The men were to be
obtained in the county of Philadelphia, por-:
ter men; they were'to be brought .up and
then made to vole for Ritner. ■ ■ .
The present superintendent, Simon Salade,
was called as a witness, who testified to the
correctness of his report made this spring,
to the present board of Canal Commission
ers, from the books &c. which he found .in
the offic.c,..and : from.'reports of.the. present
engineers to hini. This report shows that
the twenty-five sections, were let on the
eighth of August. The cost offhese twen
ty-five, sections, at the rejected, bids, would
have been over twenty thousand dollars less,-
than at the bids which were accepted. Eight
sections and one adqueduct,Were abandoned
arid re-let, during,the last summer arid fall,
at an advance in-price of 19,936 dollars.—
The. legal, notice,' so, far as the committee,
could ascertain, was given. . ' The .report
farther shows, that f he' contractors wereov-.
er estimated arid over paid the sum of $3372
83,''notwithstanding, by; the terms .of fhe
contractsj-fifteen per cent was to be retain
ed;' to insure the' coiTipletioriof the Work. "
This is a brief statement of all the mate
rial evidence, relative to'tho;,.WisconiBco
Cahal.vlt clearly shows. gfoss' and: culpa
ble. misconduct: on .the part ofrtheiCahal
Gemndasionerdani|j|heir agenfs.. Tlie fact
that none but. tlieir'political friends, were'
permitted to contracts,. to: the .exclu
sion of other good, responsible and lower
bidders; is clearly proved.;-;- Mr. Stevens is
connected with an attempt; at least, to ob
tain a portion of the public funds-for. elec
tioneering purposesj how-successful, your
coriimittee cannot say. : :'According to the
estimates above stated, however, the, con
Pa. Jitly ftS, 1839-
tractors Wave been oyer estimated and over
paid. ' The use of the term ‘/missionary
fund” and in the connection stated in the
testimony, is evidence of a xorruptfdcsign.
The fact of ,the very large , subscription by
the contractors, for electioneering purposes,
taken in connexion with the testimony of
Bradley, Foster and o thers, is evidence, that
the amount of their subscriptions was not to
come out of their own private funds. It is a
well settled principle of law, that
number of persons nave been shown to have
been Connected and combined in an unlaw
ful transaction';''the act and declarations of
one, become the acts and declarations of all.'
If this rule were applied-to Mr. Stevens, ho
would be clearly answerable, with Ruther
ford the superintendent, for all the illegal
transactions on the Wisconisco and at Hal-"
ifax.
NORTH BRANCH.
On the 31st of July last, a letting was had
at Tunkhannock, of work on the North
branch Ganal,- at which Messrsr Stevens ami
Dickey -attended-. The same inquiry, into
the moral character of the'hidders, was made
at this letting, as on the'Wisconison. Mr.
.Stevens said to .two of’ the, bidders, that if
they would be good Ritner men, he thought
they could get work. One of them, Philip
Sullivan, "testified that,,although he intended
to-.vote againstKitner, in consequence of the
agreement he made with Mr. Stevens, be
fore'gctting a contract, he voted (or him.—
The work on’tfiis Canal was not let to the
lowest, good and responsible- bidder.
. About thclast of Sejitemher. or the first
of October, a meeting of the contractors, su’-
pcrintcndeilts, clerks. Sec. was held on this
line at Tunkhannock. Twc of the Canal
Commissioners, Messrs. Stevens andPenny
packer, attended, and re-let or re-allotted
three sections, without any notice by adver
tisement having been given.' The’section
which had been contracted for by Mr. Smith
and Ids partner, was re-let upon this occa
sion. One of the witnesses testified that the
object of the meeting, as ho understood it,
was to get as many hands on the work as
(hey could, and see howmany would vote
fur.Ritner. Two witnesses testified that al
though the meeting was Organized,somewhat
informally, a clerk was called, and Mr. Ste
vens acted as chairman. He took a seat at
the table; called the contractors’ names,, or
most of them, and wanted to. know from
each how many hands they had upon (he
work, and'how. many. would vote” for fiitner.
