New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-03-13
The Alleged Canal Frauds.

Gal lettlDgS nave reported the testimony taken
before them, without however showing that such
frauds were practiced. GEORGE LAW swears
that there was not the slightest collision be.
tween him and Mr.. SEYMOUR, the late State En-
gineer; that no conversation nor negotiations of
any kind took place between them on the matter
that Mr.. SEYMOUR has no interest of any sor. in
his contract, nor he any in the Railroad enter
prises, or in any other business in which Mr..
| SEYMOUR il engaged and that no public officer
or member Of the Legislature Isl to his knowl-
| edge, in any way interested in the lettings, or
| has been so interested. Ex-Secretary MORGAN
testifes to the same points. A. B. DICKINSON,
bidder and contractor testifies that he knows OF
nothing on which the suspicion of personal
interest or of fraud on the part of any member
of the late Canal or letting Boards could be
| grounded. FRANCIS H. RUGGLEs, late Auditor OF
the Canal Department, gives the same testimony,
| and so do all the witnesses examined as to that
| question. Attorney.General CHATFIELD is the
chief party who testifies to any offer or refusal of
bribe, and he doomed as he is to have his viz
tue assaied by such temptations,-swears that
one CALVIN T. CHAMBERLAIN offered him thou
OF work. This proposal CHATFIELD rejected, and
| opposed Mr. CHANBERLAIN's bid when before the
Board. They were. however, supported by Mr.
| FoLLETT and finally CHAMBERLAIN got about
| $50, 900 worth of work, Mr.. CHArFIELD not see
ing fit to expose his rascality before the Board and
in fact, is rather sorry to tell Of it now. Mr..
FoLLETr also swears that Mr. STILLsoN offered
him two thousand dollars in behalf of J. w.
GOODRICH, as a bride for section No. 206, but
STILLsoN was sent off with flea in his ear,
and GOODRICH got no contract at all. The
same STILLsoN, who has for some time been,
and still is, Engineer of the Western Division,
and who was present with the Board when it was
decide to whom the contracts should be awarded,
states that they began with the lowest bidder in
each case and went through the whole list of
proposers, discussing their offers and competen-
cy to execute them. More attention was paid
to the personal qualifications and ability OF the
bidder than to the security offered. The job
given toGEoRGE Law is the most difficult ever
let in the State, requiring heavy outlay in tools
and machinery before commencing it. Mr.. LAWS
offer was $4,000 below the Engineers esti-
mate, and lower Mr.. STILLsoN thinks, than the
work can be done. As far, then, as the evidence
goes, there is a complete failure to establish any
fraud OF corruption on the part of the officers
engaged.
1t is, however, abundantly proved that con.
tracts were awarded on political grounds. Mr..
CHARLES Cook tsstifies that the Attemey-Gene-
raj proposed In writing to meeting of his
(CooK's) friends in the Board, where Lieut.. Gov
CHURCH was present, that if they would agree
TO allot to GEoReR Law contracts for work to the
amount of 81 100000, and allow 1t. Gov. CHURCH
to take care of his friends in the West, and vote
those two through the Board first, and divide
the balance of the work between the two pOliti-
cal parties equally, that then he would Join in
making the allotment and stated that this pro-
position was me qua non. This proposal the
members present declined, and so returned an
answer to Chatheld" a second note was
received from the Attorney General by the
Lieut.. Governor, which he read to the members
present In this note Mr.. CHArFIELD proposed
that contracts for work to the amount of
81 600 900 be awarded to GEORGE Law, and that
CHURCH be allowed to take care of his friends
in the West the balance of the workto be d.
this being done he would Join in making the al
lotment and help carry i, through she Board,
and said this was his ElsimasSm." These pro-
posals were declined and another allotment
made, whereat CHATFIELD, in his indignant
virtue, announced that he should apply for relief
on the ground of the unconstitutionality of the
law This identical CHArFIELD, according to
the testimony of n. <. PAYN, Wing who
obtained section 255 at Is cents per cubic yard,
for embankment, proposed to al0t that section
| to E. PEsHINE SMITH, another bidder, and also
Wing, at 20 cents. This shows that he took
reasonable view of things, and was disposed
to give all parties fair grab at the spoils, if his
| fnends could bat have good chance with the
| rest.
There is, then, no more doubt that political
considerations were powerful in determining
the awards than there is that they were not
| in ali cases made to the lowest bidders Bat,
before complaining of these facts, we must
| inquire whether. as they stand, the contracts
are, on the whole, favorable to the interests Of
the State. We are persuaded that they are
They sre SO made that they will be executed
withou. the probability of any application to
the Legislature for additional allowances, and
a, an aggregate cost considerably inferior to the
estimates On which the Law for the more speedy
enlargement was based.
One witness who went to Albany TO obtain