New-York tribune., 1867-07-26
THE CANAL FRAUDS.

FURTHER ESTIhiONY-STARTLING DISCLOSURES.
The Albany Journal presents the following
additional chapterO tic result of the investigation lately
held by the Senate Committee The Committee was in
session at Syracuse on the 9th:
Myron Bangs called and He resides IN Fay
etevie is farmer and has been canal contractor for
years ne was was nF1 NJ eASeG concerning Ger @ Ie lannon's
in Albany but was represented by his brother Eli Shell
don S. Pratt, and Clark Shook, all OF whom In
terested in all the bids He bid on section of the Erie,
section OF the ChamplaD, the Cayuga and Seneca, the
o t5e anosonS @ SS OF MT SSn the counsel Of the Com
mittee and the answers OF r Bangs as taken down by
the stenOgrapher:
q Your bids were sold out, suppose A Wei, don't
know; they had the management,
@. You understood sol A. did not get any OF tho
@ You understood your bids were offered for the bene
O. How much did you receive for your share, for Civ
inc your bdsl A. received $780, that was what was
O. Did The others receive equallyl A. Yes, Sir
q That would be about $500 for the whole that the
Q. What else did you rcoeivei A. Well there are two
ohr sections that nave been awarded since have not
q. Awarded March gthg 4. Awarded afterwards
have not received anything on them as yet.
sl5oc & 0" much were you 70 receive Oh 'n'' ABOUT
O. You expected that; that was the cOntracti A. Yes
O. Fifteen hundred dollars foF the four Of you or for
yOursclfi A. For the four
O. That is not yet paid A. That is not yet paid
Thus much, by way Of a glimpse at one systematic
mcthCd Ot robbery by contract We VIII now take look
OF the specific instances Of iObberY concerning
which an explanation might be deemed desirable The
evidence from the same witness continues:
@ Did you bid for this excavation in the Albany basin'
A. ! did
@ What was your bid per yard A. think it was
O. And how much for keeping the section in reparl A.
think it not far from sO0O that is my price; IN
tended TO bid for that at that price. -
o yor Judgment th4t that work could be done for
O. Don't YOU think that is fair full price for that work
O You understand the contract was awarded at $4,000
20 Bcldcn, Denson & Galet a. Yes, Sir.
q. By Senator Stauiord-Seycnty tOnsand dollars IOr
the excavation and $4,000 year Tor keeping nleparf
O. Is Mr Michcll-Thcre were no other partiesi A.
There other parties, but think they bought them
% Your brdIwas s5oooo A Yes, sir; think that was
@ They let it at 10000 FOR Eve years. That would be
since then and think there 100000 profit them.
Q. OF profit TO Beldcn Col 4. Yes, sir.
q. You know pretty well what 1t costs TO dredge don
O. Don't YOU think that dredging could be done for
than . oen-, aud make profit A. Hes, sir think II
could be done Tor 20 cents-25 cents at the outside
tn needless FOR to comment ON such an exposition
to earu from the same witness the completely OF canal
officials with the transactions lie has revealed:
q. Have you not had money taken iron your snare IN
O DO NJ you suspect itI A. Well, it looks like it,
o. Have you not in work where you have been in with
otho had money taken that was said 70 CO. ana So TO
whumi A. could not say that had; could not say
that they ever received money nom me.
o Did you have auy talk with any Of them on the
o. Have You not talked with any of the Contracting
Board and u So to whon in reference to presents or
money 4. No.
q. Don't you, know OF any engineers who have had
money! 4. I DO not
@ Were There not any engineers implicated with DIR.
RangS awhile ago, whom Wheeler was concernedi A.
Gcs with other parties, bat not directly through me-
After further questions ana answers relative 10
contract on tho Western Division, OF which witness
deprived, the following evidence was eucitcd.
q. By Senator siautord-I want TO know why Mr..
sc0ley declined 10 pay you have aidi a. have not
seen him. hut have letter from Mr. De Graw, one Of
the parties who bh, and he said Mr. secley had paid
SOOUs 30 get these two sections IL aud IL he was 10 pay
between OO and 5000 TO tho contractors or these two
scctioua.
q. 10 whom was this money paid a. could not say
q. by Mr. MitchellDe GTtw was % receive how muchi
A. lie was 90 receive his proportion.
q. Mt. ooeley declined 90 rdy dhs amount 10 thc con
tractors because IL had cost him much 10 got the CON
tract A. Yes, Sir
Charles Nicho was next sworn. lie n contractor.
and perfectly familiar with The system MS testimony
related 20 the repair contract system by Issuing special
uOtccs These notices would specify the work 10 be
done But after the work Is done, no attention rs paid
he said IL was this Unless person understood II as
belonging 60 tho Royal Family he would not dare TO
bid because they could compel him 10 do the work
he would figure up what II worth 20 90 this work.
and OF course his bid would be clear beyond the
others" he bclongcdto the Royal Family he would
not pay any attention 90 IT. lie DEFINED hoy1i Fanny
show that he understood what ho tesyiug 10, Wit
ness said he had taken just such contracts, IN company
with DensOn ard Beiden ana hane nio,y % o oi t,Sl' @
section eight Eric, section three Chhmplaht hhu Us
wcgo weigh lock- The witness was questioned closely as
10 whether he had paid any moneys estate officials
but declined the express ground that ~ might lpu
oafo himself He dechued 10 answer such questions
era times In succession relative 20 members OF the Con-
tracing Beard its clerk, ana the engineers Tue quss-
same ground that It might involve himself