The names of the contractors and the num
ber of men they gave in, were taken down
by (he clerk. Mr. Stevens stated to the
contractors at this time, that they should get
as many men on the work as they cbuld"be
forc the election. There was a scarcity of
men on the work at this time. About the
lime of the meeting,-Mr. Stevens declared
the contract of Mr. White abandoned.—r
White, it appeared, had given a man by the
name of Harrington an interest in the con
tract, and placed him on the job to superin
tend (be work. Stevens ordered him off the
work, because, he alleged, that Jie had not
fold him the truth ig regard to his having an
interest in the contract. White testjfied that
Harrington was a Porter man,'and a good
-deal,was said about using his influence, a
mong the hands for Porter. Stevens said
that he must go off'the works, that he,would
have no such man on. White remonstrated,
and said it would iqakc a disturbance, and
if lie would let him remain ho would send
him home until after the election. This pro
position u'as'accedcd to by Mr. Stevens, and
Harrington was sent oil’ the lino until'after
the election, when he returned.
On the Tth of November last, a re-letting
of seventeen-sections on this Canal, which
were alleged to have been abandoned, six
teen of, which were not so in point of fact,
took place. The following is a copy of the
advertisement under which this resetting
took'place; ’ , - ’ 1 ' ■
3 ■ Canal OJJlcc, Tunhhannock,
October 16, 1838. .
CANAL LETTING.
Section- 132oii.AliC-Tnnkliannockdiiic.of
the Pennsylvania Candf, and all other aban~
doned sections on said line, will be re-let at
Tunkhannock,,on Wednesday, the 7ih day
of November .next.’. Specifications. jif_ the
work may be Seen at the. Canal Office, in
Tunklianriock, on the day of letting.,
(Sighed) ~
' E. HARDING, Jr., Supt.
Dythe act of assembly of the 22d of A-’
pri1,”1829, l it is provided that “in all cases
where a 1 con tract on the Canal or Rail-road
shall be abandoned, it shall be the duty of
the superintendent, or acting Canal Com
missioner; to give at least two weeks public
notice of the same, ,, Under the advertise
ment above, stated, .it would have beeh con
trary to this act, supposing other contracts
had been abandoned on qr before the 7"th of
November, to have re-let them; yet, astound
ing as it may seem,'seventeen sections, in
cluding the one.mentioned injhe advertise
ment,: were re-let at a cost of four-hundred
and thirty-three thousand three.hundred and
six' dollars and twenty-five- cents. This
gross violation of the act of assembly and
the rights of the citizens-of this Common
wealth; might ill some measure be justified'
if the‘sixteen sections had.aotually been a
bandoned and re-let torindiyiduals ridf con
cerned in the contract. But this was not
the case. No notice iyas given until the af
ternoon of the bn which they were
re-let, qfnn intention to abandon them,; ami
then,they were re-let to thesdme ,contract-.:
ors, whonever in point of fact abahdbned bri
ceased'operations on them for a moment, df
an' advance of ninety : thrce thousand semi
hundred and seventy'dollars, above theiribr-'
met contract prices, and at an advance abbte
rejected bids of one hundred and three tlvou
sand three, liundfetfand thirty-five; dpllarsi
It is frueJtlie
sen t, ; bu t the contracts. wefe",
approyed brby jvfri Stevens.Theabproyal
or allqtment is inhishflrid -W j
; These contracts were, entered into, in Vio
la tion of the express provisions of the act' of
“our COUNTRY- —RIGHT ORVWBpNO.”
assembly, of which the parties were bound
to take notice, Qnd were therefore illegal.—
■The fact that the sections were re-let to.the
same contractors at such an enormous ad
vance, when they were going on to complete
them under their original contract prices, is
strong evidence of fraud in fact. Your com 4 ',
mittce are therefore of opinion that the con
tracts were fraudulent and void, and were
greatly pleased to hear, after these disclo
sures were made" before them, that the. pre
sent board, of Canal Commissioners declared
the above mentioned sixteen'scctions aban
doned, and directed- the superintendent to
advertise them for re-letting. By this means
a very large sum of money will, without
doubt, be saved to the Commonwealth.- Al
though the contractors have thus violated
the law, and would perhaps have no legal
right to claim, any thing under the alleged
contract, still no injustice should" lie done
them. T'hey should be paid it reasonable
and just compensation for the labor which
they have done. -If any-act of- the-legisla
ture, should be found necessary.in order to
enable the contractors; to 1 receive this reason
able compensation it should be passed.
