IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // // ^.«*. ^ A* .* ^ 4^ ^ 1.0 1.1 l^|2£ 125 2.2 2.0 St 111 14.0 11.25 III 1.4 1^ ^j} V "W PhotograiM] Sdmces CorporaMon ^'^ ^^'w^ ^\ 23 WIST MAIN STMIT WIUTH.N.Y. 14SM (716) •71-4503 CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVl/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historlques Technical and Bibliographic Notas/Notas tachniquaa at bibliographiquas Tha inttituta has attamptad to obtain tha baat orifiinal copy availabia for filming. Faaturat of thia copy which may ba bibllographically uniqua. which may altar any of tha imagaa in tha raproduction, or which may aignificantly changa tiha uaual mathod of filming, ara chaclcad balow. D n D D n Colourad covara/ Couvartura da couiaur I I Covara damagad/ Couvartura andommagAa Covara rattorad and/or laminatad/ Couvartura raataurte at/ou paliiculia □ Covar titia misaing/ La titra da couvartura manqua □ Colourad maps/ Cartas gAographiquas an couiaur Colourad inic (i.a. othar than b!ua or blacit)/ Encra da couiaur (i.a. autra que blaua ou noira) I I Colourad platas and/or illustrations/ Planchaa at/ou iilustrationa an couiaur Bound with othar matarial/ RallA avac d'autraa documants r~l Tight binding may causa shadows or distortion along intarior margin/ La re liura sarr^e paut causar da I'ombra ou da la distortion la long da la marga intAriaura Blanic leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certainM iiagas blanches ajoutAas lors d'une restauration apparaiaaant dans la texte, mais. lorsque cela Atait possible, ces pages n'ont pas At* fiimtes. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplimantairas; L'Inctitut a microfilm* la meiileur exemplaire qu'il lui a At* possible de se procurer. Les details da cat exemplaire qui sont peut-Atre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mAthoda nprmala de filmaga sont indiqute ci-dessous. Tl to I I Coloured pages/ D Pagaa de couleur Pagaa damaged/ Pagaa andommagias Pages restored and/oi Pages restaurAes et/ou pelliculAes Pages discoloured, stained or foxet Pages dAcolorAes. tachetAes ou piquAes Pages detached/ Pages ditachAes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of prir Qualit* inAgala de I'impression Includes supplementary materii Comprend du material supplAmentaire Only edition available/ Seule Mition disponible I — I Pagaa damaged/ I I Pages restored and/or laminated/ r~^ Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ I I Pages detached/ r~7| Showthrough/ rn Quality of print varies/ I I Includes supplementary material/ I — I Only edition available/ Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible Image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata. une pelure, etc., ont At* fiimAes A nouveau de fapon A obtenir la meilleure image possible. Tl P o fi O bi th si ol fli si< or Tl sh Tl w IVi di er be rifi re( m( 1 ( rhis item is filmed at the reduction ratio chaclced below/ Ce document est film* au taux de r*duction indiqu* ci-dessous 10X 14X 18X 22X nx aox 7 —] 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed hart has baan raproducad thanka to tha ganaroaity of: Library of tha Public Archivaa of Canada L'axamplaira filmA f ut raproduit grica i la giniroaitA da: La bibliothiqua daa Archivaa pubiiquaa du Canada Tha imagaa appearing hara ara tha baat quality poaaibia conaidaring tha condition and lagibility of tha original copy and in icaaping with tha filming contract apacificationa. Original copiaa in printed paper covera ara filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the iaat page with a printed or illuatratad imprea- aion, or tha back cover when appropriate. All other original copiaa are filmed beginning on the f irat page with a printed or illuatratad impraa- aion, and ending on the Iaat page with a printed or illustrated impreaaion. Tha last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain tha aymbol -^(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or tha symbol y (meaning "END"), whichever applies. IVIaps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure ara filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top tc bottom, as many frames aa required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Lea imagaa auh/antea ont AtA reproduitea avac la plua grand aoin, compta tenu de la condition at de la nattett de I'exemplaira film*, et en conformity avac las conditions du contrat da filmage. Lea exempleirea originaux dont la couverture en papier eat imprimte aont filmte en commenpant par la premier plat at en termlnant salt par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impreaaion ou d'illuatration, aoit par la aacond plat, aalon le caa. Toua las autrea axemplaires originaux sent filmte an commen^ant par la pramlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d'Impreaaion