Search Documents
422 Documents foundEdit Search
« Previous | 1 | ... | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | Next »
-
February 19, 1861 | Letter
Letter from H. Thielsen to Samuel B. Reed, February 19, 1861
In this letter from February 19, 1861, H. Thielsen writes to Samuel Reed offering high praise of both his and John R. Boyle's abilities as contractors. He states that he believes the prospects of commencing work in the spring appear "slender," as orders to undertake work on roughly 55 miles of the lines from Ottumwa, Iowa to Chariton, Iowa were withdrawn when the Secession Crisis occurred. He tells Reed that the "character of the work though is what a contractor would call magnificent."
-
November 26, 1860 | Letter
Letter from John R. Boyle to Samuel B. Reed, November 26, 1860
In this letter from November 26, 1860, John R. Boyle writes to Samuel Reed from Washington , Iowa describing the character of work on the railroad there. He states that the work is "very light," and approves of the fact that the company "has ordered their expenses very low." He notes that after he paid all of his men he received $2,600 instead of $5,600, but believes all will be well eventually. Boyle also writes that he has not heard back from "those Cedar Rapids people" regarding some work, but he does not believe they have enough money to offer work in any case. He says that not much will be done over the winter with "the country in such a disturbed state."
-
November 8, 1860 | Letter
Letter from John R. Boyle to Samuel B. Reed, November 8, 1860
In this letter from November 8, 1860, John R. Boyle writes to Samuel Reed informing him that he has just finished his work, is "settling" with his men, and will therefore be unable to visit Reed in Joliet, Illinois. He asks Reed to inquire about the nature and pay of some winter railroad work for them both, telling him not to take if for less than 15 cents as he believes "work will be plenty in the spring" and not to "touch it at any price...if they have no money."
-
October 29, 1860 | Letter
Letter from John R. Boyle to Samuel B. Reed, October 29, 1860
In this letter from October 29, 1860, John R. Boyle writes to Samuel Reed discussing his search for railroad employment. He states that they missed out on a contract in Oskaloosa, Iowa, but he remains determined to find work in that area as he believes "there is nothing to be made in this western country now as there is too much competition in the way of RRoading." He notes that there has been much "log rolling" with regard to a 70 mile extension of the Cedar Rapids road, and also tells Reed he is worried he may lose some money on his present work in Washington , Iowa.
-
October 26, 1860
Letter from Thomas M. Isett & William C. Brewster to Samuel B. Reed, October 26, 1860
In this letter from October 26, 1860, Thomas M. Isett and William C. Brewster write to Samuel Reed requesting that he travel to see to the possible sale of their land near Oskaloosa, Iowa to the Mahaska County Railroad Company. They note that "it is very important to have the station ground laid out to suit our land with a view of other Rail Roads," and believe Reed is the man to go as he knows "more about these things than we do."
-
September 17, 1860 | Letter
Letter from Joel A. Matteson, September 17, 1860
In this letter from September 17, 1860, former Democratic governor of Illinois Joel A. Matteson writes a recommendation for Samuel Reed to take with him while he is in the South. Matteson states that he worked under Reed's direction in the past and writes "should any person want the services of an engineer of great experience they can find no person of better capacity to do any thing in his profession."
-
May 17, 1860
Letter from Charles H. Abbott to Samuel B. Reed, May 17, 1860
In this letter from May 17, 1860, Charles H. Abbott writes to Samuel Reed from Chicago recommending an acquaintance for employment as a farm hand. He also notes that "we are having great times here" on account of the Republican National Convention. He teases Reed about his support of Stephen A. Douglas, writing "come up and be converted to the true Republicans of /76 or will you wait to take the chances of the Little Giant at Baltimore."
-
April 30, 1860 | Letter
Letter from John R. Boyle to Samuel B. Reed, April 30 1860
In this letter from April 30, 1860, John R. Boyle writes to Samuel Reed stating that the prospects for railroad work west of Iowa City, Iowa do not look good for the season. He notes that the governor of Missouri vetoed a state bill which had appropriated four or five million dollars "to finish up some of those roads now only part finished," and concludes "R Roading seems to be dead." He asks Reed to let him know if he hears of any work.
