New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-11-19
Ex.AssEMBLYsrAN HILLS DEFENSE.

Albany. Nov. 1S.-- The Legislative Joint
Committee 10 investigate canal frauds met at the Ap
praiser's Once this morning Present, Senator Cole
Assemblyman Seward, and their counsel, Henry
Smith and Rufus W. Peekham. Henry c. Beach,
an engineer under c. H. Sweet, sworn and examined
nv MIR Smith ss 10 the dam in Osco Lake. Mr.. Beach
thus testified:
measured the in 1875 and examined It's consruc-
ton the length of the dam IL four chains Is INKS OF
9DS feet the dam in good condition ana appa-
rently OF good work. l examined y only externally
there is an ordinary slope wan on dno o aPper
I did not examine as 10 tnckness, etc;
h ns s!T an M the wall runs clear down to the bottom
one side; Judged from the appearance where the dam
slbSr there was any Land about there which had
grubbed; properly constructed, good dam could be
Is inches il was limestone We tested The cement by
irving 10 pick into it with knife found it hard.
CH Sweet appeared TO correct bis former testimony
~ TO an of the length OF the dam The final ae-
count showed il 10 be sos 29loo feet.
David L. Whitford assistant Of Mr.. Sweet who ex-
smined the dam with Mr.. Beach, was questioned for
about an hour He confirmed MIR. Beach's testimony.
George f. Briggs examined by Mr.. Sweet as to the
manner OF constructing the dam. lie said:
The dam was constructed Of clay, gravel and sand
,orne OF the material rejected; there was heavy
es OF timber under the slope i wS lnslS never
am farmer worked on the dam from the time u
Was begun until II was completed drew stone anu
the dam one stump was taken out that Wac al lhat
took the build the road these latter had no con-
aection with the work ,. II, q,
Mr. Peckham-Was il Euddled up to the watef-lnef
witness-Yes, Sir; above the waterline ,..
Mr. PeckhaIn-other witnesses swear that 1t was not
9itness-Then they could not have been there
Mr. Coe-What did you fill in the wall WITH witness
1t filed in with groutng IN the usual way
ID b. Hill appeared before the Committee, requesting
permission to see the testimony in the Chemung Canal
claims matter II given TO him. and he asked to be
put under oath in order to make statement He said
bis attention bad been called to some msstatements
which had been printed throughout the State, and he
would refer them. He said:
know OF the food in 1857 and of the opinion that
the damage caused by agent OF the state named
Faugherty ne gecting his duty and for this he dis
charged Instead opening the lock gates Flaughery
closed them aud cut open the waste wels TINS caused
The damage TO the surrounding lands; the matter
hnay taken hand, and il found necessary TO
the passage Of special act OF the legislature the
business OF collecting the claims was put into the HANDS
Of Nh. g. l. Smith who was to prepare the papers and
argue she case try O'i t6e matter before the Ap
prasers and TO receive onethird OF the awards ;
passed authorizing the Appraisers to hear the
claims OF other parties who had suffered they were
again passed similar act for Mr. Smiths clients; in
1868 formed Pdp Ss s bamds ana wss v
lied Albany with reference TO these claims awards
ments never hunted up any OF the evidences never
sought any OF these claimants TO get of their claims
Legislature; | was member IN 1872; In my ca
pacty a member of the Legislature never bad any
Thing with these awards al Of them paid except
three these paid after ont of the legislature
the charge made One-third; there may have been
some additional charges ny partner had charge OF all
the financial part OF this mater these cases were APP
missed in all but three cases appeared to argue in
these trial ordered by the Canal
but there was decision that they could not be tried
again; insisted upon new trial out was over,
again; argued two OF them and the Canal Board affirmed
them In 1874 the remaining one was reargued anu tat
2s disposed OF in like manner; witness named CrOfut
reported saying that asked him 10 vote for Weber
n the adjoining county of schuyler his election would
hair Inc the time MebOpr a
voter and could have no interest IN his eeeOn in the
sdditionsi services OF a little over one-thrd; in
Inc Sleeper case, one half and In the Locke
. be paid for our services and he was charged 81 500
Twas brought 70 Albany several times in these naters
Wsh 70 say that prosecuted these claims in my capacity
n lawyer that believed, and believe now, that they
are tust Judge Brooks, OF the appraisers not
Interested two Of the pieces of property on which
awards were made he has only lately obtained such In,
Of an there cousion between Judge Brooks and
and WATSON; Mr. Smith aud myself are not partners
now, and have not been for over year ana hall
many or %Gi Th Save n me-
list Of them think the aggregate sum awarded was
about 900 went 10 the counsel was present at the
appraiser hearing nearly an the time q, E mn ONE
Size question of liability H. Boardman smith was the at
partner the case Of Banks which was case
contested my part Us well as could; on the other
book of written testimony taken in the easel There
we're l4i2 pages Of testimony taken the question OF
Mr. smith-That embraces all the testimony the
question whether tGe canal had produced the damages,
bank Judge Brooks did not take down all the testimony.
Mr.. Bmith-Name the witnesses. Witness-OmsbuTy,
Locke Banks, Judd, and McWhorter making five III ali
two OF them We're claimants - , -, -
MIR smithGiye the names Of the witnesses called on
soS here
yoiTing $40, 600 whether there any Witnesses
SIZE sides WitnesI cannot recOllect whether Mr.
Shorter called for the State on looking at the test-
mcny l see lie was called by the claimants
Mr.. smith, now ask you, sir Hill, whether you think,
lawyer, that ,hat case was contested az ought TO
have been the part OF the batof Mr. HIl-So ar do
tie trial Is concerned, THINK II Was-
Mr.. smith-Do you think, If this had been private
matter it wOud have been contested as this was hr.
BDI-I do not know.
Mr. Peckham rvpeated the question: applying 1t to him.
Dir. Hi-Ihat would depend whether was satisfied
that right or not IN this case the contest was prop
eTy made, in my opinion, az the State had no case.
Mr. smith-How long this hearing oni Mr Hill
Two aud hall days were occupied In taking ali the es
MI smith-Mueh Of a contest on the question OF dam
sgest MT. I'LL do not think there was nucn dispute
a. 10 what DAMAGE the caimants suffer
Mr.. SntA-Was the character Ok inc gentlemen suen as
% preclgde contest Dir. Hill do not think anything
MI Peckham-In many cases there must have been
question 10 the amounts really due. How were
such questions disposed Of Mr.. Hill don't think
there any dispute question as to the anounts or,
H, any tina; II was OF much consequence.
l1he testimony was examined to learn whether any
questions asked 70 the accuracy OF the estimated
damages and witness said Judd testified on tue sub
s Of Toisfosd tnere We're no witnesses or the State
Mr.. Smiihin each case there were many items, were
Nc. smith-How, do you think they examined
whh the same care on the part 81 ne state as u wac
cannot answer the question.
Ar. smits-As the eight tons OF iron and spikes
thorough examination 10 ind where they hoaied on
tot Mr. BIll-If ne suspected MI. Locke had them
Mr. snlth-Then, Mr.. Hill, you think these claimants
must have been taken as a't men, and their estimates
Air AL htnt