ou d'illuatration at en termlnant par la darnlAre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un dea aymbolaa suivants apparaftra sur la darnidre image de cheque microfiche, aalon la caa: la aymboia — ► aignifia "A SUIVRE", le symbole ▼ signifie "FIN". Les cartas, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Aire filmte A das taux da reduction diffArenta. Lorsqua ie document eat trop grand pour Atra raproduit an un saul ciichA, il eat filmA A partir da I'angle sup6rieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut an bes, en prenant le nombre d'imagea nAcaaaaira. Las diagrammas suivants illustrant la mAthoda. % 2 3 L 1 2 3 4 8 6 fiKT'^iV^f h'^- o THE ESPLANADE CONTRACT. ii # LETTER FROM C. S. CZOWSKI & dO., TO THE CITIZENS OF TORONTO. Onmncnr,— Your Oity Oounoil having laat night decided to adopt the report of their Com- mittee on the Esplanade, and to discharge ub from our duties as eoatractors for that work, we deeire to address to you those remarks and ex- planationa, which would have been made to your Oouoeilt had their conduct towards us not been characterized by such a want of good faith and eommon justice, that self-respect prevented our holding any communications with that, body — except such as, up to this time, we have been obliged to take, in defence of our legal rights. Our relationg to your city, aa contractors, being BOW terminated, by the act of your own repre- ■entativea, we have bo longer any hesitation in putting before you such a statement of facts, as moat be conclusive as well of our own good ftith as of the reckless indifference to the sacred obligations of honor and honesty, and of the beat intereata of the city, which have character- imd the prooeedings of a majority of jour Council. We felt it oar duty, on a previoua occasion, to ■tete to the Maynr the facts connected with our eonlraot, up to a certain point We did so in hopea that that statement would have induced the Oity to pause, before consummating an act of wrong and of bad faith. But we speedily found that our anticipations vera erroneous, and we have therefore waited the final action, fore- ■eeing that the conclusion was decided and fore- gone, and that, if we acted prematurely, we might only succeed in pointing out a better way for our cpponenta to injure us, without the alighteat hope that we should receive justice. Our poaition towards the city of Toronto has been that of parties who have entered into a so- leoan contract and agreement, and who have, in relluiee on the faith of the city pledged to them, expended a ver^ large snm of money, and in- curred most aeriona liabilitiea. Under auch cir* cumstances, it will not be denied that it was the duty of the Council, before perpetrating an act fraught poaaibly with the most ruinoua conse- quences to UB — and, also, impugning most aeri- uusly the fair fame annd integrity of the city — to determine, by a moat careful and impartial investigation, whether any sufficient grounds existed for breaking their engagement with ns ; and if such grounds did exist, whether they alae justified a breach of covenant towards the Grand Trunk Railway, fortha right of way through Toronto. Mow, in the first place, we put the question to every candid citizen here — Have the Council se- cured a careful and impartial ioveatigation ? It must, in the first place, be borne in mind that the Council were one party to the contract — we were the other. The Committee appointed by them, had as its chairman a person (Mr. Adam Wilson) committed, in the most decided way, to prove, out fat naii nrfai, that the whole contract was based ia fraud and extortion ; and the ma- jority of the members were equally so pledserf. Assuming, however, that when named aa judgea, they would forget their prejudices as aecuseta, it might have been expected that common fairness would have dictated, in an enquiry of the kind, that the other party to the contract — ourselvea— should have been allowed to be represented, and that they would at least have given ua the op- portunity of meeting our accusers face to face, hearing their evidence, and defending ourselves by such proof as we might possess. The Com- mittee did nothing of the kind. They never in- timated to us a wish, or oven permission, that we should attend, aa partiea to the investigation. They never gave us the slightest opportunity of cross-examining their witnesses, or adducing testimony ouraelves— and even had the audacity to expect as to appear aa witneaaea before them, in a case in which we had at least e^ual r^hta with the city, and to aubmit to the inqaisition ©f men whone eole ard avowed oljrct was to df>privefu8 of our righte, and to damage our cha- raeteri. Waiving, however, th« evidence of a plain and foregone conclasion, that