The Lansing state Republican. [volume] (Lansing, Mich.) 1855-1874, 1861-03-06
REPORT OF TAX JstIsT 4 fiAiITTs. r
OF THE LEGISLATESlE 3 4PDI<Tr n
80 I>VE>TIG TIEE I9EAsUHs
DEPARTMENT

OF THE LEGlSLATI;<E 3 >P0I<TF n
80 I>VE>TIGATE THE J.EAsUHY
DEPARTMENT.
Below We give the report o., lae join: Com
mite appointed TO invesligatr the Treasury ma,
ters- We have not tie space To- give the detail
el evidence embraced in toe report, conraiuir-
as i, does, over two huud5ed iolios The Com
r.ittec was composed oi some of the ablest men
in the Legislature, and the, have been patient
, thorough and exact ir the.- juvcstigati0ns Nj
Browne !, the Democratic n mber Of the Com
part of the report relating to tie letting of tie
Sault Canal contract. We give the report with
out further comments at present:
The joint committee of the Senate and House
of representatives., appointed 10 investigate th,.
treasury department, and the official aci- OF
john Mckinney, aud also the previous maiaEe-
meHt OF that department, and the cOntfac; -
letting the work for the repairs 10 tie ST MN :
Fall. Ship Canal, respectfully report: That thes
have prosecuted their investigation as diligently
and ef-c;Ia.', as has been in their pOwe. to
do ard hlr.vua specttgily submit the result
Of their iaher- f..., the public might Toe fully
aware ot .l di -..,re of the committee, and al
20 Of the,r r-gi-cI of their dury, Il uy possible
means 81 aliiffr@ az correct rc-uli~ nave been
omitted. i.y, tHv" been car, ul 20 record the
','oIr .,-- .j.u .., rs ,c, a. he Questions in a.
swer 30 s.il,.. B. .4~ been ,icitcd, and which j.
herewith a!~o submitted II any effort La~ ben
omitted Ia a,;vr "a r.. ar.., ruth, the commit
tee is not aware ( IL. ar5 whether there has
been Az earnest ana letrf5ncti investigation, ali
who .clh th- testimony N1 oc fully able to
judge !, j. believed th.u no one of 'he COM
aitIee n.- had any orect Except TO discharge.
iaiihfrli, the uulara~ait due. with which il has
been tie pleasure o.: The House 10 charge them.
cANAL CONTRACT.
I'm the Investigations Of the letting, Of the canal
contract the committee hav, called before them
ey-rybody connected there's lit both all the Of
ic,rs ~ho constituted the board OF control which
bad the letting of the contracr, as well as the
contractors 'hemselves-and have been enabled
to investigate them very fully. The contract
wa. TO. let 10 the lowest bidders therefor -
Trcie were several parties who proposed for the
work, and their names and tie bids made by
each appears in connection with the testimony
- the late Governor. Ihe testimony OF that
gentl men, also well az that OF the late Audit
or General, detailed the reasoning and the mo-
tives which led them 10 reject jhe lower bids and
accept one OF the hghes, in the first place,
Mr. Clark one of the contractors. seems TO have
been considered a man well acquainted with the
business hc vas proposing TO enter upon was
known Ia th" board OF control a man o: ener
gy, enterprise aud reliability. The sureties
which Mr. Clark and his associate. Holiness OF
fcred for the due tufnent of tneiC contract, il
it should be awarded 10 them, Eber Il. Ward,
Philo Persons H. Chandler and John Owen, were
all citizens 0f this State, and men of known
wealth and responsibility. he Board Of Con-
troll therefore seems to nave considered that
in awarding the contract 10 Clark d Holmes, with
such surctics for is ,a ioriuaacr as the gentle
men above IN r..i #.rv were unt'or eou-sitag
the interests o. the state, than t,.ey would II ve
been, had they let the work a tc3 thousands
Of dollars less, bur to contractors of less utility,
and Offering less satisfactory surety ipr Iis per
iorInaice and who might possibly aii in coaI-
pletine IT, aS the terms oi the contract might re-
quire. In this, the committee cJuHot say they
acted unwisev The committee have eIdeavur.
,.1 to ascertain, both from direc: testimony and
from circumstances, whether any parties conEec
I'D with the Board Of Control Nita the State
Government. had ~ aay w.: directly -: 0taer
Wis" ary interest with the Contractors IN the
prof Ia the work. All the direct testimony,
however rcpcls the idea and directly contradict,
il. The engineer, who estimated the expense %
the work, on the >uppOsltiOn that 10 was 10 bC
done 10y tie State directly, estimated lis cost IL
he something more than the contractors under
took 10 10 ii for; and though Mr.. Holmes, wher
asked what tie work cost, and the profits Of th,
work, declined to answer, Mr.. Clark states tn,
cost TO have been between So, 900 and $40, 90
. The contract has undoubtedly been profitabl,
one but not 10 such an extent as to create al
impression, much less belief, in the minds of tn,
committee that there was any collision ar th'
letting, and especially a. all positive teStimon,
con,raicts and repels such an idea. On 'hi
subject the committee feel themselves compeie,
to express the conviction that this contract wa
iiirly let and that If there has been any error o
mistake in the transaction. il has been only il
/ judgment; and that there is nothing corne-te,
with il, indicating in any wav. official misc0nduc
or want OF integrity, on the part of any pubii
officer connected with l..
CANAL LOAN.
The committee nave al giver some attention
/ 30 the sale Of canal bonds, 50 called, and tn
transaction with Hazelton & Co., which re>ulte,
in the deposit wiki them, by the late Treasurer
of $50, 900. This sale Of bonds seems "a hav
been conducted with but little regard to the pri,
ciples which govern such traasactio.5 in tn
money market. The bonds we're advertised, aut
bids therefor rece we'd in April, and the loan va
:hen ava ded 10 iIazeiirn Co, a. the hishes
l. r,sz l,,- h. "a,