1 TVIr. Stevens in his defence before your
committee,. attempted to prove that it was
the custom to advertise abandoned work on
tire Canals and Rail-roads, as was done in
this case. He produced several advertise
ments which-concluded with a-simifarrclause
to the one above Stated, butonly proved that
in one instance, one or two sections were
re-let which were not mentioned and parti
cularly described in the advertisement.—
The amount of the cost of the re-letting of
those jiot'me'ntioncd.was not proved,, and it
might have been, as it frequently happens,
of a small quantity of unfinished work on
the sections. Had they, however, succeed
ed in establishing a custom of the kind, it,
could not and should not prevail against the
express provisions of an act of the legisla
ture—so large ah amount of work should not
be let without giving itotice to the citizens
of the Commonwealth. To do so,’ is a vio
lation, of the law and a .fraud upon the rights
of the citizCns.
Many aiid loud complaints-wcre made of
the improper, conduct of the late board of
Canal Commissioners and their agcntsJiupon
the Tioga line of the North Branch Canal,
but the great distance and.the limited time
of your committee prevented the sending for
persons and papers, and going into an inves
tigation.. The alleged frauds on the Gettys
burg rail-road,& Huntingdon comity breach,
were not examined into, because the matter
was before other committees of tlie House
and Senate.
WEST BRANCH.
On the 23d day of July last a letting of
work took place at Farrnadsville on this Ca
nal, at which "two of the Commissioners,
Messrs. Stevens and Dickey attended, and
during the summer, work to a considerable
amount was let, in all fifty sections. The
same preference was given to their own po
litical friends as on the Wisconisco & North
branch. The work was not let to the low
est, good and responsible bidders. Far from
it. The difference between good rejected
bids for these sections and contract prices,
is one hundred and forty-five thousand, sev
en hundred and twelve dollars, that is good
and responsible men offered to construct
them for that sum less than-those to whom
they were given. Sccti6n No. 40, was al
lotted to- Peter Ritner & William Sullivan,
at 38,940 dollars, the whole cost of construc
tion. John C. Oliver & Co. bid for the same
section at 29,152 dollars, making a differ
ence of 9,7:88 dollars. Mr.- Oliver was and
is a highly respectable man, and a man of
property.- Section No. 35, wasalloted to
Camp & Dressier, at a cost .pf 35,407’ dol
lars; John G. Oltver& Co. bid for the same
section at 29,858 dollars, making a differ
ence of 5,549 dollars. These sections and
names arc mentioned bocause inuch has been
said in relation to them, ami because they
show about the average difference. . _ .
• A -"missionary fund” was subscribed to
by-tlie~co n tractors-on-thisliue,-some-paid,
some did not. The subscription paper was
carried about by_George Dressier the super
intendent, and the money, paid to him at;the
time hc-paid thc contractors tlieir estimates-
Thecbntractbrs b'nl'the heavy ' jobs
bed the largest sums. 1 “The amount subscri
bed and, paid could not be exactly ascertain
ed, but it must have amounted to a. very
considerable sum, for the average, amount
each contractor subscribed , was over' fifty
dollars. Thq writing to which they subscri
bed was (iptHe following import, as near as
the witnesses? could recollect: “We the
Subscribers, promise to pay the sums set op
posite pur names for'missionary purposes.”-
Some witnesses testified that it was to pro
mote the election of Ritfier.-.This no doubt
was the real object. About the time , the
subscription.to this paper took place, which
was a few days before the inspector’s-: ele(>
tion, a meering of the contractors was held
near Youngwbmanstown, at which two of
the Commissioners, Messrs. Stevens and
Pennypacker attended. ? :XHe object of the
meeting was stated to be for the purpose of
obtaining-a greater force of men on the work,
and to increase the vote at Youngwom»ns
town &otheridistricts._ Arrangements were
mpde at’fhis ineeting'Tn regard to conduct
ing the election at Youngwomanstown—-an
inspector was nominated and it was agreed
that the’contractora should bring their men;
to'The polls: at different hours, so that the
: crowd would not be so great. _ Mr. Penny--
-’packer said, at this, (time, if any Porter
tnencame alone the line to electioneer with
the men add detain them from djicir work,
i they should be ducked in.die river. . This
meeting was called, according to the testi
mony of on.e witness, at the instance of the
;C6mtnisaionerB--*-they were in the room ,in
i Which the- meeting.was held,. but Mr. aie :'
yenB>stated:after'tne meeting,
ha wished itubd e rs tdod that they Cthe Com
tnissionersj took.no.parkin'the meeting.
i Mr..&orgeDreaaler,theBupenntendcnt
’ .was subpoonod and called as a- witness,the?;
[AT TWO DOLLARS PER ANNtjM.
