New-York tribune., 1875-10-21

%
Oscar F. whitforl the Division Engineer on the
Western Division of the Ere Canal testiiies that ne
does not see how the service for which the StaIe.
under Mr.. Fay's direction, was required 70 pay
$79,507 80, could have cost even on liberal scale
more than $40 900 expended for which the State ap-
pears to have received no equivalent.
TIE sTRANGTsr TRANSACTION or ALL
On the very day that Mr. Fay accomplished the
release Of Mr. Van Duscn the2lth of June, 1873 line
Canal Board authorized, and, on the 26th OF July
following the Board Of Canal Commissioners let a
contract TO Henry J. Mowry, who was merely "a
locun tcleis of Van Duscn, "for the deepening ana
improving the Erie Canal, from Slip No. 3, IN the
City of Buffalo, TO the head Of Black Rock iiarbor
and for deepening and widening the canai Ihi%puen %
said harbOr and constructing the division Dahh
therein and other work connected therrwith', so ~
to make the canal separate ard independent OF said
harbor To the extent authorized by the Canal Boarh
and covered by the existing appropr raions therefor
The amount ut which this contract was ict was
S252,2i5. The amount of available appropriations
was T253, 900. . 81,
This contract covers all the work embraced in the
Van DuScn contract and only differs from it IN ex-
tending il 20 the extremity of the Eack n9ek LIN
bor, far the appropriation OF 2,2lo woud
go toward such Improvement. - ~,
Before any work had been done under Vt by Mr.
Mowry he, or his PRINCIPALS, rather sold II TO Cark
Bennett * Co. OF Buffalo, for "a premium Of Slo :
600. When Mr.. Douglas of the firm oi tiaTk, ben
nett & Co. was asked 10 whom he paid this 3d.
600, he answered to T. B. Van Dusem.
We invite Your attention to the following extract
from the testimony of Louis j. Bennett, bearing
upon this sale: &C.,,
Q. Axe you member of the firm Of Movry a Col A.
O. Who compose that frml A. william II. ponglas.
Ambrose Clark william Richardson, Andrew spanihg
O. Then you are . m,mborl A. Mowry had nothing t.
do with il the contract III his name but IL Was asehe
O. Who was Mowry's partner In taking The contract
originally \. That cannot tell you unless II was III
Q. is George u. Lord in any way connected with Van
Dusen that you know of or with MowIy or waS ne IN III
that particular cOntract \. do not know whether he
O. Did you ever pay him any blackmail on that con,
tract A. paid Mowfy $4,000 for the privilege oi
doing it.
II would appear from this testimony that though
Mr. Van Duscn was released from his first contract
through the friendly intervention of Mr. Fay, he
was Till Interested in contract for the prosecution
OF substantially the same work 1T much higher
prices and finally received the generous premium 9
900 for hatcvcr portion a ms interest u. SOFA
to Clark N Bennett.
MowRY GELS IN EXTRA APPROPRIATIONS.
On the 9th of May following the original letting
of this contract to Mowry, the Legislature appro-
priated $4,000 more for completing division
bank and work connected Herewith in Black Roc !
harbor 50 o separate the canal from and make IT
independent of the harbOr.' -
When il became apparent 10 the contractors, Clark
Il bennett that owing TO the gross underestimate
of quantities hy the ID, ison Engineer hc original
AUTHORIZATIONS would be exhausted before tie work
was more than half done, they addressed themselves
to Thlddeus &. Davis of Buffalo, OF whose services
ono member Of the firm, az least, bad had ir'Gu"n
occasions before To avail himself, to prOcur" the
authority of the Canal Board for applying inimc-
dafcly the whole Ot this appropriation Ia Their
work. Their Wishes prcvaiird as APPEARS by the
following extract takcn from the proceedings oi the
Canal Bomd, on the 21tb at FebIhlf!, lS'1. liiric
is cited q resolution of the Board ordering that
S17O0UO already appropriated t0 complete TINS In-
prov e.ncut should bc applied ihcrcio.I
TH,D. G. DAVIs's CORRUPT FfE OF 5000.