the city wishtd to have an ezclosively tx parte statement, it might be ! thought that coniuioa hnnerity would have dic- tated to that committee the propiifty of teekii g disialerested testimony. Wimt has been then cour^^e 1 We know not who they « xamined, but their report plainly Bbows on whose (vbtimoiiy ii is based ; atd we may safely inter iliat if tbey had obtained similar evidence from oil ers, we should not have &een their cont:lut>iprofeB8ioi:almeu> who, however re8p«.ct* able in their cwn line of life, arc not fitted b} babit or education to give veliable testimony in 4guch a case. On iho evidence of such parties the whole report of the comojittee has been founded, as u is phiofully evident that the trreatest care hao been taken to distort and question tie staten euts made by Mr. Thompson and Mr. ^hauly ; and the fortuer gentleman is even exposed to the most wanton charges of dishonesty, because his evi- dence bears out our position, while the latter has Ilia professional reputation decried and sneered at for the suine reason. Wfl consider, therefore, that in the appoint- roentof the committee, and in the course of its proceedings, the Council had no wish to elicit truth, but sought merely a chiak for that,wroi acters until the future shall expof-c the calum- nies of our accusers. Rn^ having in our possess^ I iuu i.bunduut means of dispellinu; the suspicions I that l.uvo been rri.-y bis evidence it appeared << that the Is. 3d. per yard is increv^ed to Is. 6d. ( by Mr. Thompson) for discount, 'fcc, was a price (Stained by him from: Gzowski &. C». to satisfy the water lot owners ;" and " that he had neutralised his statement that the owners and lessees would not be charged more than Is. 3d. per yard for earth filling, by the statement that he had informed them it wouid make no difference to them at what price the earth filling was done, as they would have to pay the difference between whatever price might be charged to them, in the shape of a charge upon the cribt'ng." And the committee in their com- ments upon Mr. Thompson's evidence state " Mr. Thompson nor the contractors never meant to let the water lot owners or lessees off altogether from this difference between the Is. 3d. per yard, and the contract price of the earth filling." Now, can the committee venture to say we offered to do the work at Is. 3J., when in their own Heport they conclusively show that we never did anything of the kind, and that the memorandum of 25th No- vember was obtained from us Qn account of dif- ferences between the city and the water lot own- ers, in which we had no concern. The third, fourth and fifth objections are as follows :— " 3d. Because £10,000 to be retained is too small a security for the due performance of the work." '• 4th. Because the payment of that £10,000 within thirty days after the completion of the works, leaves no security whatever to the city that the works will stand good for the two yeara for which it is guaranteed." "5th. Because the submission of difTerenees which may arise, to the decision of the Grand Trunk Eogiueer, is not a sufficient protection to the city that its interests will be properly at- tended to, as that officer is more freoueutly in communication and correspondence wiin the con- tractors under him than with the city, and to whom, therefore, he is mere likely to be favour- able in matters not connected with those he is superintending." These are really too trumpery to be worthy of particular notice, they merely serve to show the uuimuB of the committee, and could not possibly be offered ae reasons for a violation of a contract ODce entered into. The allusion to the Ohief En- gineer of the Uraud Trunk is iu the worst possi- ble taste. Whoever occupies that poi-ition in a company whose transactions involve such enw- moiiB interests must be a man ot characUtrand profensioual ability, and if sueh a person could havj any favourable bias towards us, ii could only Hfwe tbiough our faithful discharge of other work under him, which should be evidence in our furor rather than against us. It is, however, a con- temptible endeavor to impugn the motives of one who may yet have to act in the matter of thia contract, and to create a prejudice agaiunl hint. The KXih abjeetion is :— "'Sth. Btfcause the right of way for XIO.OOO has b^jNi sold at an unreasonably low price." With reference to the right of way we Bhall at tliis ti9ie only state> that so far as our line is con* eemed, it is a matter cf perfect indifference to us what the price of the right of way may be. We acted, in obtaining it, as agents of the railway company ; we made for them what we thought aa equitable bargain. Tho railwav company would have had to pay us the £10,000 when we delivered the line to them, and neither more nor less. We have