The New York herald., 1875-12-23
THE BROOKLYN RING.
Suits Against The Beard q Water and Sewer
age commissioners
NEARLY 100000 INVOLVED
A Speedy Trial Sought For by the
Defendants.

The prosecutions against the alleged members Of the
BROOKLYN Ring assuming both definite and active
shape In addition 10 the suit brought against the con-
tractors for building the storage al Hemp
stead and ex- Commissioners Of the Water Board
second has been brought against certain Of the
same defendants comprising the Board Of Water and
Sewerage Commissioners The general charges are
coluson and fraud and the amount sought 10 be rc-
covered Is $3.50 3l2 Ia We give below copy Of the
complaint, which, together with the summons, was
served yesterday on the defendants by Mr. John Il.
Parsons as representative Of Attorney General Pratt
who is prosecuting these suits on behalf OF the Tax
payers Association The defendants il is understood,
will nterpose general denial TO the allegations set
forth IN the complaint Their counsel-Aessrs Tracy,
Catn and Pryor-express read ness to enter promptly
on trial Of the case Immediately the conclusion Of
the first trial
SUPREME CoURr Crrr AND COUNTY NEw YORK.
ss-The People Of the State OF New York vs. william
A. Fowler, Edward J. Lo~ber, Archibald A. Bliss and
The paintns by Daniel Pratt their Attorney General
complain Of the defendants
That on the day Of April 1860, an act
passed entitled 'An act TO reorganze the Board OF
Water aud Sewerage Commissioners Of the City OF
BROOKLYN and 10 provide for the repaviug,
pairing and cleaning the OF said city
by said Board by which ACT provision made
for the appontnen of the Pernan Board OF Water
and Sewerage Commissioners Tor city, aud that
such commissioners should have all the rights privi
lcges authority and power vested by the then existing
laws in then existing Board Of Water and Sewerage
Commissioners That BY operation OF the said act the
sand commissioners acquired all the rights, privileges,
authority and power OF Sewer Commissioners as pro-
for chapter 1885 OF the Laws Of 1859 and such
Sewer Commissioners they acquired the exclusive con-
troll superintendence and management OF all sewers
constructed in SAID city, and also the power 10 con
struct
That on or before June s 1869, said Board caused
plans and specifications 10 be made for the construc-
tOn of he sou
thereof to be given according to law inviting bids
proposals for said work.
offered TO said Board for said work That
Joseph H. Van Winke offered to do the work for
$lS6 OPT Is that being the lowest bid proposal'for
said work That Frank Swift offered the next low
est bd-vz slSs, 446-and that the defendant Abner
keeney, also offered proposal to DO the safd work
That on or about the 25th day OF July 1869 a con-
tract executed by and between the city Of Brook
lyn through the said Permanent Board OF Water and
Joseph II. Van Wnkle, styling himself contractor,
OF the other part by which the said Van
Nlnkle agreed to furnish AZ his own proper
and expense all the necessary materials and labor
and to excavate for and build IN good firm aud sub
Erantai the said sewer, with all the appliances
and appurenances Of every kind complete indicated
In drainage district No. 29, subdivision No and a
portion Of subdivision No J. drainage map \, on file
IN the Office Of said Boards upon the terms and condi-
tons IN the said contract specified. and the said city or
Brooklyn by the said Permanent Board Of Water and
Sewerage Commissioners agreed To pay The said Van
Wnkle therefor certain specified rates
amounting 10 s1s6 or 25 that being the amount for
which be had offered to do said work as aforesaid.
