The New York herald., 1864-03-16
YORK, WEDNESDAY, MARCH l6, 1885,

performed the by the lst OF OCTOBER
1861 difficulty about work which Nven had done
apdfor which he claimed payment and difficulty having
n the Van Ceye and Niven contract for the super
alter the lst Of September ls6 obtained Nven
assignment OF his contract which consented to by
the Commissioners in November foowiDg aud although
Niven unable TO get what he claimed (some
20t00) from or through the Commissioners yet II
twenty six thousand FIVE hundred dollars as the consd
GRAFTON for his assignment and he short thereaer OBJ
tanned repayment Of the same from observation-disclosures
out Of the County Treasury OF New York.
1he assignment OF the Van Ceve and Niven contract
was not made until January, ls62 The evidence does
the contract
Having thus stated the terms Of these contracts the
1851. creating commission, and give the test
mony Of Alderman Hatfield TO show the cause OF the
charge and at the same time exposing the roitenness Of
They got up two bills in the legislature altering the
The first Two bills ss oraa ne
en with other parties TO put out. That in April
1851 The passage Of the act was against @ my remon %
and worked hard and killed the first Two bills.
Q. 10 Alderman HatGeld-was there proposition
A. Yes, sir. James Hough said to me once. "Alder
man, ] suppose you VIII 40 as a.,r, lockwood and and
says I. II occurred at the corner Of Ann street
and Broadway Well, - said he, "you know, don't your
Veil We had considerable conversation Finally an
other lobbying man came up-Charles Mcneil the
meaning drew from him was, that II would go in and
the commssion tried to get him TO tell all about it
he wanted 10 sign some article Of writing, to carry
out
Mr.. Mcneil said, 'You will do what Say the matter
wont ysu, Adermanf' "No," said |, "Chares, wont
"you know what it is" Afterwards Hough went to
work to get me removed. never found out what they
wanted me to do; they would not tell me unless would
agree TO rerjure myself This was soon after the ad
iournment OF the Board of Supervisors, and when the
Legislature was about meeting. ] went to see Mr..
Robertson he was determined to have me removed from
the start; acted with the Commission from the time
elected chairman of the Board until about the 23d
24tn OF April, 1861"
By examination OF this it wiz be seen that in
place Of the fourth section Of the act OF s57 new sec
dividuals-Wilam Minor, James ravis and Joseph.
Southworth, OF the city OF New York. and william II.
Robertson and Alsop H. OF the county Of West
chester, as Commiss toner's of the Harlem Bridge.
Your committee have not been able 20 discover any
evidence Il the peculiar fitness or capacity which these
gentlemen had SUPERIOR TO that which the Mayor the
Street Commissioner OF New York. and the County Judge
and chairman Of the Eoard Of Supervisors Of
Westchester county possessed. II Is indis-
putable fact, however, that Of this com
mission James Davis was conveniently a, Super
Of Westcbeser.
contractors when audited before their payment had 10
pass the ordeal of examination by the Supervisors Of
New York and westchester. i will be seen by the
phraseoogy Of the first section Of this act that
1t was contemplated by these who framed II
to commence operations in the construction of
new Commissioners shall inspect iand certify as to the
necessity for the rebuilding OF the bridge. fur.
be had navigation Of the Harlem river This was
superfuous further provided that the bridge should
be low bridge and not high bridge that the said
Commissioners shall have no power make any con.
tract or contracts for the execution Of the whole or any
he Of ,he said bridge for aOv sum exceed
ing the OF $25000o. It further provided that the
compensation o. the Commissioners should not exceed
three dollars per day "for each day services-euch
charges for services, well as Tor the building OF the
bridge to be borne paid by the counties Of New York
md
the Harlem river defined and fixed by boundary
lines Of said two counties respectively.
The new Commissioners organized and commenced ope
rations in the month OF April 1861 Preliminary their
doing SO br Davis one Of the Commissioners, obtained
lectors OF the United States revenue in the county
OF New York, under whom Mr.. Davis WAS employ
contracts which had been entered into BY. the
former alleged Commission were legal and bind
or remark here however, that Mr. Eetcham, In his opn
ion expressly that be simply passes on these con-
thereto have joined in the making Of the contracts and
also assuming that they fairly given out, and that
10 addition this 10 statement or evidence afforded
HIM the total failure the part o the contractors
their contracts down TO the period within which they
should have been all performed aud completed.
The committee here enter into lengthy examination
Clearly by the terms OF the act Of April 1861 there
was prohibition Of any contracts beyond the sum Of
The contractors the with their eyes open
to receiving payment through legislative action both
and New York. and OF the state The contracts expressly
exempted the Commissioners OF the Harlem Bridge from
personal liability. And the Harlem Bridge Commission,
Mr.. McAlpne for the construction OF the bridge
did not exceed 1925 900, should throw in as
colorado authority In favor OF their dongs opinion OF
legal gentleman-not the Corporation Counsel, the
legal adviser OF the Board, who has received that
information upon the subject Of these conras that the
committee have.
Your committee do not hesitate TO say that the giving
out Of these contracts without advertisement without
the opening Of sealed proposals without any competition
In the market, upon the fixed and arranged plan IN
relation 70 the parties who were to receive them and for
amounts allowed therein per pound for iron (Which FAR
exceeded the for which the iron might have been OBJ
tanned from others in the market). had their inception
and contamination scheme which has resulted already
In depicting the treasury OF the city OF New York OF the
of $404 s1 Is, aud more, paid and 10 be paid TO
John Roach the engineers, superintendent commission
The evidence adduced before the committee shows
,nas ;ames n S wascs nS Iosr Was the o'o
put in the contract by name but really representing his
frend the friend Of MI lockwood the friend Of Mr Nc
Alpine and the friend OF Mr., Roacb-James Houghths
convenient superintendent appointed the motion OF
Mr.. lockwood, upon this work.
The committee have not, although they have made
dgen search for and efforts to obtain the Mr.
Edwards before them been successful Both James Hough
properly CLERK Of the commssiou tested that they did
not know where be lived where he could be found al
though one had acted as his attorney 10 signing the con
they both stated that he bad bad farm and had been
living on Long Island.
Mr.. James HouRh and Mr. John Roach according 10 the
committee, showed completely in their testimony upon
the sub ec Of Mr. Edwards interest In the contract
Mr. Roach said that he had put Mr.. Edwards part.
ner 10 secure to Mr. James Hough the sum OF 81 900
which he 10 him in the event OF his disposng OF
certain iron cylinders which he then had on hand.
Mr. Roach testified beyond this interest Of Hough
10 the thousand dollars, that Mr.. Edwards bad a
cents worth OF interest In the contract. And he also
testified that Mr Edwards had assigned TO him all OF his
interest In the contract. A copy OF the paper,
which Mr. Roach alleged was an assignment OF
Edwards interest, the committee present, dated
September 2. 1851, with the power or attorney.
II VIII be perceived that power OF attorney from
Edwards 70 Roach, witnessed by James Hougb leaving
the work and PROFITS concerned, intact.
Mr.. James Hough testified that upon the OBJ.
& ,aihng ana gSng q adl1a,. tnm paper p Mr.; Roach
ned to the thing, and they both testified to the
mpor tsnt fact that upon the use Of the cylinders In the