The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-04-07

moposals were put IN, 10 violate the positive in
Junction Of the law. A. page lo3 of the printed
testimony, Mr. Foctt says
After that ] saw Mr. Seymour On that subject, and
then inquired of him ii - Was wiling to lend himself
the consuninaton Of such scheme, rs have stated
runored in different parts q he state or whether
he willing to join ani make IN equal division Of the
work between the two political parties; and ne assented
TO the latter, on the condition that Mr. Law could haves
large amount of work which assonted TO- providing his
propositions were fair onss fox the state.
Mr. Seymour, at page 49, states this agreement,
with slight variation. He says:-
Al the conclusion Of cur interview we both agreed that
George Law and other persons we're men TO whom, pre-
yiding their bids satisfactory. would be justified
in giving work because of their experience and ability
pecuniary otherwise This was before the bids were
put in and we had similar conversations after they
were in.
The committee will observe the terms OF this ar
rangement. In the first place, Mr. Seymour,
wing, was to join the democrats to make an equal
division between the two political parties, on con-
diton that George Law, democrat, should have
three millions in the democratic column. Now re-
call to your mind the connection between Messrs.
Law and Seymour, appears from the above testi-
mony and also the article read to you from the New
York Times, and let every member answer upon his
oath, whether this was legal and q proper agree
ment Tor State officers to make before the bids
put IN. Sir, 1t was fraudulent agreements nay,
more, IT was corrupt and Illegal. Ii the Canal act
had read thus-"Contracts soall be awarded equally
between the two political parties, on condition
that George Law shall have three millions
of work, II Mr. Seymour thinks his PROPOSE
ton fair, then these officers would have complied
with the law. We are to recollect this agreement
is sworn to by most reluctant and unwilling wit
nesses; that they have stated it in its mast fayora-
Bile terms consistent with aCd memories. Now, will
some member of this committee answer what OBJ
ject the two democratic commissioners had to enter
into this arrangement MIR. Seymour's interest is
apparent he desired confer favor on his patron,
and the democratic commissioners had sons and
biothcrs-n-aw to pow e Tor. 1t mado sale
opening for them The '.ofh was not let as directed
by statute. The manner tie letting board pro-
ceedsd in awarding Wort. aio that no means were
taken to ascertain wheine tho terms Of the pro-
posas were or were not most safe and advan-
tageous to the State, Dor was due regard had
ito price, the ability of he parties, and the secu
rty offered for the performance thereof Mr..
Olmstcad, division engineer. says go
The Board was composed Of democrats aud wings and
each party was to have huff; man of side would
say Of one bid this must be so must have the control
OF such piece Of work this called making point
then another from the opposite side would make another
point and after proceeding in this for time the
rest Of the work decided to be given to the lowest
competent bidder. The democratic members made the
Black river point. The wings made points most of
the work from Orskany to Higgnsvic, and work
high, and opposed it succeeded at time but they
got it at last Two pieces opposed very strenuousy,
which were given to Squire uey they were both above
the estimates when point was thus conceded it
understood that those who got the point had the right
TO select the propositions for the section piece OF
and ii was so awarded do not wish to be understood
that went for the lowest bidder until after the direction
of the Canal Board which understood required the
work to be given to the lowest bidder, which in the
opinion of the board was responsible.
/ have before referred to the game of "eucre -
and in looking into the same authority (and if these
letting officers had mastered the Bible, as they have
evidently done this book of Hoyle, the State would
have saved millions by it, l find tho whole system,
ofthc game of making . points developed in what
is Enthusiastically called the game off, cribbage."
The division engineer, John 7. Clark, shows that
the board actually rejected a programme made in
conformity with the law, and substituted the theo-
ny Of an equal political division, without regarding
price, ability, or security. Mr.. Clark says:-
I male this IN Judgment n confOrmitV
with the resolution of the Canal Board and apportione1
the work to the lowest bidder ION each section lock and
mechanical structure) who was competent to do the
and offered responsible security far my know
ledge of the extends This agreed general rule
contracts This programme Of mine rejected by (
full of the letting board Of the middle division to
though few lotmens of mechanical structures
the with the awards therefor The difference be-
tween the sum total Of my IN and 'he final award
Mr.. Folett says:--
when the letting board first met, it understood
among ourselves that there to be fair distribution OF
the work between the two political parties and nearly
| equal as could well be made.
How was this understanding produced in the let.
| ting board without consultation! Both Mr.. Nather
and Mr.. Seymour concur in saying that the awards
were political. Mr.. Cook is more minute--he says
was well understood that the whole work should b.
asequay divided between tho two political parties
could aot it, keeping tho average full ten per cent in
the aggregate below the estimate OF the engineers repre-
tentative Of the respective parties in the board taking
care of the interests of their party in the allotment II
/
some memorandum of the division and frequent salcula-
tons were made TO how thcy stood with reference
rot;ca coracsr ~ inc hddc ~ han exc. 'ne
their propositions; Of the propositions would stand
politically halfand half which would be considered 4
balanced proposition In other there would be
democrats to wing two wings to democrat. ana
20 on in almost every other proposition, sometimes in
favor OF party and sometimes Of the ether but the
result Of The allotment considered BY substan.
tally equal division between the two parties
From this testimony, am justified in saying the
work was not lot in accordance with law; ON the
contrary, it was awarded in a manner entirely un-
authorized and Illegal. Political considerations
and private interests governed the whole transac-
ton Commissioner Cooks testimony shows
curious method for the letting of public work-that
the contracts were to be half and-half alternately
| between wings and democrats. If the wings got
the starr, then cries Of the democratic commits.
sioners, that won't do" and in goes another demo-
| Hall, would have been fne spectacle for the
people of this great State. There sat the Stats
officers around the table with the scale before them
At one time the whig scale is down. This tho demo-
Gratis can't stand, and in goes democratic resign
ing senator, which now raises the balance. Then
comes forward whg senator, who also resigns to
legalize his bid, and yet he is too light then the
wing commissioner is obliged to throw in the re-
served weight Of braying politician and farmer
contractor who was used through all the biddings
to even up "the hafand half principle Of allet-
ments, and was always ready to step, in and take
mously agreed that democratic senator who re-
signed because bill was unconstitutional, and whs
believed the wings thieves before the Canal bill be-
came law, could outweigh, in receiving awards for
frauds, any two wings, however mertorious on &C
count Of the ponderosity Of his constitutional scru-
pies, and the great wear aud tear of his conscience
Both parties made q point" on Black River.
was unable to see why both parties were so earnest
about the Black River JOB, until came across
the testimony Of Mr. Clark, the division en-
gincer, who swore that hardpan and quicksanN
can be found almost indefinitely on the Black
River section. But this contract was not award
ed to Wright Co. until they had permitted the
bid to be altered, after it was opened. And then.
too the wings objected, and ii was not until Dick
inson was admitted into the contract that it was
contaminated. Can there be found . more scandal
lous and shameful jugge than lettings made in this
warm personal friend Of oae Of the commissioners
admitted az now bidder before the contract il
awarded, while there lay upon the table the propo-