The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-10-13
The Last Humbug-Thc Investigation before
the Canal Board at Albany.

We have awaited, with considerable anxiety, the
result of the Investigations Of the Canal Board at
Albany, into the charges laid before that body by
George W. Newell, the Auditor Of the Canal Depart.
ment. On the 18th dayof August-six days before
the assembling of the democratic State convention
at Syfacuse-the democratic Auditor preferred a
complaint to the democratic Canal Board, alleging,
in terms, that John G. Mather, democratic Canal
Commissioner, Smith A. Waterman and David Bar
rest, democratic Canal Superintendent, had been
guilty of "a wasteful and improvident expenditure
OF the public money, legitimately belonging to the
canal fund" Accompanying this document was
long array of statistics, comparing the expenditures
OF several previous years with the present-the
average expenditures per mile-the various amounts
paid for timber and lumber-the cost of repairs
from all which it was apparent that the officials
therein charged had been deficient in economy, and
been extravagant and reckless in the expenditure of
the public money. So palpably manifest did this
appear upon its face, that Mr.. Chatfeld, the demo-
cratic Attorney General, offered resolution at once
that Waterman and Barrett be removed from Office.
Upon taking the question, the vote stood-ayes,
Chatfeld, barnburner; Fitzhugh, whig; and Meal.
pine, bunker. In the negative were, Church, barn.
burner; Wright, soft shell; Cook, whig; and Mather,
bunker. Mr.. Wright offered resolution, citing the
said Superintendent to appear before the Canal
Board on the 7th day of September, which was
adopted. The Auditors communication was then
ordered to be published-ffty copies for the use of
the Canal Board, and also in the newspapers.
This frebrand thrown into the democratic camp
upon the of the assembling of the State conven-
ton, produced the most tremendous CONSERVATION
among the democracy all over the State, but was
considered god send to the wings. The fact of one
set Of officials charging another set of officials with
extravaganza in the Of the public moneys just at
the moment when nomination was to be made for
State officers was inexplcable and incomprehens-
BILE. Why not wait until after the election every
body inquired. Why did Wright and Chatied
allow Newell to present those charges against the
bunker officials at time when the harmony of the
party was indispensable T! The wings chuckled-it
was nuts for them to crack.
Upon proceeding to investigate the charges, the
assistance of several lawyers-democratic lawyers
was obtained The Canal Board employed two, and
the accused couple OF others. From that day until
the 9th day Of October instant, about whole month,
that body has been engaged in the matter. During
the whole period, the opposite factions, through
their papers and otherwise, have taken sides-tbe
barnburners sustaining Wright, Chatfeld and the
Auditor-the hunkers believing for the dis
charge of Newell, and swearing that John G.
Mather, Smith A. Waterman and David Bar
rett, were prosecuted trio, and as innocent Of
the charge as cooling doves The feud progressed
as the trial became protraoted. Two members Of
the Canal Board being up for re- election, an be-
longing to the opposite faction-one bunker and the
other burner-there was great difficulty to be APP
pretended. The barnburners became alarmed for |
the fate of Seymour and Church, and they began TO
cry peccaUi-they alleged that Newelrs document
was only private paper for secret consideration
that they had no intention Of making it public e5
pecally before election; and they really began to
think hat there was not much blame attached to
ths democratic officials, after all. They enrested
the hunkerz 70 stop further inquiry until q more
season" "No, no." said Mather and
Follett. The missile was aimed at us One was
candidate for Governor, who was frightened off the
course by it, and the other is now candid
Canal Commissioner. The investigation -,u,,
people demand decision f. :, a. p. r.
and one must be had. The matt -, -. D.~'r'
serious an aspect; and let tho h,ow can -. !.
may, it must come. ,or,t ro,,o, IT,.
'|pncaeea 10 the Auditors missile, he manfuy
on. the discussion, and would, from appearances,
rather have compromised his chance Of re. election
than to have suffered the investigation to be sup
pressed
Well, what has been the result Of all this clamor!
What has been the decision of the Canal Boardl
Why, that Waterman the accused, has been guilty
OF no violation Of duty;" but that Jonas v. Got
bout, the late wing Superintendent, who was not
arraigned, aud against whom charges were pre-
ferred, was improvident, and paid extravagsnt
prices for lumber A deliberate sentence was pro
noupced upon person who had not even been ac-
cused by the Auditor, nor ybody else, Of waste
ful and impr5vident expenditure of the publ,
money" What Solons
Let Us conjecture. Had decision been rendered
directly upon the merits of the case, the democratic
State ticket would have been in the greatest je,-
Iaidy. Had thu foftshells aud tho barnburnors
j0.r tLe wings d passifg Judgment sgliust Water.