New-York tribune., 1875-10-06
ABGny, Oct. 1, 1875.
AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE W. PHELPS.

AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE W. PHELPS.
George W. Phelps of the City of Spring
fod Mass, and formerly OF the town OF Mount Norris,
state Of NowYork, being duly swoTn. doth testify ana
say rs follows: In the Spring OF 1869 / resided in
Noun; Norris AMI pursued the business Of engineer ard
railroad ard canal contractor which has been my
patton FOR the past 3S years In April Of 1859 made
bid to the Canal Contracting Board OF The State of New
York in the nane Of my nephew, Charles f. Braulan,
also of Mount Morris for the work OF keeping section
four mo a. OF the Eric Canal in repair for four years
and eight months from the first day OF May,
1863 FOR the ycarly sum Of $3i 500. The reason
why I made this bid in the name Of my said
nephew was that In he succeeded In obtaining the
contract my name could be used upon the bond required
under statute collateral security to the contract On
the 2Gth day of said month OF April George d. Lord son
OF Senator Jarvis Lord both OF Monroe County State OF
EeyyYorb tried 10 negotiate with for the sale to him
ofly bid provided should prove to be the lowest but
refused to enter into any such negotiation On the 25h
of April Aforesaid. the Canal Contracting Board did
award 10 my said nephew. under his bid the contract
FOR keeping in repair section No OF tie Erie Canal,
and notified him 70 appear at Albany and execute said
contract with the sGii state forthwith In obedi-
epce TO the directions OF said Board, I went to
ing tere on The morning of he 29th OF April ut very
early honr. Immediately unon my arrival was met by
sad Senator Jarvis Lord, VINO appeared 10 nave pten
waiting for ne, and he - once BEGAN negotiation with
to withhold NY said nephew from cons'nrating his pro-
posed contract Wib the Canal Contracting Hoard These
| 1
in his behalf would aggregate I'm the four years and
| d5lier. more t5on my bid would ar5rogate for
the same period that if my bid failed Of con-
him and he then proposed shold become his partner
in his bid, and receive Oncha OF tnc profits that might
h. realized thercfrOm, provided would cause my said
nephew 10 Tepudiae hs proposed agreement with the
sad sata. 10 this prOposiion a2ain declined my as
sent stating that had decided objection to all such
partnerships in canal contracts, and that preferred TO
carry ont tho terms of the BID believing that II woud
fiau he To p
rhts dd satisfy Mr. Lord. He continued TO press
suggested that a proposition should be submitted
n me in writing. lie aS5entihg, / then ana
was stamped and eIecuted by said jarvis Lord
aud Charles f. Braman and handed 10 me, win the un-
and i've an answer after Rad breakasct still hold
possession OF this stamped agreement, ana annex
hereto "A copy OF tho same, marked -, and make
Il nart OF this statement did consider the subject
Guriag breakfast hour aud imqledaeiy after told r
Io-tl that could accept his offer, because such
coIrse would be alike dshonorabe 20 himself 10 the
state. to my nephew ana TO me odd mg answer 70
or words to that effect. tired 70 reason
how compromising his proposition was, but TO no pur-
nose ur when he found was not TO be turned from my
c coniaet With tie canal Ccnracting Board lie
threatened me. stating that be would to II tat it
greet the course had decided to adopt and that heavy
loss through his nstumentally, would result to Inc on
Siy nephew did cohsimmate his contract with the
State that day, becoming his surety and imne-
4
| threats.
Some months prior to this transaction which have de-
s,Tbrd. hal entered into contract with lhe state I'm
the name OK OF my employees for the reason before
statedl keep in repair section No 0f the Genesee
Valley Canal for the annual sum OF S27749. Mr.. John
j.. Fay. division engineer in tho employ OF the
state on the canals. then Canal Commissioner hav
Ing IN charge the western division or the Erie Caral Up
to tiEe had been performing the work under my
contract faithfully and believe, to the perfect Satsfc-
! tion Of the canal authorities. within ono Neek,
however or the date Of my nephews contract orders
| were issued TO perform work under my GencSeo
contract tla would cost sl500OO, and for which
| would not receive asy additions. payment. was aware
that Mr. Fay was very intimate with Jarvis Lord had
srcn them often coSced together 20 the Monroe County
and at other places and 40 once suspected the IN
nncuc.s hch prompted these extraordinary and OppreS-
siye commands protested both 10 Mr. Fay and before
tho Canal Board but could not obtain redress aud upon
The OF Mr. j. a. Bell tie then Auditor OF tho
State ta gentleman OF integrity. In whom placed tho
highest conhdence that IL would Oe npesspe for me 10
| withstand the and preJuilcts that existed
against me- that would only end In embarrassment and
less J. having Isr disposed Of the Braman contract sc
small profit cancelled my GeneSee Valley contract rs
was entitled do under the Laws OF 1864 at very
siderable pecuniary oss and from that date wihdre
from oil further canal contracting work on the Newly ork
| state cansls.
further desire state that 10 the hest of my know
edge and belief the work which was directed TO per-
form tho Grnesee Valley Canal has never been exc
cuted sncc and that the orders only given 10 vcx
and narass me, 10 my pecunGry diSadyantage through
tie dominant nueuce OF the said jarvis Lord with the
canals Before could obtain tusl settlement With the
state tho Work done under the Gene5eo Valley con
tract Mr. Fey compelled TO pay some $500 70 one
Edward h. Van Dusco, who held The contract for work "a
be done Gt the Portage siie which not an lStor
upon whatever. but which was obliged to allow IL