New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-23


South Carolina militia.
THE CASE OF MESSRS BEACH AND
RICHMOND.
We do not wish to speak unkindly of gen.
tlemen who have held such an honorable posi-
ton in the community as Messrs. Allen c. Beach
and Van Rensselaer, Richmond. We can make
allowances for the painful position In when
they found themselves when the Canal lnves-
tigating Commission announced that during
their term of Office as members OF the Canal
Board contracts were made in f1agranty
illegal manner whereby the State was defrauded
of LARGE sum of money. There was no impu-
tation upon their personal integrity; but Mr..
Beach only expressed the natural impulse OF
any honest man under such circumstances
when he wrote to Tho Argue: If the Com
"missioners stated that certain papers neces-
"sary to the proper action of the Canal Board
chad been prepared, it was the duty OF myself
"and my colleagues to see and examine
"tbem before authorizing the lettings;
"and if the criticisms OF the report OF
"the Commission upon our action IN
"that respect are well founded, the Canal
"Board of 1869, myself included, deserves at
"least severe censure for neglect OF duty"
And so, as it did not for a moment occur to
Messrs. Beach and Richmond that two such
eminent and high toned gentlemen as them
selves could have been faithless to their trust,
could have been made the tools OF sharpers,
they hastily united in card, accusing the
Governors Commission of Ignorance and mis-
understanding of facts" and denouncing the
criticisms of its report as unnecessary, I'M
"just, and entirely without foundation" MIR.
Richmond went still further. He called the
"charges and inslnuatiOns" against himself
and the Canal Board "untrue in every par
"ticular," and declared without qualification
"that the letting in question was authorized
"and directed by the Canal Board in every
"respect according to law"
We have seen what pitiable figure Mr..
Beach presented when the Commission called
upon him to substantiate his statements. He
was obliged to confess that he wrote his card
without knowing anything positively about it,
and on further examination he perceived that
he was mistaken. 1t was precisely true, as
the Commission charged, that the Board of
which he was member let contracts
without any preliminary survey, or the
production of any such survey, map
cor estimates of the work to be done and
"materials furnished as the law required"
Mr.. Richmond's case is still worse. 1t was
full week before the Commission secured his
attendance, and then he presented himself
with the prepOsterOus answer that there was
map of the whole canal hanging in the Aud
itor's Office, and that was enough He might
as well have referred the Commission to
map of the whole State in COltOns Atlas. MIR.
Richmond was examined at great length for two
days, and during most of the time he seemed
to be fencing with the Commission and evad-
ing direct answer to the question whether
he knew of any such maps, surveys estimates,
&c. as the law required, having been pre-
sented at the time of the letting OF the Den
ison contracts. Mr.. Richmond at last acknOwl
edged that there was no such survey or map
before the Board there was no map indicating
any sections, outlines quantities, or measure
ments by which the line of the canal could be
changed, that no surveys or measure
ments were presented to him at the time
of the letting except mere statements of guam
titles sufficient to absorb the appropriation,
with no reference to location that no maps,
plans, or estimates, such as the law required,
had been presented to him prior to the letting
of the Black Rock HarbOr contracts to G. p.
Skinner, E. B. Van Dusen, and II. j. Mowry /;
and that he could not name q contract for
dredging during the past fifteen years where
sOundings were taken or any other means
provided for checking the estimates of the
amount of work performed. And yet it was
shown that Mr.. Richmond published very
specific regulations as to surveys and
measurements while he was State Engineer
only he never compelled anybody to comply
with them.
When they prepared their card, therefore,
accusing the Canal Commission Of ignorance,
falsehOOd, and injustice, Messrs. Beach and
Richmond were themselves ignorant, unjust,
and (of course unconsciOusly) false. They did
not know whether the Law had been complied
with or not, but they had very high opinion
Of their own character and capacity, and they
presumed upon that to fire the random shot
which has resulted so unfortunately for them.
Let us leave them to their modification. We
should not recall the case at so great length if
public officers, and the illustration it offers of
the Importance of destroying a Ring which
could make the Lieutenant Governor and the
State Engineer parties to its frauds without
those distinguished functiOnaries knowing bit
about it.
THROWING IN YEARLINGS.
While the Interior Department is bending
its entire energies to the circulation of docu-
ments, printed at the public expense attack