New Series— Vol. 4, No. 6;
ca.usc it was dcsilable to know how the let
tings, were conducted; what he did with the
money paid to him for missionary
and ‘what part the Commissioners had in
collecting the fund, arid whether'or hot it
came out of the public' funds,, but \ie,declined.
being sworn. He'was informed, that he
need not state any thing which would crim
inate himself, but he persisted in refusing to
be sworn, because he was an agent mention
ed in the resolution under .which the com
mittee acted, and the course of the-testimony
tended to implicatc-hiih. Mr.’Stevens sus
tained his objection. It was the object of
the committee to seek after facts and the
truth without regard to technical rules of
evidence, and therefore gave Mr. Brcstler
an opportunity to purge himself, orjf he did
not feel disposed to do that, to acquit the
Commissioners, but lie would not do either,
and tlie committee did not feel disposed to
trouble the house by bringing him before its
bar, and therefore dischargedjiim. , ......
;It may be said in reference to the letting
of contracts ou tlie public works, that they
should not always be let to the lowest bid
der. This may be tlfc Case in particular in
stances, but’as a general rule they should.
The Commonwealth cannot be the loser, be
cause if the work is not prosecuted accord
ing to the terms of the contract, the Canal
Commissioners always have the power to
declare tho-work.abandoned and.re-let it.—.
Besides fifteen per cent, upon the work is
always retained in order to insure the com
pletion'of the whole.
Your committee;might make many just
inferences from'the foregoing evidence, and
many strictures.upon the condiicYof the late
board of Canal Commissioners, but they re
frain. The facts only are important. From
them, the house will draw its-owri conclu
sions and take such option as may be thought
right in the premises. ‘
It was alleged that an improper allowance
of fiffeen hundred dollars had:bbe‘n made by
tile late-board of Canal Commissioners to
John Andrew Shulze, for damages alleged
to have been .sustained .by Jura by .reason, of
the construction of the Lycoming-line of the
West Brandi Canal,.which damages had
been previously paid and a release given.—
The committee obtained certified copies of
all papers, resolutions, &c. relative to [he
claim of Mr. Shulze on file in the Commis
sioners’ and Auditor General’s offices; which
arc herewith exhibited, and from which the
following statement is made:'•
On thp 9th of Nov. .1833, Mr. Shulze ad
dressed a letter to the then board of Canal
Commissioners; claiming damages to the a
mouht of $2850, for the want of bridges, for
springs and timber destroyed, &c.
, On the StK of February, 1834, the follows
irig appears upon the journal of the 4hen
board—“ The president laid before the board
the claim of J. Andre® .Shulze, for 2850
dollars compensation for want of bridges ov
er the Lycoming line, and for springs de
stroyed,'which was read; and, on motion,
‘'dissolved unanimously, 'That the super
intendent of the West Branch division be
authorized to make an offer on the part of
the board to J. A. ShuKze of five hundred
dollars, to enable him to .make a road to his
islandln'lieu of a bridge, and *wo hundred
dollars for springs and timber destroyed; &
that in tlie opinion of the,board, the advan
tages derived by him from the construction
of the Pennsylvania canal, are li ficll com
pensation for all other damages he has sus
tained.”
On the.Sd of June 1834, the following
entry,appears upon the journal of the then
canal Qommissioners —"The president laid
before the board the memorial of J. Andrew
Shulze, complaining of the inadequacy of
the amount of damages offered him, which
was read and considered; and, on motion.
liesolvid, unanimously. That the boaftf
sec no : reason for changing their
upon the claim of--J.- Andrew-- ShUltzerrfor
compensation fpr damages occasioned ,by the
construction of the Lycoming line.”.
