The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-03-07
How the Taxes are InC rcased-The Frauds in
the Street Departments.

the Street Departments.
In January last Mr.. Conover sent communi
cation to the Common Council containing 9
heavy list Of alleged frauds in the making and
executing of contracts which had come under
his observation in overlooking the books and
papers of the Street Department. The dcve-
Opponents made in that document 30 excited
the alarm and stimulated the virtue of our city
fathers that committee was appointed in each
Board of the Common Council to investigate
the charges. We have often commented upon
the proceedings of these committees.
In the HERALD of the 18th of February we
gave succinct history of the frauds under in
vestigation up to that time; but in order that
the tax payers of the city may better under
stand the amount and character of these opera
tons against their pockets, we wiil now give an
account Of them down to the present time -
First, there is the case of Chemung Smith,
who is charged with having paid John Fitz-
patrick, as assignee of Charles Deviin, ST., 800,
instead of $2,sOO-thus defrauding the treasury
of slO,OOO-which is still before the Recorder,
and the end of which is not yet. Next comes
the grading and regulating of Fifty-fifth street,
between Sixth and Seventh avenues, where the
sum of $2,077 80 has been paid to the con-
tractor for work not specified in the contract
In the case of Fifty-sixth street, from Fourth to
Fifth avenue, the contractor also received the
sum of $1,000 for an item of earth excavation
not contained in the copy of the contract in the
Street Department, but inserted in the copy in
the Finance Department. In the case of Fifty
seventh street, between Third and Fifth avenues
100000 cubic feet of wall, costing $4,000
not in the contract in the Finance Depart
ment-is charged for by the contractor, and an
over measurement has been returned by the
Surveyor of 46,54O cubic yards of earth filing
and 7,s47 cubic yards of rock blasting.
In the Fifty second street case a wall is
charged for which is not included in the con-
tract, on which ON over-payment of s4,25l 40
WAS made. In Fifty-ffth street, between Third
and Fifth and Seventh and Eighth avenues, the
Surveyor returns an over-measurement on the
work done, making an overcharge of some
$3,O57.
After the ground for the Central Park was
laid out the contractor actually went to work
and graded Sixty-sixth street right through It,;
for which he charged $4,000, but which hap
PLY was not paid him. Then there is the noto-
rious over-payment to Mr.. Erben of S., 900 more
than he was entitled to for the property pur-
chased from him in the opening of Canal street.
In regulating Fifty street the lowest bid
was 81, Isl, and the next highest was s5,692 80;
but the latter was accepted, making difference
to begin with of sl,54l 80. Then there is an
overcharge of dollar foot on laying curb
and gutter, and for work not in the contract
amounting to 81 ,305; in all, over-assessing the
property owners $2,S46 80. So likewise in the
Fifty -fourth street case, between Lexington and
Third avenues, the contractor was paid, on the
Surveyors return, S96S for tagging twelve lots
which he never touched at all. The property
owners on Seventy ninth street, from Eleventh
avenue to Broadway, complain that the con-
tract on which they were assessed was not full
filled in a solitary specification; but the amount
of overcharge did not appear on the investiga
ton. The last case before the Committee on
Frauds was that of setting curb and gutter and
tagging Third avenue from Sixty first to Eigh-
ty-sixth streets, in which the Surveyor, Mr.. Ed
ward Boyle demonstrated that the figures in
bis returns had been altered after it left his
hands, making an overcharge in the assessment
Of $780,
Now, let US sum up the amounts Of alleged
frauds in these cases. First. there is the sum
Maid tn