New-York tribune., 1870-11-05


Ring, says: .....t $50.
"The Canals after long suffering under the contract
system-bv: the very nature OF which tho CONTRACTORS
were expected do the least possible work In the way
OF repars-came into Democratic hands 80 fed up 80
diapidated so unfit for use rs to entail an immediate
expense " place them In condition. Ihat expense,
chargeabe to Radical maladminstration, is mhde tho
groundwork OF all their accusations against Democrats
The brazen prize of mpudence should be awarded to the
authors OF such attacksp
When IL became evident that the section Of
the Democratic party whose vocation 1t ls TO
plunder Canal revenues and appropriations
could no longer be kept from "going through
them. in accordance with the general bargain,
in yirtue of which the honest vote Of the State
had been counted out. the Democratic Canal
Board which, by the Same frauds, had been
counted in, took steps to provide refuge
from the wrath of plundered people, and,
at meeting held March II, 1870, directed the
Commissioners to make, on the 18th of the
same month, report which it was expected
would give an official Endorsement to their
conduct. A suitable collection it was supposed
would be made by the several Commissioners
of alleged abuses and evils, frauds and losses,
under the contract system, sufficient to justify
the change and the attendant increase OF ex-
penditures; but somehow, although the re-
ports were delayed for the purpose until the
Goth, they were not, after all, made to fit the
case. If what was wanted was said, it was
sure to be attended by something not wanted.
IF anything was discredited by them, 1t was
the Canal Board and its Superintendents; ii
anything commended, it was the Contractors
and their system.
Commissioner Fay, for example, in the course
of his report made this awkward statement in
respect to the important Western Division:
"The performance Of the several contractors under
their respective contracts have differed In degree do
pendent upon circumstances, and the amount OF com
pensaton received upon each and while 1t may, per-
haps said that Of them have hitherto fuy ana
faithfully all things performed their contracts accord
ing to the thereof much has been done upon the
several sections that good navigation secured anq
maintained during the past two seasons, with but slight
interruption from any and without saying that
more might shoud have been done, the fact s per
haps patent that in the history OF the Canals there never
has been OF successful navigation on
this division of the Erie Canal than the two last past
II will occur to many that the "patent fact
here confessed is more to the credit of the
Contract system than the adverse one insinu-
ated is in favor of the Superintendent scheme.
A system capable of such successes might be
susceptible Of Improvement, but certainly did
not deserve abrOgation on the ground OF It's
inadeduacy. Commissioner Fay, in his candOr
OF simplicity, made another observation, which
must have been peculiarly unpleasant TO the
conspirators. He said I" There Is more or less
"deposit upon all the sections, the aecumulations
" of former Years; but tho amount Of such de-
"posits remoped during the Spring repairs Of
" 1868 and 1862 and such as ,cW De remoped
"he coming Spring, wiH, is confidently
anticipated, place this division of the Canals
| " in such condition to gue good ndpigo-
" tion and the requisite depth of water for the
4" ensuing season, and guard against distractions
=" and Interruptions to the same" This statement
is decisive against the pretenses which make up
the official plea Deposit, "the accumulation
&" of former years." is "upon all the sections"
Indeed the prism of the Canals has
never been and never will be with
out it; but all that was needed "tO
" give good navigation and the requisite
depth of water for the ensuing season." was
that the contractors of 1870, during the
Spring repairs, should remove an amount of it
equal to that removed by contractors of 1868
and 1869. But why not by Superintendent as
well 2 Simply because the cost in the one case
is defnite-in the other, limitless Commits
sioner Wright, in his report, shrewdly evaded
committing himself, by reminding the Board
that portion of their interrOgatOry embraced
subject matter relating mainly to the cOndi-
| tiOn and management of the Canals during
the last season, and prior to the COM
mencement of his term of Office, and says ::
:" 1t is presumed he is not expected fully
-" to answer the inquiry" This will extort a
smile from all who remember him as Canal
Commissioner long years ago. Not one of his
colleagues is equal to him in Canal experience,
or in judgment, in any case when the exigen-
cies of the Democratic party do not incite him
to withhold it. The problem, which the Demo
cratic Canal Board affected to be studying,
was no problem to him; he had solved it and
recorded his solution over and over again long
before. In his annual report to the Legislature
in 1868, he not only deprecated return to
the "wasteful and corrupt system of Superin-
tendents," but cOntended, by arguments not
easily to be refuted, for an expansion of the
contract system. He maintained that repairs
should be let for longer terms-eight or ten
years-fOr the very substantial reason that
contractors would then have motives for
doing their work in a more enduring manner
In 1854 he renewed and further enforced his
previous recommendations, and exploded a
false notion, now again quite current, by de-
claring that 1T is an error to suppose that
call the delays and difficulties which occur
ain providing for this vast Canal COM
"merce or the deterioration to this property,
are due to the contract system" and that
"any system which the State has yet tried is
Subject to crowds, delays and breaks, and
" general deteriOration1 We venture to re-