no personal interest in this ques- tien, and never expected or desired to make one shilling profit npon it. The whole allegations and insinaatioos of the committee and its mem> on this matter are therefore perfectly baseless and unfounded. The seventh objection is— " 7th. Because the sum to be paid of £160,000 {ox the entire work is an exorbitant and unwar- rafated sum, as it can be made manifestly to ap- pear, by reference to the following statement." This objection will be found fully answered in a futare part of this statement. The eighth objection is — <* Because three years and a half have been giv- en fur the prformanca of the work, while Mr. Thomas allowed the others who tendered, the period of only two years." As the Committee do not lay any stress on this point— we presume ther are aware it is unimpor- uut and certainly aaording no ground for a breach of contract. The ninth and last objection is— • Because there are 166 feet appropristcd for. public purposes and the Aailway track, while the city is oniy entitled to 100 feet, and the price of the other 66 feet has not yet been ascertained, even if it sbr. did be a necessity to take that 66 feet at all, which your Committee believes there it not'» To this we need ofler no reply, it may be a chirge against the former cit^ Council, but it is certainly none against us, as itia certainly a mat- ter entirely irrelevant from the contract, the dia- poeition tbe city choose to make of the Esplan- ade, when finished. Besides the foregoing nine objections to our contract, we fiad in a subsequent part of the Re- port , seven distinct allegations against us, which we shall here dispose of— "Ist. From the time nf (Jzowski & Co.'8 tender on the 7th of October,1853, they have had their toalh-filli3^ as before adverted to, curtailed in the deepest part for several thousand feet in ex- rent" This statement is not true. The line of Espla- nade, as laid out in the bay, is precisely that de- BTgnated on the plan, and therefore we have not had " our earth-filling curtailed in the deepest part for several thousand feet in extent." The difference in distance remarked on by the com- mittee as existing in the several plana in no re- ■peel a£Rect the enter water line ot the Esplanade, whidk WM the wm« on them all ; and the at- tempt to make it appear that we were benefitted by this change is most unjust, as a eimple inspce- tion of the plans will prove. Our tender wm to fill out to a certain lino for a certain price, ak all rieks as to distacco or depth ; that line was de> signated on the plan, and wo have never made the slighteet attempt to change it. «2ii. They havn had their earth filling fixed upon an eslirrsto of 1,0UU,0()0 of yards,— while ifc di)e8 net ncariy amount to that quantity." This is untrue in two respects. First, our eon« tract beini; for a gross sam, it is quite immaterial in the end what ettimoU is made ; sad secondly* the quantity of earth work does amount to l,00Or 000 yards, as we shall presently prove. The third oljection is— " They have had their price for it assumed at much more than the Is. 3d. per yard they had offered to do it for." To this we reply as before, that we never of« fered to do the earth filling or any other portiot. of this work at detailed prices ; and that neither the estimate of price nor quantity were or could be material portions of the contract. The fourth objection is — " They have had a large discount granted to them when they agreed to take dcMntures iX par." This is simply un'.rue. The Act required the city to issue its debentures at par. We made our own estimate of their real value, and thus anived at the sura which we considered it prudent to offer to construct the esplanade for, receiving such description of payment. For the committee to 'assume that the city debentures were, in Octebert I8I>3, worth par, is ridiculous, and it ii equally absurd to suppose we did not make such allow ance in our price as would in our judgment cover such discount. The committee, however, have displayed singular ingenuity in warping eveiy circumstance conufcted with the contract; fair- nes'* might have dictated a reference by them to the caih valiu of the pay mcnt to be made to us in debentures ; but the reader will look for this in vain in their Report. The committee apparently have thought that it was our business lo get par for their debentures, and that all must be profit between the canh cost of the work and £150,000, Hereafter the rate-payers of the city may find to their cost that the Esplanade when paid for in caih, will require some sacrifice on their deben» tures. «5. They have been allowed for engineering four times aa much as the engineering is worth ; — for what engineering is there left to be per- formed, when they have had plans, estimates, specifications, and