The New York herald., 1875-10-22

ing walls 4x6 feet-and in case were the specfca-
tions complied with Although the walls in majority
Of cases we're found TO be good in some cases the
cement poor and in others II was very hard
they opened wall at the West Troy weigh lock- built
lwenty-a years ago and not repaired SINCE which
found to be OF inferior class work compared
with that done under the present engineers. The
Willard johnson contract work was visited and pro-
Hounced, by the State Engineer to be good piece or
work. though, in the opinion or some of the members
'f the Board, an unnecessary expense had been in
CURED
The Board met at ten A. NJ.
A QUESTION on PRIVILEGE
State Treasurer Raines to question Of prIyi
ege and sad-Mr. Chairman, before the Board pro-
reeds to the consideration Of the engineers question
aesire to make explanation of my connection with
sertain award the history of which found contained
IN New York paper this morning the signature
certified to by the Canal Commission The history
Df the transaction is simply this-In May 1872 the
npon which the award based passed by the
Legislature by unanimous vote of the Senate and
Assembly. l say by unanimous vote, for
although find recorded in the negative in each
House the representative Of the city of Buffalo
hr. Lewis in the Senate and Mr. Alberger in the As
semblyyet Is apparent that fcither of these gentle
men had offered the slightest explanation objection
70 the matter contained in the bill IL could not have
been introduced into the Assembly on the 10th Of May
and passed and received the signature of the
Dn the 10th of May. therefore say the vote in both
houses the bill unanimous II there is any
all shown by the vote in the negative simply shows
hat information possessed by the representatives
fom the city of Buffalo and Erie county
which they did not communicate either to the
senate Assembly. This matter was brought
70 the attention of the Canal Board and
committee was appointed. The committee called ON
NE law officer Of the State for written Interpretation
VI the duties of the Canal Board under that act That
opinion given, in which the Attorney General
nys.-
MY opinion having been requested TO the legal consuc
rtan work in Black Rock HarSornchspter 7so of tho
hat act are bound hs Of The work aa
kom the amount the work actually the actual pay
inch IS competent proof the Board
discretion but 70 allow the the
amounts paid
1t but proper to state that previous to the opinion
eing given to the Canal Board by the Attorney GEN
ral former Attorney General Of the State had tested
he consttutonaiity Of the law through every in
he State, and its constutionality had affirmed
y the Court OF Appeals, and he only made written
statement of what in the knowledge of every men,
Der of the Board. The action of the committee was
hen based upon this written opinion Of the Attorney
eenera that they had discretion In the premises
md that the written opinion was based upon the de-
eison OF the Court Of Appeals affirming the consttu-
fonaly OF the act In regard to which the opinion
given.
The ATTORNEY GExERAI--Let me correct you NV
opinion not based upon any decision of the Court of
Appeals but the law itself was simply requested
10 constrne the law and my opinion was in the words
Mr.. RAsEs-so peculiar was the wording Of that act
hat was thought proper by the Canal Board to in
corporate 1t in the records of their proceedings In
that law Is distinctly stated that the Board should
siow and there not the slightest opportunity In the
wording and the phraseology of the act for any
lion different to that given by the Attorney General ts
Interpreted by the Attorney General being mandatory
IN its character and far that opinion is concerned
may say consulted other authorities the question,
seeing the great responsibility was assuming in the
ana was assured there was not tne slightest
much as regards the land Now there Is one point
want to touch upon. n says in the statement OF the
Commission, that the estimate made by the officers
H the state-thas is, the engineers-was re-
lected, while the testimony OF the brother
bf the claimant, asserting that the expenditure was
more than double the amount was accepted. The tes
hmony OF the officers OF tho State TO this effect
That this work ought have cost so much upon such
basis The Interpretation OF the law under the act
was that should give the actual cost regardless OF
what It ought 10 have cost and it y no
rs contractor, is concerned he is ono
bf the most extrayagant contractors the
by all the contractors that George D. Lord
work the line of canals within twenty6 i've per
low as other contractors because he does not give II
personal supervision. wish TO be understood that
10 not in any way justify George D. LORDS awards
laken by themselves simply say, so far as am con-
eerned, acted under the law and the opinion OF
what was interpreted TO be mandatory act and
pcientious discharge OF my duty State
pfccr do not wish TO be understood to Justify in the
slightest particular the passage of the law, tho
principles upon which the awards based; but it
matter Of history that, from time immemorial in tins
Btate awards have been made Of this character and
only say this If the great benefit that has accrued
he State from the special message of the Governor and
he establishment OF the Commission and its nvestiga
Non Is to reverse these precedents, for which l
tm willing TO give them due credit and, II
'hs se sacs ooud Gf my reputation ut. little as II
viii be necessity for the passage Of these laws and
no repetition of action Of this character shall be
sontent to step back into private life, weighted with
MI the infamy which may attach to me and all the
members of the Canal Board, whether justly or un-
nstly.
The Attorney General-while should be loath TO
believe that this commission intended, unnecessarily,
40 detrac from the character or credit OF any individual
u Is somewhat remarkable in this respect that they
nave not alluded to the law under which
this Board acted, or, at least they do
state that there witnesses examined but
do not state the fact that the receipts and vouchers and
pverytnlng necessary to prove the claims
peled to be produced before the Committed Nothing
pf that kind is said II alusiops Ia the fact that
when the Auditor and Commissioner went 10 the com,
mittee 70 know what objection there was to paying
The estimates on tho contracts, the only obec.
zion pointed out was that the stone was
not 30 large as the specifications required
and not perfectly in line and other small obec
lions and the conclusion was that as we had $40 600
In to mako the State good in case or anv
defect in the work, they could afford to pav The
$40 600 asked for without running any risk The only
thing pointed out was that and | suggested To tha
auditor that It probably safe enough TO nav
$4,000 They bring 1t up in q form that the whole
expense was incurred by US, and II an attempt was
made TO stop II the law officers interered with them
whereas If the facts put forward they should
be tho would have entirely different put on
~ inclined TO think H is unfortunate that two OF
he members Of that commission should now be cand.
Aztes for once
Mr. Raines-I desire TO say that recollect well the
ceiling had in regard TO that law at that time that IL
was outrage, but at the samo time was not con
,cious Of any power within myself or any duty in
bumbent me- TO seek 10 defeat tho provisions OF a
mandatory law by any arbitrary act.
The chairman said the law quoted In the full re-
port In the Tribune but the report in the argus was
bnly an abstract of 1t.
THE YATES BABcoCK CHARGES
The Board then resumed the consideration OF the
iharges against Yates and Babcock
Mr. Fairchild asked Yates whether he and Babcock
had consultation with Engineer Seymour about a
pertain contract about which he [Farchild) had In
puired of Seymour
Mr. Yates--Yes, sir 1 had spoken to Seymour about
shat matter.