Kecpng in mind the date Of his action of the
Canal Board invite your attention 10 the follow
irg extract from the testimony Of Lewis J. Bennett
taken before this Commission:
O. Your attention ia called 10 the telegram of the 2it
OF February 1870, winch please look AZ 30 you under
Telegram shown 1incss and identified addressed to
Lewis i. Bennett Loydst.:
"All ri ht, resolution passed
O. Now Mr bennett TO what did that telegram refer
A. Referred 10 the resolution hoiorc the Iana Board
q. For WHAT A. For AN addition To the present work
iTcesranl of same da,e shcwn TO witness, TO LewisJ
Deposit $500 10 my credit, Bank Of Commerce ;
answer
O. Did yor deposit The - 800 credit of Ilad g.
Davis ~ The Itank of Coninercei \. Yes sir
q. Did You drpusit it the same days 4. Ses, Sir or
q. For whal services did you pay that amount Of
money A. lie wrn before the Canal Board a. rccoi-
lect, 10 get resolution passed.
O. lie had AGREED 10 charpe you much 4. do MT
know a. Here was any agreement about how much he
to cnarge do MT remember; only LEFT 1t IL shape
10 draw II got the resolution there.
q. Ana you paid ni \. >"S, r.
Mr.. Davs's explanation of his share III this trans
acti IN may be found in the following extract from
his testimony before the Commissions
q. Mr.. Davis will you swear you had just claim
AGAINST Mr.. BCrnc, for one cent ol none ~ Innr me-
and that yon have account tG show III A. WI! !Oh
allow me 10 ask y0u; you si Sholld not put III ny
services in making this answer
Q. No; did not don't care what services you rcn-
dccd; want to knew If you had clam founded NJ ON
account! A. No, sir.
q Now, whatever pretended teryice you rendered 10
ke' y this mars money waS suni'lhn conncceI "lh
the legislation or matters before the Canal Board! A.
No, SIR -
o. Didn't YOU receive from him. within the present
year time about 5000 on your own r,1uet fof
assumed cee before the Canal Boardf ~ Yes sir
@ Payc I"u any Qualification TO 0hcf To thi, tohiis
sion for tlat trek! \. Yes, sir
@. Tel Iti A. 1 was engaged for Hr. Bennett-
q. 1tll u6 under what theory lon can justly ihc caree
and receipt ~ $500 on the 9th ~ February last ih
or o5h February, iS75-for the services rendered be
fore the Canal Board You being AT the time an officer Of
this state whose dnty It was specially To look ni'r
A. At that time, Sir, and for a considerable period pre-
vios 10 that Mr.. Bennett had thi- contract that he mas
got upon the Erie Canal; was looking "lief his
O. DO you understand that You have moral right
Notwithstanding your employment ~ u Canal Appraiser
of This STATE accept rcailcrs from private ciz"n+ Ia
assist their claims ,ns Tie siatri A. Yes. sir III any
matter whici don't coh", ana cannot come 10y an! I"'
b.Iity before the Board.
O. And have acted on that Idea' A. Yes, SIR
As the conduct Of Mr. Davis, in this and other
Transaction, developed before this Commission, is
now under investigation by the criminal conris of
the City of utalo, il is unnecessary for Ms 10 eX-
nress my opinion AZ Ia the statutory Ialilitic, he
may have incurred in his relations with Bennett
Co and the IoIds We cannot, however, i"rh'a ar
expressing our conviction that II Is rcproa, 10 tie
STATE that "a man protesting ami habiiIi1lh acting
upon such ooSt noiilns ~ official duty should hold
position Of suc. dignity and responsibility az that
of Canal Appraiser. Aud yet III this and our pre-
crdiuQ r.I,Grts we have cited only pat uf the
transactions III which Mr. Davis appears to have
prostitutcd his ohciai position Ia private ends a.
will soon fully appear. The very next step III
this history reveals oae of them.
nIHER TRANSACTIONS OF MIR. DAVIS.