The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-03-16

intcrstf by some general understanding without which
nothing could b. accomplished The faw sanctioned b,
all experience ksJ repudatcd the idea Of letting tn
work to the lowest Bidder which made united action By
INC board task OF Increased difficulty ad rendered
s' moro n, cessary :, have general
between the members sc the board Men not unS1uenty
IN inc exercise OF discretionary authority honestly der ID
tfnon ard in matter Of this character whcp there
an amount OF WORK TO be let and competed for by
an unprecedented number Of bidders-Somc few known
to- all the members Of the nnsrdsome to only few and
others TO none OF thom IL not strange that differences
of opinion shoud exit among tho members of the board
sto all the different phacs of competency rcspsns
lility. ard other particulars desirabe for tho In
tcrctt ct the State 20 be united in a contrats
II appears from the evidence very little effort was
made by any m' mber Of the board to adopt the allot
mcnts presented separately by Aessr Cook Follett
msther and Seymour II the latter presented any dis
unc allotment from thoe presented by others. about
"hifn there Is scmc conflict in the testimony minute
g. the presentation OF either Of tho4 appears OH
The minutes Of the Canal Board; and no vote
wac had upon them subsequent allotment. made
az the dwelling house before referred to- not by
',Ae direction or even euggcsion OF the board, but
by the united cforts of individual members -compos-
lnr the majority to have been mad presented
with the deliberate determination to adoptio
10y the board. The character Of this allotment til
In which it wus made and the determined effort
to adopt it by the majority Of the board and particular
the Attorney General who presented it. and the persevo
ing resistance and final overthrow Of the by tn
unittd Efforts OF only Mcssrs. Folett and Mather.
spread out in the minutes of the Canal Board demon
in somc degree well the difficulty of accomplishn
me lettings, a. the feeling entertained and the ex
cn'mcnt existing on the subject among the iii :
ferent members OF the board After the defeat of tn
proposed allotment the subject the resolution the
"a December referred to the Canal Commissioners State
Engineer and Survey and the Division engineers havn
charge OF That portion Of the canal where the work
he done This in fact what the Board contemplate
ny he law for letting the work. and reference of this
matter to It by the Canal Board nothing more than
carrying out the provisions Of the law. The work in any
event would have to be let by this board whatever the
Canal Hoard might have agreed upon whom it should
be gwen SO far therefore, regards the character
perform the work proposed for within the time limited
by law and the safety advantage Of their proposition to
the state this board was not only not inferior to the Canal
Bonrd but superior thereto 1t not a subordinate
tribunal in any sense Of the word the exercise
their discretion on the point above stated subject to the
control or revision of the Canal Board; and in tho
opinion of the undersigned the Canal Board could not
rightfully. under the law, review in any tho
exercise ct such discretion on the part of the letting
board The Canal Board were merely. by the twelfth
section of the law OF 1851 to direct and approve Of the
terms and manner of doing the work. and the Commits
1t difficult to understand why the Canal Board
assumed to proceed in the discharge Of duties which by
the very terms Of the law in language plain and explicit
were devoved upon the Commissioners and Engineers
any other hypothesis than that OF general understand
ing to award the work equally between the two political
parties coupled with desire the part Of the members
Of the Canal Board in carrying that tac understand
ing to have voice in the selection Of the successful
bidders in order to favor neither political or personal
friends Tho Commissioners and Engineers.
the resolution of the Canal Board Of the 22d December
was adopted entered upon their duties under the law,
as directed by the Canal Board. In the discharge.
OF these duties to the State they have been ac-
oused Of fraud, and this committee have been di-
support this charge All the time tbe committees com
menccd its abors it was currently reported and in some
openly charged that members Of the letting
thanthat such interest in some cases hold In tho
name of friends for their ultimate benet-that
other commissions were received nv ofcers award
ing contracts consideration for awarding them TO par
tcuar individuals. in particular direction and that
fraud practced in awarding tha contracts in almost
every conceivable way and thc sttcnion If tho commit
tee was directed TO certain inv;da. 81 rns;d
ing IN different and remote parts Of the State whose tes
and practice in the letting Of thc hoard Of tho mar
tcuar frauds alleged The committee detcrmrcd to sub
nit these charges the most ample and rigid nyest
cation. This was due alike to the honor and dignity
of the State and to the rcputation Of the hrh nbc
that if guilty they should be expelled from tho Offices
thus prottutod and dgraced and if innocent that their
innocence should be promptly and publicly proclaimed
and their character yindcated from every imputation
Accordingly great number Of witnesses have been
moned from all parts of the State to testify in relation to
these charges and their testimony utterly fails in the
motett dcgrccto establish the ac that any member of
the Canal or Letting Board is has been in any way,
directly or indirectly remotely contingenty by way of
award which has been made aiding or procuring the
same to be made; and the undersigned do hesitate
aforesaid that such interest exists or has existed and
that there not the slightest for the
picions or accusations above mentioned, with the
cepion of single instance to be found in the testimony
OF Nr Goodrich in which the contract not awarded,
and they that the said testimony cannot fail pro-
ducc the conviction upon every intelligent and can
did mind This concludes the abors of the undersigned
under the resolution directing them to
port such facts may be- in their judgment necessary
to ascertan whether any what exist in the
canal lettings in the due execution Of the law
1t is difficult task to ascertain frauds in the due execu
ton Of the law and the testimony shows it be equally
difficult TO discover any elsewhere In awarding the
tacts under the resolution the 2d December last the
letting board governed by the same general under
standing which existed during the previous action Of the
Canal Board viz to divide the work equally between tho
two political parties This fact no more to be dis
gued here than before the Canal Board and it is fair to
presume only from the prior action of the Canal
Beard but also from the subsequent action individual
members thereof that such the part of the
letting beard anticipated and expected but while
letting board cncn yorng carry out this UNDER
sondng they not the evidence shows. unmindfu
interest Of the they only kept below
the estimate of the engineers considerably below
the proposed nllomens of the work presented to the
Canal BoRrd by Attorney General Chatfcld and which
the majority of the board were. for q time, not only
anxious. but determined to adopt-and which only
defeat after proracted and exciting sitting with five
in favor and three against it, and after had been de-
clarcd by the members favorable to the adoption
Of said ailotments that it had become question ply
steal endurance The alotments actually made. the