soundings, performed at the expense of the city and delivered to them with> out charge ?" This is a distinct mis-statement, one of which tho committee must have been deliberately guil- ty. We rre allowed nothing fur engineering — it is all included in the gross sum, and in the progress estimate on which we were to have been paid ; the amount is only placed at £1,800 per annum, which we know it will cost tw not the eity. Will the citizens of Toronto believe that in their de- Pi sire to make ont a eaMagainat ns their own City Oouncil stated that we have had all the engineer* ing-plana, soundings, (fee, performed at uie ex- pense of the city, and delivered to us free of charge, when the fact is, that every plan, sound- ing, document, paper, and engineering evidence connected with our contract has been made at the txptnie of mr firm ; that we have paid for every- thing, even to the very information supplied by us to the city, and which our enemies are now usine for our injury. Among alt the tortuous windings and skilful distort jn of facts in the Beport, we are glad the committee have in one ease at least ventured on a direct assertion, and thus enabled us to convict them, of distinct mis- representations. " 6. They are doing much less work than they ■greed to Ju> in October : for the depth of their breast wonPis only nine feet, while it was to have been fourteen feet." This again is absolutely falde, as we hare be- fore stated the outer water line of the esplanade and its heif^ht were all fixed at the time of our tender and have never been varied from. The city required the Esplanade to be four and one half feet above the water level of 7th October, 1853. This level was catablished that day and registered by the large boulder at Queen's wharf, and the above, therefore, in a most unfair and untme assertion. Our work is fixed by the plans and epecificatiocs, and we have no means of doing any less work than we agreed to do. 7. And lastly, they are getting as a gift the 40 feet of railway track alons the whole Esplanade, which is of value enougn to have paid for the construction of the entire work from one end of it to the other. This assertion is like most others in the report of the Oouncil, made in the most reckless and unadTised way, and has not the shadow of a foundation. We repeat our previous statement, which is fully borne out by the terms of the con- tract, that we acted solely as agents for the Grand Trunk ; that we looked to them for reim- bursement of the £10,OOU allowed by us to the city ; and that whether the railway paid us or not, the right of way was theirs not ours ,* and if wo had made a good bargain about the right of way, it was not for our own benefit but for that of our employers the Grand Trunk Company. We havo now noticed the several pointed ob- jeotions made by the committee, but before leav- ing their report we wish only to notice one other assertion, and that rather because it teflects upon one of our firm. The report states ; « Mr. Thorn- *' as says Mr. Qzowski was present in the com- " mittee room when the tenders of the others " were opened." We know not whether Mr, Thomas did give this in evidence to the commit- tee, or whether they have taken similar liberties with his statements as with our own ; but we desire to state plainly and distinctly that this as- sertion is false. Mr. Gzowski was not present. We have now gone over in detail the several Srominent causes alleged by the committee for le course the city has adopted, and we propose to sum np what we take to be the strong points urged against us, and to make our statement in reply. The result of the whole report of the eoinmtt- tee is comprised in the following pointi. First. That the quantity of work, espeeially eaith filling is much below that named by ns ; and that no such quantity u 1.000^000 yards is required for the Esplanade. Second. That onr profila wonld hsTa been ex- cessive. Thirdly. That the right of way ie worth a ram very much greater than we agreed to pay for it ; and that the contract should he broxen in or« der to make a new bargain. Ifweauceeiedin showing that the quantity of work to be dene agrees with our statements, and that our proite are not excessive, we consider that the committee by their own report must be convicted of a noik hasty and ill advised decision. Under ordinary circumstances we shonid aok have felt it our duty to expose our business trans- actions, or to state either our original ealculattonst or the mode in which circumstances have altered them. No men of business can with propriety be called upon to explain their own views of their own operations, and it might be said by ns that whether we had made a good or a bad eontraetf there was no obligation on us to disclose the resultk In the