“s7oo—Received, January 2nd, 1855, of
-Wm.-F-.-Packer,*superintcndcntrofaheWest
Branch division of the Pennsylvania canal,
five hundred dollars, to enable me to make
a road to ,my island,, and in lieu of-a farm
bridge; and-alsoreceivedrsamcday,ofSanVe,'
two hundred dollars, as a full compensation
for springsand timber dostroyed -by reason
of. the construction of the Pennsylvania ca
nal, <as per offer’ of the board of canal com
missioners, dated February sth, 1834, mak
ing in all, seven humlreddollars, which is
hereby accepted is a full indemnification for
dll damages occasioned as aforesaid; and the
commonwealth of Pennsylvania is hereby
released-arid discharged from ’all" .further
claim therefor. . Witness tny hiind and seal,
thc-day and year above written.-I
v r J. ANDREW SHULZE, [Seal.]
Augustus E. Shulze.
■ On the 31st of May, 1836, be 'addressed
a letter to the canal commissioners, stating
that he had become the owner of an acre of
land at the lower part of his farm, on which
a spring had been destroyed, and that it
-would cost seventy dollars to dig a well in
lieu thereof,'and asking that siim in dam
ages, or.that a person should be employed to
digit. In the letter is a claimfor thirty
dollars, for damages done to two lots Nos.
11 and 12, in'Marietta, Lancaster county.
On the Sd of January, 1838. thefollowing
entry appears upon the Journal of the canal
commissioners. .
“Upon application, Resolved, That the
Supervisor on the West Branch division, be
directed to construct a fopt.bridge-over the
canal, on the farm of J._ Andrew Shulze, on
such site as will best suit the convenience of,
the owner, of. the property. Endorsed upon,
*thc last'nhdve.;mcntionod letter, asking .7o
dollars, in the hand writingbf Mr. Penny
packer, in the following enlrv.
Sept; irth, 1831. A.flatyed $1300,”
;: And J entry
appearsupon:thsdburnal.f :^^-:^^;: ':“v;
"At
toursville. Lycpraing countjV ITth Septejri
-1 ber,; 1838. Present,: Mcsiwr^tcvehs^i:
' v AGENTS. ;
, JoHNMoonE.Esq.Newville.- ■ • i
r Josefh'M. MeANS.Esq. Hapewelltownship.
■John Wunderlich, Esq. Shippensburg.
William M. Mater, Esq. Lee’s (*! Roads.
John Mf.haffv, Dickinson township.
Abraham Hamilton, Hogcatown.
George F. Cain, Esq. Mechanicsburg,
‘ Frederick WoitnEßLicii, d 0.,,
James Elliott, Esq. Springfield.
Daniel KuYSHER.Esq, Churclitown.
; Jacob LoNCNECKEft,E,Penn!.boro’ township.-
George Ernest, Cedar Spring, Allen tp.
Pennypacker, ■ The, president laid before
the board, -the application of John Andrew
Shulze, for 9 . compensation, for-injury (
to his spring, on the lower part of-his form,
the destruction of a well, injury to fences,
and for want of a farm bridge, occasioned
by the construction'of the West Branch di- ,
vision Pennsylvania canal, which was read,
considered and on motion, .
Resolved, That the supervisor on the West.
Branch division, is directed to make an offer
on the part ot the board, to John Andrew,.
Sttulze, of fifteen hundred dollars, as a full
'compensation for all claims and damages'
sustained, add in lieu of the construction (Of
all bridges across the canal, on his property”
The committee issued a subpoena for Mr.
Shfllze ind his son Augustus. The son at-,
tended but the father did not. The above
named sum of fifteen hundred dollars, has
not yet been, paid Mr. Shulze, and your
committee have no' hesitation in saying, from
the evidence,-.that it should -not be : paid-to
him, because it is for the same damages
'which had been assessed, (with the exception
perhaps of seventy dollars]'the amount ac
cepted, and a release-given.
