New-York tribune., 1875-10-21
they had taken proof OF the expenditures, and the
amount paid by the State and found that the actual


presented.
The only witnesses examined were Frank Lord,
brother of the claimant; J. +. Behn, who had Dcch
Assistant Engineer and aftcrward Division I'm
gineer in immediate charge of the work John d.
Fay, who was Canal Commissioner during It's pro-
gress, and Oliver Cornell, "a workman, Wllo was OF
had been a workman of the claimants: or these
witnesses, Cornell seems TO have been called merely
TO give the proceeding little more the air OF an eA
animation, his testimony not furnishing the hasS Oh
any estimate or calculation; OF the other Witnesses
the claimants brother Frank Lord, was practically
the only one whose testimony the ConlinlsSiohers
seem Ia have taken into consideration will appear
by simple statement of the results which their tes-
tmomes respectively establish.
According To John ID. lays testimony, thc Nalne
of that portion of the work done under the Williams
contract over and above The amount previously pau
on account of ii, T20,1Z1 Ol. and according 10
Behn ii was S20,Gj9 ~, while according to FRANK
Lords statement it was $50, $50 ~. Foi nlpIQymg
the narrow canal, under the skinner contract rays
estimate Of the corresponding excess was T33-
G3l Il; Bchn's T35,5G9 13, while acgoruiins TO
Lords statement il was 5000 G6. Fay estimate
therefore, both contracts IN excess ~ the SUMS
prev ously paid thereupon, amounted to T33 700 ~
Behns to $J616S -, while Lords statement
amounted to Sll9.20S 10, or TO precisely the sum
awarded to his brother by tho Canal Board -,
The estimate made by the two officers of the state
was rejected, while the testimony of the brother of
the claimant asserting an expenditure of more than
double the amount, was accepted.
IHE RAD RECORD OF THAD. c. DAVIS.
On this occasion Mr. Thaddcus c. Davis seems
again to have confounded his official relations to the
state with his professional personal, and financial
relations to Mr. Lord The testimony, or at least
considerable part of it, is i'll his handwriting; he
drew tie awart the certificates for the award, when
it Was made, were delivered by the auditor TO him
as the attorney or agent Of George ID. Lord; suhSe-
quenty he was employed by Lord TO negotiate the
sale Of thcm failing in which he WAS employed to
collect them from the Canal Department where
there Vet no funds a'alabl. Tor theif pay
ment. For this service. III which DAVIS by some
process not susceptible of an altogether satisfactory
/ explanation, successful lie says. 80 yet ne mas
received no compcnsat!On hut that he proposes to
claim for it 5000 and TO sue Mr.. Lord for the
amount if he should refuse to pay II. The history
of this part OF the transaction ls partially dScostu
in the testimony of Davis, which follows:
Why Mr. Lord should have employed Mr. DAVIS t"
collect these certificates instead of addressing hs
application directly to the Auditor III person. and
wly h should consider his services III procuring the
| payment Of lawful debt from tie state worth
5000 or why. if an unlawful one. ne should have
any advantage over Mr.. Lord in procuring II, with
the Canal Department, and why, when the funds
( were not available. this award should have been
paid with such unusual aud prompt aiacrty, are
questions upon which Mr. Davis, on ms examination
appeared unable or unwilling 70 shed any light.
JOHN d. FAY's UNLAWFUL EXPENDITURES
Wewill now continue the history of the skinner
and Williams contracts of which Lord was the real
proprietor On the :}0th of August. 1873, and only
few days after Lords contract was Cancelled, the
Board of Canal Commissioners made a contract with
Edward B. Van Dnsen for deepening and nproy-
ing the canal, from Slip No. = 20 lmk-st ana
thence to the head of Black Rock ilarbor. and IN
Guiding he deepening and constructing 1iNIsion
bank crib work through the narrow part oI saiu
haThor extending thence TO thc broad part or siid
harbor, about 200 feet below the fetry street
Rridgc in the City of Buffalo" This contract en-
blaccd besides the work covered by the skinner
Lord contract just Cancelled, an @ extension 81 ,he
division baik or crib work some 200 teet tulther
below Ferry Street Bridge. Van Dusens bid for this
work amounted 10 Sl24,JOo.
