New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1871-03-13

than tbe facts warrant to claim that the
C.nal might have been kept in repair last
season for less than one-third OF the cost i'm
posed ON the State. That this might have
been done with satisfactory profit to those who
performed the service, is made manifest by
the pertnacity with which contractors, able to
ma5ltain their positions, refused to release the
Staie. It was not speculation, but positive
knowledge, that controlled the action of these
men; they founded their judgments on ascer-
taintd results not estimates. why, then, was
not This great scandal and loss ayertedf and
TO what purpose has gone more than two dol
lars of every three extracted from the state
under cover of repairing the Canalsf
No one will be at loss for the reasons who
is at oil acquainted with the ethics and prac-
tees of Tammany The absurd pretext that
mfaithfuness on the part OF contractors III
years gone by had caused this enormously
increased expenditure in order to restore the
Canals to usefulness, raises question OF tact;
it is to be proved, not argued. Canals IN the
condition alleged would not have paid $17,-
100000 of the Canal debt from surplus earn
ings nor yielded an annual surplus of nearly
$4,000, OCO. nor achieved other successes which
made conspicuous the thrift and skill of Re-
publican management through ten consecutive
years. Especially is the pretext refuted by
the experience of the most prosperous year the
Canals ever saw-lSC8-the solitary year when
not Superintendent was tolerated on the entire
line, and the repairs were wholly made by
contractors. AS if conscious of the absence
of those pests, business FASTENED to burden
the Canals with tunnage and fill the treasury
with tolls; and the triumph of the con-
tractors eliminated in a surplus of more than
1928, 900, while the expenses were less than
Sf,2OO,0O0 If the allegations in question were
not altogether false, they come with an Ill
grace from the patrons OF these Supenn-
tendents, who, during the year just ended,
have run up the expenses OF the
Canals 10 more than $2j0O,0OO, and
the surplus down to less than 100000; max
ing it altogether the least creditable year i'll
the history of the Canals There is personal
testimony on the point quite as conclusive as
that of facts. No contractor has received a
dolar,--and every one of them has been PAID
monthly,-eXcept upon the certificate OF
Canal Commissioner in these words: And
thereby certify that the contractor has full
"flled his contract during the period for
which he is compensated 10y this draft" The
pigeon holes OF the Department abound with
such certificates signed by each one of the
Democratic Commissioners. Now it is obvious
that either the allegations against the con
tractors are false or the certificates are; each
being the exact opposite of the other. Would
the Canal Board, its superintendent, its apollo
gists or even its thieves have ia believe that
all the Democratic Commissioners are sever
ally Liable to monthly turns of official per
Jury? We should be slow to believe in a
smaller number, but twelve times year is
simply incredible. II is much easier TO be-
lieve that functionaries and their abettors,
guilty of what these stand convicted, are ca
pable of making exculpatory statements which
neither a Canal Commissioner nor anybody
else might be willing to credit, much less to
swear to but, finding ourselves i'll dilemma,
we elect one horn thereof, and take our stand
on the truth of the afldayiis having album
dant reason to consider them as worthy of be-
lief and positive knowledge that the contra
die ms of them are not.