New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-21

care before, was then worth only $2J or $50. The
appraisers compromised the matter by awarding her
$50 an acre, with interest Responsible residents
say that only about 80 acres were overhowed; that
$40 an acre would be good price for the land.
which is always OverhOwed in the Spring, and which
had never been anything but swamp land. the latter
fact being SHOWN by the growth Of scrub oak and
ash. Joseph Petit, the original claimant, assigned
the claim to q third person, who made 1t over TO
Louisa, Joseph Pettit's wife.
THE SENATOR'S RELATIONS WITH APPRAISERS.
His relations with former appraisers and COMMITS
sioners the Senator did not torch upon in his ex-
PLANTATION. but that was doubtless from oversight
He would undoubtedly deny to-day he has done
before any corrupt collision with either. In the
Canal Investigation of 1866, in which d. q.
Mitchell former law partner OF Attorney -General
Pratt, took prominent part counsel Of the Com
mittee, Mr.. Wood was questioned sharply by Mr..
Mitchell as to whether he had paid to any OF
the appraisers any Sums Of money arising out OF
awards that they had made, whether directly or IN
directly; whether he had ever had any conversation
with any members of the Board by which they
might be led to expect that they would receive any
pecuniary advantage from the amounts Of awards
that they made. These questions were all answered
in the negative most emphatically and directly.
Something has already been said Of the intimacy
that existed between Mr.. Wood and Mr.. WATSON, hut
further circumstance has come TO light which ADDS
TO its significance. This is that the appropriation oil
900 to Appraiser WATSON for extra services, after
hs retirement from office which has been so gen
orally denounced was put in the Supply bill by SEN
ator Wood, whose associates oyerruled him TO the
extent of giving the back pay 10 both the other Ap-
prasers. When the bill reached the Conference
Committee the Senator abandoned the other two
but held on to Mr.. WATSON. and carried him through.
hoo hon On px f.uI ,i.
been carried on before so many commissioners, that
il NAV seem inyidious to select single ease OF alp
parent preference for particular commissioner, but
this is interesting in itself. The claims of Jesse Nc
Kinley Amos c. White, John Paddock, Barnet FIJI
kips Ioons Griswod Herman Alderman, John
McCann George W. Palmer, James 7. llaskins, ana
Andrew VI. Mason awarded in 1867 MI Wool
being attorney, and appealed by Canal commas
sioner Hoyt who desired a reduction of the awards.
The papers were all written up in the office Of the
Canal Appraisers in the Fall of SCI; Mr. Wood boz
rowed them for few days, took them IN syracuse
and kept them about twoyeaIs, thus postponing inc
hearing until William ". Wright, Ring ComInis-
sioner succeeded Commissioner Hoyt. Some of the
eases were decided in 1869, and Others not TIL lSl
but the awards held in their own figure.
Senator Woods statement that he never Knowingly
suppOrted an cxorbitant claim in his life must he
weighed in the light of the facts given above. II 1t
be true that he did not net per cent IN the larger
part Of the cases printed in The TRIBUNE lists The
Senator makes il difficult to account for his sudden
rise from very moderate means TO wealth, and his
possession of Of the handsomcst bouses in SYRIA
cuse. His biterest enemies acqnit him of any sns-
pcion of legislative jobbery and he himself says MS
practice has been confined to canal claims. One per
cent on a majority of his claims, and even 80 per
cent ON the remainder, would not have made him
rich. If he has not been in the habit Of receiving
one-half of the claim, he is very much misunder-
stood man. have discovered a great many cases IN
which he did receive one-half; have not yet been
able to find one in which he did not. D. l.