New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-29
PERMANENT IMPROVEMENT FRAUDS.

THE RAYMOND CONTRACT ON THE CHAMPLA1N
CANAL AS The TYPE OF A CLAss-A METHODICAL
METHOD OF REGISTERING GUEssEs.
IRON STAFF CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRBUNEI
WASHINGTON March 2s.-The Raymond contract
on the Champlain Canal is good example of an
other fraud of gigantic dimensions. for winch the
change from the contract to the superintendent
system in ordinary repairs made the excuse. 1t
is the pavment of claims of old tractors for what
they denOminated permanent improvements lhe
theory on which these claims were allowed was pos
sibly good one When n man took contract to
keep section of a canal in repair for five or SIX
years, and intended to perform his contract
honestly it would he very natural for him to put
his work in the best of order at once, though
he expended larger sum the first year than he re-
ceived from the State. II would then cost compare
lively little to keep the section in good condition
thereafter IT, after he had done this. his contract
was Cancelled by 4 change OF system the repairs ior
which the State would have to paw Tor several years
would be much less expensive, and the contractor
ought in equity. to be reimbursed for his outlay.
But if he had made no extraordinary outlay, and
had left his section in worse condition than thai in
which lie found it, as most of the contractors did ;
in other words if instead of STRENGTHENING the work
SO s 20 enable il TO withstand the strains of storms
and floods he had purpOsely allowed 1t to 90 to de-
cay IN order that large breaks" might occur, the
Justice of his claim would at once disappear.
Large sums have been paid to tue Ring contractors
for these permanent improvements with little
no thorou gh investigation, and Raymonds claim Is
a sample of them After receiving S3s0OO extra Tor
repairing breaks in seven months about four and
one-half times the amount for which ne agreed to
keep his section in repair for year, lie put IN
claim of Sls676 for permanent improvements.
have seen the bill that was rendered for this amount
n al ~
ment of items 1t purports to give exactly the num-
Der of men employed on each piece of work and the
time they were at work, the exact unit of mate
rial used Sc, &c. 1t had so honest LOOK that
prominent State officers felt almost ready to allow 1t
without examination.
For some reason or other settlement OF TINS
claim was postponed from time to time until this
year when it came up before the Canal Board for
payment. 1t was referred for examination to the
Lieutenant Governor the State Engineer and the
Commissioner now in charge of that division
day was appointed for hearing and Mr. Potter
who was Clerk for Commissioner Barclay in charge
of the division at the time the work was alleged to
have been done appeared as counsel for the claim
ant Leut.-Gov. Dorshemer inquired who appeared
for the State and as no one responded, Deputy At
torney-Ge General Charles L. Fairchild was appointed
to perform that duty. He gave the sub
iect a thorough Investigation. and became
convinced that the account was fraudulent
When the next hearing before the Canal Board
Committee took place, it was brought out in cross
examination that Raymond had never kept books
or pay-rolls from which he had taken the items IN
his bill. He said that the aggregate amount was
right but that he had guessed at the items. In
other words he had deliberately manufactured the
account and he hight just as easily have made 1t
million dollars if he had believed he could collect
that amount. Mr. Raymond is not now urging the
payment of his claim earnestly as he was, and
enough is known of the nature of the work for
which he charged SS676 in his bill to show that be
did not expend one-fo- eth of that sum upon It,
z. l. w.