ON the 2Ist Of the following January, Van Dnsen
IA, a. fn lIs "A
after an expenditure of less than Sloc0O upon the
pretcxt that the discharge from the sewers oi ufaio
into the portion Of the canal he was required to
drain. imposed upon him unforeseen expense. Mr.
Van DuScns remedy for this sewcrdralnagc INTO the
canal was AGAINST the City OF Buhdl0 II anywhere,
and not against the state, and though nothing nat
ever had occurred 10 iuvadatc his contract, or
diminish his responsibility for executing IT. the
Canal Board, Oh the motion Of john ID. ray Canal
Commissioner, granted his application
Without waiting for the action of the C2nai
Board, however, Van Dusen, on the 10Th Of Feb
TIary. abandoned the work. Mr.. Fay the Canal
Commissioner, Immediately, and without any inter-
ruption of il, took charge of the work under the
pretcXt of having il ready fer Spring naNlgation
and in the of four months expended tile sum
of 1873, ,J07 3S ont of fund which had been appro-
pIiated by the State for the prosecution OF tins work.
only under contracts to be let TO the lowest mhd,T.
Ry the terms of Van Duscn's contract il MAS the
duty of the Canal Commissioners 10 have collected
his $40 600 of expenses on his work, if they were
necessary, from Van Dusen himself.
THE WICKED RELEASE OF VAN Dusi,N.
reclamation but when the question up for final
decision in the Canal Board in june and after the
money had been spent Mr. Fay himself moved that
Van Dusan's application for the cancellation Of his
contract be granted and by his vote discharged
Van Dusen, so far it was possible for the Canal
Board to do so from his liabilities 10 the state for
this money, without eXactng any forfeiture or max
ing any deductions as loi NOrk uot on 'ohtId'lorS
account =,
The following extracts from the testimony of Mr..
Fay on this subject viii give the history oi ihiS
transaction i'll detail and reveal disregard OF
the rights and interests of the state on the part OF
the Commissioner vcrging at least upon ciiininahty
II will be for the law officers of the State to dccd.
whether by thc action of the Canal Conn hssioncr
and of the Canal Board, rs described III Tins ics-
mOny the State has actually parted with any of liz
rights of reclamation against an Duscn, ana II so,
whether his responsibility has been transferred 10
others or ia wholly cStineui~hed. The testimony
quoted convcts Mr.. Fay Of releasing contractor
from his contract who had put the state 10 great eX
ptnse and was able TO fulfill his contract. IL con
tiBuesl
tine anal Board prepared and printed IN Is13; please
turn 10 page under date Of jane "a, ls73-do you
find in 4. Yes, Sir.
O. DO you remember presenting the petition OF &. +.
skinner asking the Rosd 10 cancel mis- contract For
protecting the Lile Danal 4eah ecroao hnrmls 1f Lake
Ere, between Erie Basin brcasNaicr and Black Rock
pier" &C., pursuant 10 Chapter 100, Laws Of 1881 A.
o. Pass on TO the next motion yOu made in relation TO
the Van Dnsen contract " Nj. Fay moved gmcnf-
mcnt tnat the application for the cancellation of said
contract be granted, pursuant to chai 600 l'ws o
tif lld sll caftilallil ldhf 'i'tl ItH I~'''
on ealing the Yeas and Nays, the amendment was
adopted ~ the following vote Yeas H"-sr~ Robinson.
I;,v BARCLAY, Stroud. 1ayiOr-5. Aays-NcssIS SrI1h-
uri Uoyhu Rdines. Barlow. That "aa after you
lad scnt S72 600 90 that job, wasn't IL A. Yes sir
O. And ihe cancellation Oi that contract was carried l
YOUR vote and without il il couldn't have been carried
4. nv vote made - majority.
O. without II there wouldn't have been any majority
fOrit A. Ne Sir.
O. Didn't yod huow on the oath ~ june 1873, when
Won voted cancel contract with Van Duscn for doing
ibc entire work tmbraced IN the contract 0 Mowry that
made Pursuant 10 the action oi tlc Canal Board ON
tun . ( "a al B..
cNpodr4 , stale tOr the same WORK that had been
'rt 80 Van Dson FOR Tl7l 900 when you voted again to
-. IL. m. III .aLLl nf ..DIANNnI A. L LnrM