That on the 9th day Of said July 1869, said Van
Winkle commenced 10 build said sewer accord
ing TO the terms and conditions Of his said agreement
with the city Of Brooklyn and continued the vigor-
and successful prosecution OF the work when the
weather was suitable and tie said Board would permit
lIl the 18th day of May, 1870
That AT all the times hereinafter mentioned the dc
fendants, william A. Fowler, Edward J. Lowbcr and
Archibald NJ. Bliss constituted SAID Permanent Board
Of Water and Sewerage Commissioners
That early Nav. 1870. the said Commissioners
Fowler, Lowbcr and Bliss, then composing said Board,
and SAID defendant Keeney, entered into corrupt and
fraudulent combination, the purpose of which that
said contract between the city Of Brooklyn and
said Van Winklo should unlawfully be de-
cared forfeited by said Board a1d the said
Van Wnkle should be driven from his work said
sewer, and that a and private contract should be
Of the city OF Brooklyn and said Keeney for the
completion Of said sewer, by which the said Kecney
should be permitted wrongiuy 70 obtain large sums Of
money from and of the moneys Of the city oil Brooklyn.
That in pursuance Of tue said combination q resou-
tion the 10th OF May 1871 passed by said Per-
manent Board OF Water and Sewerage Commissioners,
composed Of said Fowler Lowber and Bliss directing
The Chief Engineer TO notify sad Van Winkle TO
all work said sewer for the alleged false reason that
he had failed to perform his contract and another
luton by said Board passed on the 18th day OF
said May providing for entering into private
between the city Of Brooklyn and said defend
ant heeney Tor the completion Of sald sewer al price
much beyond the fair and reasonable value OF the work
and much higher than that at which said Van Wrinkle
had agreed 10 DO the work and was ready and willing
and able 10 complete the same to wit, at price
ceedng the prices in said Van Winke's said contract
Tor the unfinished portion OF SAID work by 500 302 Al
That before said new contract was entered into with
said keeney aforesaid said Frank swift proposed
the SAID defendants, Fowler Lowber and Bliss 10
pcte the said work for the identical prices contained
his SAID bid and offered responsible and unexceptonal
suretes for the faithful performance Of the work. yet
Notwithstanding said swift known to said
Commissioners a responsible contractor and his
sureties were also responsible, and objection
made on the ground Of irresponsibilty OF either
tractor suretes, and Notwithstanding that
tract At the time Of this offer had been entered into
with SAID Keeney, the said Commissioners refused 70
give tho said Swift the prices contained
IN his said original bid at any other prices but
frsuduleny and corrupuy made the contract with said
keeney Aforesaid.
said fraudulent contract for the completion Of said
work SAID Keeney received 500, 81 Al and
above the which said Van Winke would
have received for the completion Of the work
according to the terms and conditions of his
said contract, which Of $3.50 3l2 Al paid by
thc city Of Brooklyn to said defendant Keency out Of
the moneys belonging to the city OF Brooklyn and in
consequence Of said wrongful aud fraudulent OF the
defendants.
That defendants all took part In the said fraudu
lent scheme and far II could be arranged there
was an understanding between them that II the plan
for the removal of said Van Wnkle should prevail a
contract would be given to said defendant,
Keeney, and that 4 was well understood by
and between the sad defendants that II sald
contract should be given TO SAID Keency IL should
be at prices much above the fair and reasonable
as to enable him wrongiully, improperly and iraudu
lenty TO obtain large sums Of money from the city OF
Brooklyn without value received.
That all the aforesaid Of defendants were done in
concert between all the defendants with the corrupt
and fraudulent purpose Of enabling the defendant
Keeney wrongiuiy 70 obtain such large Of money
of the city OF Brooklyn, and with the expectation on
the part Of the defendants Fowler Lowber and Bliss OF
benefits and advantages by themselves but whether
such expected Dement'S and advantages pocunary
whether they political Otherwise the plain
tins have not yet been able to ascertain
That II the defendants Fowler, Lowber and Bliss had
honestly and faithfully discharged their duty In the
premises would not have been possible for the de-
fendant keeney 10 obtain tho said OF $50 302 Al
and that they frauduenty and wilfuy and by corrupt
collusion and confederation with the defendant Kee-
ney, arranged that said Keeney enabled
obtain the said mentioned OF $lg03l2 Al and that
~ the plaintiffs advised and believe not only tho
defendant Keeney, hut well the defendants Fowler
iowher and Bliss, thereby became liable return the
said money that part Of tho has been received
back or restored into the proper lawful receiver do
posltory custodian therefor either specie or BY
compensation for the same otherwise.