case of the Esplanade no one has ever heard from us one word either of mnrmnr of of exultation in regard to it; we made a certain bar- gain—we were bound to carry it out— and we should have done so. Subjected as we have bosn to a breach of contract by the city «n the groand of excessive profits, we Delieve tvw oontraetor» would have been found willing to diiripate their delusion, and thereby show that no injury waa in- flicted on them, and we freely conms, ibat had our own reputation not been at stake, we might have accepted the conclusions of the committee BS to our profits, as evidence in our favour, and met their charge of fraud as we best could^ rely- ing on our receiving enormous damages against the city, but we labor perhaps, unfortunately^ under the delusion that good fame and repntatioa are more valuable than money, and we shall therefore place it beyond our power to elain> hereafter prospective profits, while in doing so* we shall justify the confidence of the former City Oouncil in making tho contract with us. Fir^—Yf lih reference to the work to be done. On this point we shall dismiss the minor items- with this single observation, that we believe the statement of a professional man like Mr. Shanly^ is more worthy of regard than those of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Howard. The committeo say that the actual quantities of timber are S97,- \'M cubic feet. Mr. Shanlv says there are 464^ 000 feet. We believe and know the latter figur» is the amount, and we have already delivered upwards of 200,000 feet. The committee say there are only 12,577 cu bic yards stone filling,— Mr. Shanly says there are 30,000 yds.,, and we know there are actually S^OUOyds. The great point is evidently the amount of earth filling, which the committee state at 657»- 193 yds. On this point we have pledged our- selves to prove that there are 1,000,000 yds., and we shall now proceed to do so, We havo ia oar poBaeseiou, and are prepared 6 w to inbmit to anr citijien of Toronto,— who may not have himself aspersed ami calumniated ub — the tables of sonndiiif^s and accurate calculations Qf quaotities made by us on tlii! wholo Imo of £splanade, o/i^r the extculiun of the cuntrad for our own use, comiirisiiii? IctwMMi live and six tbouBaod distinct souiuiingp, taken at every thir- ty-three feot square of the whole extent with Srofiles as well of the filling as of the cxcava- OQ, and which are capiO)ie of the most accurate ehecking and examination, and by which th" qaantily of filling is established to bo 1,U:25G72 yards ; and independent of these measurements, •nd in case our estimation of loss by MtUement should be too largo, we are pre- pared to show in like manner that the ap- J>roacbe8 to the bridges afford an ample margin or any possible over-estimate. These calcuta- tiooB and soundings we arc prepared to establish in any court of law or of equity ; and in prtxjf of onr btiJiet and kuowladge of their accuMcy, we may state that in our recent arl^iiratioii witli Mr. James Cotton and us, Mr. Uzjwbki tcslifiod un- der oath that the quaniity of earth iilliug was one Doillion of y arils, altlioiigh that admission operated against us ia estimaani^ Mi-. Cotton'jj damages, and it can therefore be (•carcily con- ceived that at a time win n we had no rcasciu to anticipate difficulty with the city we would our- ■elvea enormously over-estimate the quantity. We know not hoir Mr. Thomas and Mr. Uow- •rd made their calculations of quantity ; nc only know that ours were made in the winter of 1853-4, and occupied us fur raonths and are open for inspection and revision by any competent au- thority. We therefore state, and are fully prepared to prove, that the carih-filliig of the Esplanade will eiceed I.OOO.OOU jards. Knowing that this point is established beyond a doubt, we shall now state, for the information of Uie citizens of Toronto, the lowest prices at which we have ourfelves contracted and agreed to pay for the work, wiih the names of our sub- contractors, that every one may know the exact £Mta. We have contracted with Messrs, Humphrey A Camp to complete the earth-tilling at, 27 cents. Ser yard, in cash, which will amount to l,t)0(J,- 00 yards @ 27 cents. - > ilGT.oUU U And in further explanation of this matter, we s'ate that no por- tion of the earth has been taken from our railway cutting ; iior ahall we require to increase that catting, which is now nearly completed, so far as our railway contract is concerned. We have agreed to pay the city threepence per yard for erery yard of earth they furnish Qs; and we have cross-sections and calculations [open to inspec- tion], showing that this quantity will be 500.000 yards • - G,250 We have contracted with Mr. George Weir, for the stone-filling, at 68 3d per yard, on a quantity. per our