It will be perceived that by the first reso
lution, the' sum of five hundred dollars was
allowed to him, to construct a road in lieu
of a farm bridge, and two hundred , dollars
for springs and" timber destroyed, and that
in the opmiou.of .the then.board, the.advan- .
tages derived by him front the construction
of the canal was a full compensation for all
other damages he ha,d sustained. 'Mr. Shulze
had a re-hearing before the board, complain
'ed that the amount which had been allowed
him was inadequate, but the board unani
mously resolved, that they could see no rea
son to change their decision. The terms
of the first resolution were then acceded to,
the money received and the above release
executed. ■ If Mr. Shulze had really been
dissatisfied with, the first decision of.the ca
nal, commissioners, he should havo appealed
to the board of appraisers. This however
he did not do, but acceptedihe sum offered,
and gave a release which recites tlie.rcsolu*
tion, which authorized the'paymcnt to him,
and thus forever barred himself from making
any further claims, or receiving any further
damages. • .
All the letters of Mr. Shulze predated at
Montoursville, a little"town near which he.
resides, on the West branch canal. It ap
pears by the journal of-the commissioners
that the a 11owance of_fiftecn hundrcd dollars
was made at a meeting of: the board held at
that place, and an endorsement "read Sep
tember inh. 1838, allowed SI500” made
uponthe back of a claim for sevcnfy'dtdlais.
The aniount of his claim is not stated upon
the journal as icfehould be, but left blank.—
It is stated to be however, for injury to his
spring on the lower part of his farm as stated
in bis claim fur seventy dollars, and for
want of a farm bridge, to construct a road in
lieu of which he had received- five hundred
dollars.
The conclusion seems Jo, be irrcsistuble '
from tins evidence, and nothing was-offered
to repel it, that the allowance was illegal
and improper,—whether or hot with a cor
rupt design or for political considerations,
your committee do not decide, but leave all
to draw their own conclusions from the- facts.
But it is strange indeed thafMr. Sliulfi who
owns but one farmon'the West branch ca
nal, should neglect to appeal to the board of
appraisers, accept the sum offered, execute a
release, delay any further claim for a period
of three years and. upwards, and .at
of five years after he made his first applica
tion, have allowed him’ fifteen hundred dol
lars compensation for damages-mentioned in
the first resolution, the provisions and bene
fits of which he had ncceptcd. Mr. Shultz
may not have claimed compenEatioivforthc
damages mentioned in the statement which;
iprecedes the resolution granting him the fif
tecn liundred if so, the commiss
ioners did not keep a true record. It is
singular too, that the aniount which he claim
ed should have been left'.blank bn the'jour- i.
nalrarid tlfe entry of an allowance of fifteen
hundred dollars made upon an application
for. seventy, dollars. The entry is “read
September 17th, 1838, allowed slsoo.’’ ;
"“ No Written application was'iha'de tb tlicT
Canal commissioners for a foot bridge, yet
the supervisor is directed by ;the; resolution
of the 3rd of January 1838, to constnict one.
The claim, if one was actually’made,-and
the grant improper, because he
had accepted the sum of seven hundred dol
lars as a full compensation for all damages
which he had sustained, over and above the
advantages derived from the construction of
the canal. ‘
In view of this evidence, and from all' the _
information which can be obtained,
committee are decidedly of opinion that the -
allowance of fifteen hundred dollars to Mr.
Shulze was improper and illegal to use 1 no
harsher terms, and therefore recommended
the'passage of a law directing the present
board of canal commissioners to rescmd’the
resolution granting the same to him. . It. is
an unpleasant task to make., the foregoing
statement and recommendation, but the. reso
lution under which the commitfe acted amla
sense of official duty requires it. . !■ , '
If the late canal,commissioners were now
in office, your 'committee would feel bquqgf'
by the evidence adduced before them ,tb re
commend articles: of impeachment particu
larly against Mr. Stevens, who seems to have,
been the principal transgressor, but as they
are out of office, and not likely .again td be,
in a situation to control: the funds .of the
commonwealth', if is deemed inexpedient at
this late period id. the. sessidn to, do it. , -
; YpuP.sdmmHtce tiSyingthus, as far as the.
limited period df time allowed them wo.uk' :
permit; investigated the subjects committed ;
pf theif labors, ask leavedischarged
fromfhefurtlierconsideratifttfdfthegubjoct;
and therefore offer. the fqUowing'yesplution.
j-\ Jle3ohed, That the,committee,tie!Siscjiar-,
the fuflKcr the..