-
April 13, 1860 | Letter
Letter from Danforth H. Ainsworth to Samuel B. Reed, April 13, 1860
In this letter from April 13, 1860, Danforth H. Ainsworth writes to Samuel Reed discussing his position in Iowa City, Iowa as resident engineer. He states that he "would like it pretty well if I had only a respectable salary," noting that he had wanted to work on his farm but did not have enough money to "take on the first year's experiments." Ainsworth concludes that he can stand his position so long as it is not often necessary to explain delinquent payments to his suppliers.
-
February 26, 1860
Letter from Marion K. McMurphy to Erastus H. Reed, February 26, 1860
In this letter from February 26, 1860, Marion K. McMurphy writes to her brother, Erastus H. Reed, from Pontoosuc, Iowa discussing family news and the prospect of a railroad being built "from Appanoose to the junction or Burlington the coming summer." She states that she hopes the railroad will "make business a little more lively here as it is very dull on account of hard times in getting money."
-
January 2, 1860
Letter from John R. Boyle to Samuel B. Reed, January 2, 1860
In this letter from January 2, 1860, John R. Boyle writes to Samuel Reed from Iowa City, Iowa discussing the difficulty he is having finding profitable employment in the railroad business. He states that his brother in Massachusetts wrote him that the railroad company there "is very timid in letting their road [as] money is more scarce south than it has been." He writes that he does not believe very much of the road he is currently working on will be built the next summer, and states "I don't hear of a road to be let any place in the country."
-
October 30, 1857 | Broadsides
Boston and Worcester Railroad Circular Regarding Pay Cuts, October 30, 1857
In this October 30, 1857 circular, Ginery Twichell, Superintendent of the Boston and Worcester Railroad, describes the reasons for a ten percent pay cut for all employees. He cites the recent reduction in receipts from passengers and freight, as well as the "sudden and unexpected financial storm" as the basis for the change.
-
December 1, 1856 | Annual report
The Mountain Top Track
This December 1, 1856 report details the high maintenance costs for track running through the Blue Ridge mountains.
-
December 28, 1854 | Letter
Letter from Claudius Crozet to the Virginia Board of Public Works, December 28, 1854
In one of his regular reports to the Board of Public Works, Claudius Crozet comments on the use of enslaved labor and the use of "time" that its employment enables. Because slaves were worked longer hours, often in gangs, and not paid by the hour, unlike whites, they could be transferred from one task to the next until their annual hire was renegotiated with the slaveholder.
-
December 1, 1854 | Letter
Letter from Claudius Crozet Reporting the Condition of Work Under his Charge, December 1, 1854
Commenting on the unreliablity of Irish labor, Claudius Crozet recommends to the Board of Public Works that they hire black enslaved labor instead.
-
November 5, 1854 | Letter
Letter from Claudius Crozet to the Virginia Board of Public Works, November 5, 1854
Claudius Crozet comments on the problems with white labor on the Tunnel project, and the possibilities for increasing the use of black slaves.
-
November 1, 1854 | Letter
William M. Sclater's Proposal to the Board of Public Works, November 1, 1854
When labor shortages slowed the Blue Ridge Tunnel project, Claudius Crozet solicited proposals from local contracting agents to supply slave labor.
-
November 1, 1854 | Letter
Attorney General W.P. Bocark's Opinion Regarding the Bureau of Public Works' Liability for Slaves Killed on Blue Ridge Railroad, November 1, 1854
When two slaves were killed on the Blue Ridge Tunnel project, slaveholders held the Virginia Board of Public Works, which had hired slaves through contractors, liable for the losses. Affidavits were taken on the value of the slaves, their character and history. The Attorney General of Virginia, W. P. Bocock, ruled that whether the slaves were killed on the Virginia Central Rail Road Co. or the Blue Ridge project was immaterial, and that the Board of Public Works was liable for reasonable compensation to the slaveholders.
-
October 28, 1854 | Letter
William M. Sclater's Affidavit, October 28, 1854
When two slaves were killed on the Blue Ridge Tunnel project, the Board of Public Works attorneys sought sworn affidavits from white men who knew the enslaved men to determine their value for compensation to the slaveholders. The legal process regularized and the practice of industrial slavery on the railroads.
-
October 27, 1854 | Letter
Samuel G. White's Affidavit, October 27, 1854
When two slaves were killed on the Blue Ridge Tunnel project, the Board of Public Works attorneys sought sworn affidavits from white men who knew the enslaved men to determine their value for compensation to the slaveholders. The legal process regularized and the practice of industrial slavery on the railroads.