own ostimnte, of 33.000 yards, fby Mr. Shanly '8 30,000], 10,000 We havfl contracted with Mr. Georgo Weir to comj/iete the execution of the timber work, making in all •l(;4,U0O feet, at 15}4 cents per loot - • 17,980 These contracts are made, we know, and are prepared to prove the quantities, and the cost in cash to us would therefore be £101,730 The planking, spikes, and bolts, we estimate al a cost of • The gravelling, at • • > Tlie drainage, at - - « The engineering and superin- teodetice for two years, at The iron bridges, estimated at £10,000, wo now know will cost •--•-- 2,200 5.500 2,000 3,600 13,000 Our actual contracts and liabi- lities for this work are therefore £128,030 These sums being the mini- mum cash cost, we must, as pru- dent mtin,allow for contingencies, and on account of our guarantee of the work for two years, the ordinary allowance of 10^(j?c ; and, in doing so, we would advert to the fact, that as part of such con- tingencies, we are now sued un- der an arbitration, by Mr. Cot- ton, for £2,5U0, as damages for breach of contract with him, 12,803 £140,833 [A small portion of the above work was executed by Cotton & Manning, at rates vary- ing but slightly from the prices mentioned.] The citizens of Toronto will therefore ob- serve, that under the most favorable circum- stances, the actual cash cost of the work to usp without any profit whatever, would have been £140,833. We now desire to call your attention to the value wo should have received for this work. Our contract was for £150,00()^ayable in de- bentures at 20 years' date. We need not do more than refer to the altered position of mone- tary affairs, to prove that this payment is seri- ously diminished to us. When we took the con- tract/ we believed that our connections in London would have enabled us to make a favorable sale of these debentures; and we considered that, in the price we should receive for them, a fair profit would have been left on the work. These vi^w8 are now changed, and we are therefore obliged to estimate these debentures at their present value, which we take to be about 80 per 0,000 17,980 01,730 2,200 5,500 2.000 3,600 13,000 38,030 a cent. At this rate, £150,000 dehcntnrra Tfould produce in cash - - £1^20,000 Add amount to bo received from Grand Trunk for right of waj lU.OOO 12,803 40,833 e work was it rates vary- intioncd.j herefore ob- ible circum* work to us, d have been 3ntion to the ir this work, jrable in de- necd not do ion of mone- nent is seri- took the con- mectioDS in IS to make debenturea ; le price we fair profit ork. These are therefore uros at their about 80 per Total value of contracl;, Total cost of do. £13(1,000 140,833 Actualloss - - - £10,833 Wo have how put before tho citizens of Toron- to a plain stateiiiont of tliii4 conlriicl baHed upon actual mttsureM.ents and contracts made by us, aod which we are ready to show to any who may desire it. We shall not, however, content ourselves with this statement, but knowing the motives of our enemies, and that thuy will say — although this nay now be so, it vras not when the contract was made — we here add our solemn declaration. — That we never have in any way whatever given, or offered any inducement eithfr of profit or ad- vantage to any one to get us this contract, and further, that no other party besides our . partners ever had either directly or indirectly any interest whatever in it, and that ail suspi- cions to the contrary are utterly 'unfounded. Our contract in the city of Toronto is now at an end by their own act of bad faith, as far as we ourselves are conccrued, it is not a subject of re- gret to us, it is true we made a, contract which we expecteil to yield us a fair p.ofit, but it is also true that circumstances made it no longer desira- ble for us to go on with it. But at this point we join issue with the city, although our contract lias day by day been becoming worse for us, we have never shown a wish to l>ieait if, our faith was pledged, and although we mnst have lost heavily, we should have gone tlirougli with it. We cannot but rejoice thai our enimit'S havo de- cided to break our contract, they have tiiiis re- lieved us from all obligation, and it will be our own fault if we ever ngain place ourselves in a position to receive injury and insult from a ma- jority of the Council of the city of Toronto. So far as regards our new courpc in this mat- ter we can safely affirm that our strong faith in the honor of the city has been best evinced by our going on with their work for montlis, advan- cing very large sums, and neither receiving nor demanding payment, and by our strict fulfil- ment of our contract, until grossly broken by the city. The cause for the recent course of the City Council must not, therefore, be sought for in our own acts, but