The Hillsdale standard. [volume] (Hillsdale, Mich.) 1851-1909, 1861-03-12
AFFAIRS OF THE STATE TREASURY
Report Of the Legislative Investigating
Committee.

4
Th" joint committee Of tho Senate and
House Of Representatives, appointed to nves.
tigatc the treasury department aud tho off
clal &C 5 Of John Mckinney, and also the pre-.
vious management of that department, and
the contract for letting the work for the re.
pairs to the St. Mary's Falls Snip Canal, re-
spectfully report that they have prosecuted
their Investigations as diligently and effectu-
ally as il has been in their power to do, and
herewith respectfully submit the result Of
their labors. That the public might be made
fully aware Of the diligence Of the committee,
and, also, OF their neglect of their duty il any
possible means Of arriving at correct results
have been omitted, they have been careful to
re- ord the whole testimony as well ms the
questions, in answer to which. it has been e.
icited. If any effort has been omitted to ar.
rive at the whole Truth the committee is not
aware of it. and whether there has been an
earnest and determined Investigation all who
read the testimony will be fully ablc 70 Judge.
II j. believed that no one Of the committee
has had any object except to discharge faith.
fully the unpleasant duty with which it has
heen the pleasure Of the House to charge
them.
CANAL CONTRACT.
In the investigation Of the letting Of the
canal contract tho committee havs called be
fore them everybody connected lherowith-
both all the officers who constituted the Board
Of Control, which hal the letting Of the con
tract, as well as the contractors themselves,
and have been enabled to investigate them
very fully. The contract was not let to the
lowest bidders therefore There were several
parties who proposed for the work and their
nam and tho bids made by each appear in
connection with the testimony ofthe late Gov
ernor. The testimony Of that gentleman al
so, as we'll a- that Of the late Auditor Gener.
al l,detail the reasoning and the motives which
led them to reject the lowest bids and accept
one Of the highest. In the first place Mr.,
Clark one OF the contractors, seems to have
been considered man we'll acquainted with
the business he was proposing TO enter upon;
was known to some Of the Board o. Control
as man of energy, enterpr Sc and reliability.
The sureties which Mr.. Clark and his associate,
Holmes, offered for the due fulfllment Of their
contract, if it should be awarded to them
Eber B. Ward, Philo Parsons, T. Chan Her,
and John Oweu-were all citizens of this
State, and men Of known wealth and respon-
sibilitv. The Boa,d of Control, therefore,
seem to have considered that,.in awarding
the contract to Clark and Holmes, with such
snrotes for its performance as the gentlemen
above named, they were better consulting the
interests of the State than they would havo
been had they let tho work for few thou
sands Of dollars less but to contractors Of less
ability and Offering less satisfactory suieties
for its performance, and who might possibly
fail in completing it as the terms of the con
tract might require. In this the committee
cam IT saw tho. .tz- - """iee'J' h'o
commit,ae have endcayore1 to ascer ain, both
from direct testi ony and from circumstances,
whether any parties connected with the Board
Of Control or with tho State Go eminent had
in any way directly or otherwise, any inter
est with the contractors in the profits Of the
work All the direct testimony, however,
rep"lS this idea and directly contradcts it.
The engineers who estimated the expense of
the work, on the supposition that it was to be
done by the State directly, estimated its cost
to be something more than the contractors un.
dcrtcok to do it for, and t ough Mr. Holmes,
when asked what the work cost and the
profits Of the work, refused to answer, Mr.
Clark states the cost to have been between
$4,000 and $4,000. The contract has
undoubtedly been profitable one, but not to
such an extent rs to create an impression,
much less belief in the minds Of the commit.
tee that there was any collusion at the let
ting, and especially rs all positive testimony
contradicts and refutes such an idea. On
this subject the committee feel themselves
compelled to express the conviction that the
contract was fairly let and that, it there has
been any error or mistake in tue transaction,
it has been only in judgment, and that there
is nothing connected with it Indicating in any
way official misconduct or want Of integrity
on tho part Of any public officer connected
with it.
CANAL LOAN.
The committe has also given some atten
tion to the sale of canal bonds SO called, and
the transactions with Hazleton IL Company,
which resulted in the deposit with them by