New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-16

As the hour Of Executive session was near progress
was reported upon the BILL and few moments later it
was made special order for tomorrow.
SENATOR WOODS EXPLANATION.
HIS LEGAL CANAL PRACTICE THE LEGITIMATE re-
suit OF MS PROFESSIONAL FAMILIARITY WITH
THE sUBJECT-HIs LEGISLATIVE RECORD UNAF-
.FECrED BY HIS PRIVATE BUsINEss-THR SALT
BLOCK CLAIMS.
lBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TEIBusEl
ALBANY, April MISUNDERSTANDING the fact that
there was a very general expectation among Senator
Woods friends and throughout the State that he
would rise TO question Of privilege i'll the Senate,
and make some explanation Of the facts and figures
having personal reference 10 himself contained in
Mondays TRIBUNE, he has thus far remained silent.
In q conversation with me- however, to-day, he en-
tered into some denals of statements contained in
the article referred to, and having reference TO
special points well to its general substance.
The Senator began by saying that whatever he
had done in the capacity of lawyer matter Of
public record, and he was willing that every act Of
his life should be open TO the closest public scrutiny.
He had attained large practice in canal claims, but
it was only because of his familiarity with the
intricate and often apparently conflicting laws
which govern them. He gradually acquired repu-
tation for this kind of work. and other lawyers would
accumulated so rapidly on his hands that he was
obliged 20 relinqush all his general practice to his
partner and devote himself entirely TO this speciality
1t was in this way that his practice assumed such
large proportions and not because he was in the
habit of fling claims that were fraudulent or exor-
bitant. He had never knowingly supported such
a claim in his life. On the contrary his
habit had been to beat down the claims
Of his clients before presenting them, not only be-
cause he would not in any way aid or abet claim
that was not proper legitimate, but to lessen the
disappointment that must ensue when reduced
awards were made by the appraisers. Both while
in the Assembly and in the Senate he had fought
claims as far as he could. He had opposed claim
bills and had refused to introduce them when he did
not think them meritorious Some, which courtesy
had compelled him to introduce, he had opposed in
the Committee OF on the floor of the Senate.
As Senator he had striven hard to protect the in
terests of the State He had taken as little active
part in practice as he coud while member and had
sought in every way to serve his constituents to the
best of his ability.
In relation to his charges for collecting claims the
Senator did not deny that he had often charged
fee of fifty per cent of the award obtained. He said
that in cases of long standing which necessarily in
yolved great deal of labor and had occupied much
of his time he made his clients pay roundly, as said
he, they should do. He wished that he had In his
possession the pleasant total which had been credited
to him as probably his share of the total amount OF
the awards collected by him; but he would say that,
in the larger part of these he did not net one
per cent.
The inside history of one of Senator Woods
claims which was given in the article referred to
in which, after one-haf OF the award had been paid
to the Senator and the remaining half had been
divided between one former and the the two
present owners of the property, the original owner
received nearly the whole amount of the original
damage through only One-sixth Of the award-was
touched upon by Senator Wood only to say that
these claimants bad got into a quarrel and to deny
the statement that he said he had better witnesses
than the original owners, who gave notice that he
sbonld swear to only S. 900 damage, instead of
GAG 600 as Senator Wood had claimed, this state
ment is found, upon investigation, to be correct.
The remark was made not by Senator Wood, but by
enc of the new claimants his client and made in
his uresence and Senator Wood did not call the wit
ness.
In regard to the "salt block" cases which were
,cnoted in THE TRIBUNE among his claims, Senator
Wood shows that the increase In the amount OF the
awards over the face of the original claims making
n total increase from 1874, 900 to S4S,OOO was due
to the award of interest on the amount from the
time the claim wa Uleu, anu SIdtcN OhdS
ants under his directions, filed claims only for the
actual expenditures for repairing damages, so
far "a il could be ascertained. In these
cases the damage done was by the alleged
overflow of the salt blocks, requiring the building
generally a rough frame structure something more
than JOG feet in length, to be raised, earth to be
filled in beneath the csterns, which it was claimed
were badly racked, to be recaulked, DC.
The ouestion as to the righfulness OF
these claims depend, therefore, upon the
actual cost of making these repairs,
and the actual amount DONE On this point there
will probably be something to say hereafter Sena-
tor Wood also denied that he had ever had assistants
of the kind of which Nathaniel DeyO and Oney Sayles
xvere mentioned as examples who were reported to
act a. his deputies in searching out and manufactur
ING claims. obtaining assignments, and occasionally
bnvine ND claims. He admitted, however, that
Deyo had acted for number OF his clients IN GER
tain batch of cases. and had transacted the business
for them with him. He asserted also, that 1t had
mover been his habit TO file papers in the
name of another lawyer, and then appear
at the argument, saying that every case
in which he had any interest appeared
an the books in his name. lie complained also that
from the wording of single clause which SAID that
az legislator he had fairly monopolized this ousi
mesa IL might be inferred that he had prosttuted
his place in the Legislature to the prosecution OF
these claims No such reflection was intended and
a In difficult to see how IL could have been inferred