New-York tribune., 1875-10-06


compensation shall be paid from any money = apPro;;
praici for ordinary extraordinary repairs uaws oil
WITNESSES BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS
Among tho members voting for this act wo end. very
naturally the name of George ID, Lord. Ga the 7th of
July Immediately succeeding the passage o. this sct the
Board OF Canal Commissioners, upon whom II imposed
the duty OF taking testimony to tho insuhccncy OF
Hands conIsct prices aod consisting at that time OF W.
w Wright John d. Fay, and George W. Chapman met
at Buffalo. and without taking any evidence OF the ex-
penses incurred In the prosecution Of these contracts
awarded 60 the claimants the Ohio bae'n ana the
Erie basin contracts the OF S29,676 10, which was
over and above the OF S34.s61 81, paid to them
under their contracts. Tho only witnesses examined
were Lewis Bennett and John Hand, two OF the claim
ants; Vim. Richardson, partner Of Bcnnott; james j.
HAYDEN, a fellow dredging contractor; j. T. Behn' at
that time Assistant Engineer In charge OF the wcfK
covered b. the Hand contract and OhVer CoInel'
Que of Beunets worknon Mr.. Ecln whose duty 1t Was'
as Assistant Engineer to ana estimate tdo W".k
undcr these contracts and upon whose testimony, IN
mart this award was made one-third proprietor OF
one OF Bennett Spauldmcs drcdgcs, called the Empire
state He paid his interest S43G6 3D. end tad ro-
ceived from il hs share OF TIE prcSs up to jan IL
1874 period of less than four years S0s@ 4G or about
$4,000 year. within few months after Bchn gave
his testimony in tis case the 10th Of the Following
February he was promoted 20 the rank Of Division lsn-
neer for the Western Division, still retaining Es ucrs
tive interest in the Empire State drcdge, in partnership
with the contractors whose charges against the state 1t
was one OF his official duties to supervise.
AWARDS FOUNDED UrON FICTITIOUS CHARGES.
Ii appears FROM tho evidence that the award OF the
Commissioners was founded upon purely fictitious
charges Mr. Bennett states that by direction OF GcOTge
d. Lord prepared for presentation to the Commission
er bills which included an Che expenses that had been
incurred in prosecution OF this work Mr. Lord oh
jooted TO these bills being TOO small in amount and
directed Bennett to increase their volume What was
dere iliedb ny q follows:
O. WRcn you came make mp these bills, was i agreed
between you and Lordtsiacf overflow they s,ouid DO
q Was greed that they should be Taissdof course
n fEeS how M mnc6 were they increased by his drcc
tion. n;imaton or reqGeSti A. cannot tell no" mdcl
q. Was il ncTcaaed cnehaf by HE absolute recon-
o. is Il yor hest recollection t!at you raised them
o. Hago y0a the original draf, Of the original balls
not
WHO GOT TIE MONEY.
OF tho further natute OF tho testimony, and the
methods 10y which it was submted to the Commission
era viii be more convenient TO treat at later stage Of
this history sufficient present to state that the
whole amount of this award with the accumulated inter-
est amounting to S33,752 SO, vas paid over to jarvis
Lord President OF the Monroe County Bank; that no
part of it was ever paid to John Hand that Thaddcus
C. Davis received OF it from Lord $4,000 Of which he
gave Lewis j. Bennett $1,000 only, retaining the re-
nsinlrg 81 500 for himself.
ANOTHER RE- IEF BILL
On the 23d Of May 1872 the Legislature appropriated
"fcr dTegng out Black Rock habOr the sum Of $4,000
unGoT the present contract for doing the same and not
wihsnGiHg it's alleged unpro1ablcness the contractors
went ON With tie work till The appropriation Vas eX
hausted which occupied unti the month OF JUly 1873
EmSolcncd by ms previous success occurred to George
D. Lord to ash from the Canal Commissioners arotEer
award for the relief Of John Hand" II seems that in
the fret tne eonsprators had only claimed for work done
Trffa ls.-i ct nj
under which 1t was made pyGcred relief to Hand only
OF loss the three contracts for dredging taken
together, the Erie and Ohio basins and BLACK Rock har
Dor. Nothing said about the Black Rock barber 10
the Commissioners who gantod the first award This
omission Is susceptible OF explanation NGch will i'm
prove It's moral aspects.
Lord again Ousht Mr Bennett and proposed 10 obtain
for him another award tine same terms "a tie last AS
an additional inducement n this step is proper to
melOn here that IL consequence OF the refusal Of Lord
pay to bennett, SpaUldns Co. What they regarded
ss their share OF the first award sut was Instituted
against George D. Lord Jarvis Lord, aud the Monroe
County Bank Out OF tie proceeds OF this second oN2Id
as will presently apsoar Bennett 6paud,ng & Co. re-
ceived sa; faction, and the suit Discontinued The
arrangements for the meeting OF tie Canal COmInis-
ECnors tho procuring Of testimony, and AL the trouble
and expense incident 10 the preparation of the case for
this second award were managed by George D. Lore VIM
II. Bowman his attorney AID Thaddels c. Davis.
Tie Commissioners met AZ the Tiff House in the city
Of Buffalo, Nov. ~ 1874; tho Board Of Commission
ers at that time consisting Of Alexander B3rkey T. "
Btroud ana Games Jackson, ir The testimony t'on is
In the handwriting OF Tladdeus c. Davis, VINO records
himself m the minutes OF the testimony as cOGnSel for
the state" Bennetts affidavit attached 10 lis swollen ac-
count was dictated by Davis and sworn 10 before a
notary who was Dayis's clerk. The award which was
ade on Dec g. 1S7 is also in the handwriting OfDaFis.
The only witnesses examined Lewis j. Bennett,
william H. Douglass ana william Richardson, BcuEett's
partners; Oliver Cornell OF Beuuttps woAoen, and
j. Frojcric Bsn, have already stated, part pro
psieor OF one Of tle drclses IN ths WORK, ana
ebCr Assistant Division Engineer that division of
the canals during tie entire progress Of IT, Upon tie
testimony OF these witnesses the COmmi5so made
an additional award ior Ia, relief OF Jo..l Hand" Of
1885.
INITIATING RESNEr1's BILLs.
On this work Bennett tss;Eos tat but for wlot they
were obliged to pay The agents Of tho STATE 20 ges
vhst Le called iar play" t,er contracts would have
be- profitable that occurred to Linn TO ask re-
lief from the Legislature; that when he prepared bis
claim for The Grst award he regarded it as fal that he
was instigatod make the second application by Lord
and encouraged in by DayS that ne was lot ased to
make up his bill until after the testimony before inc Com
missoncrs had been all taken that when the bill was
forwarded 10 Lord at Rochester Il returned 10 hin
through Bowman, who instructed him that was not IN
accordance win the evidence taken before The Canal
and required him to take it back for cor
rection that he did take It back made Now bill,
greatly Increasing all the amounts in The previous
eTard and 4 10 Rochester, When Bennett next
Il il wac in tho hands OF Davis.
what were the items and amounts in Bennetts bill
he rst made it have not been ablo 10 ascertain
NJ Bennett tcses that he kept copy Of :; but the
soale OF enlargement which II in the hads Of
Lord. Bennett, and Davis be Inferred from com
parison Of few of the items set down in his books
with in the bill which he submitted