elsewhere. In explanation of the motives for the course adopted towards us we unhesitatingly assert that the whole scheme of Mr. Wils)n and his friends has been to extort an criormous sum from the Grand Trunk Railway for the right of way through Toronto, baaed upon their belief that such a vast expenditure has been now made by ourselves and Jackbon cerned, it is manift^st that if every other act we performed was corrupt and dibhonestfit ought not to afftict the bargain we made for them with the city, and tliatthe duty of the city should be to save them harmle^is, whatever be the result of their difference with ourselves. The only excuse to be offered for % diffurent course is, that llr. Wilson believing, ^u are bound to find a route for the railway tliroxgh the city, would break our specific bargain for this object aud exact ruinous terms from us, rather than that a community should afford an ordinary facility to a most im- portant and beneficial work at a fair rate. We cannot doubt that this has been the object, and if anything would justify the use of strong lan- guage it would be to find a city like Toronto, striving to ruin private iudividuaia for their own collective advantage. Fortunately for ourselves, we have only placed such reliance on the good faith of Toronto as we can sustain without absolute ruin. We may be left to a law-suit to recover what the city justly owes us, but we are not at their mercy in any other resj cct. Our relations to this question wo shall now state : — Our original contract -nith the Railway Com- pany, was to go to the waters of the lliiy, at cer- tain dcttiiled p ices for the vholn work. Under thi(^ contract, we hhould have been only too happy t(;>' have coLatruciod the whole Et^planade. '' The amalgamation with the Grand Trunk, made it, however, necessary to connect the west- teru with the eastern line, and our contract with the Gutlph Company on which tho amalgamation was concluded, exj)rtS5ly limited our line to "the city of Toronto" — leaving it to the Grand Tiunk Company to decide how the connection with the Kaslern line shculd be made. Our price for the mw contract was a gross sura, and our individual interest was, therefore, to reach the city of Toronto at the least expensive point. Under this last contract, it must be evident to the most superficial enquirer, that we should have saved money by entering the rear of the city. But what did we do ? We kuew that the city wished and expected that the Railway Road would go down to the Bay, aud we considered that our Mr. Gait had undertaken this in his communications with the cily, when the amaiga<» matiou was closed. We tiierefoie urged racist strongly ou the Grand Trunk Company the fcoi)$ route — Messrs. Jackson it Co., were opposed, (9 this — and to remove all dilliculty wo engaged that if the city would sell tho rigbt of way fe laeo whether the Prorinoe will permit the city of Toronto to violate i*A pled^^ed faith to the Grand Trunk, and to exact from a public work, in which all provincial interests are so deeply engaged, an extravagant sum to meet the views of Uioae Oity Gauucillots who consider the former agreement an injurious act for the city. We are perfectly willing to leave the whole Jueation to decision in the proper quarter, con> dent that,ao far from the city gaiuing credit by ita preaent diareputable manoeuvre, they will both kne money and credit. Before eoncluding, we will add, that in proof «f oar sincerity in Ute previoua atatementa, and •vu tract had remained undisturbed. In this case, we canrot help being reminded of the suspieiona had against us in a previous transaction of our firm with this city. We refer to the £100.000 of stock held in the former Guelph Itailfrsy Com- pany. In that caae we had offared to relieve the city of their stock al par on tbe amalgamation with the Grank Trunk, and although perfaeily aware that the transsction would not bo a |irofit> able one, we faithfully adhered to it ; but, fortu- nately fur us, certain city Councillors inferred that by our doing so, there must be some extra- ordioary latent object, and our offer waa refuardt The stock is now quoted at 50 per cent* discount, and unjust Buspiciun of onr sincerity has, there- fore. cu8t the city about £50,000. We hare no doubt ttie result will he the same now, and that the rate-payers of Toronto will jet have to thank the mnjority of their Council for a very considerable addition t [n thia oace, le Buspieions ftioii of our £100.000 of II way Com* A) relieve the nalgamatiuB ih perfectly : be a |>rofit- ; but, furtu- lora inferred some extra* was refuapd. mt' discount, f has, there - We have no w, and that |?et have to 1 for a wry ary burdens, or them, by able reputa- Ida that has , which has da of a year, a with only ly afford. Bnr'fai, VBKI&Oo.