The New York herald., 1875-11-20
CANAL FIR AU d S.
Yesterdays Testimony Before the
Legislative Commit 9.
ClIEMIING CANAL CLAIMS CONSIDERED.
Cost Of the Oneida Lake I'm
provementS.
Albany. Nov. 10. 1875.

ALBANY, Nov. 10 1875.
The Legislative Joint Committee on the alleged canal
frauds reassembled this morning in the Appraisers
room
Mr. H. Boardman Smith appeared to make statement,
as he had acted as counsel for the the Chemung
Canal claims heard in 1869 Judge Brooks called on
him and asked HIM to appear for the State lie said =
II understood then, now, the Commissioner has
power to employ counsel, but that they can employ
counsel to aid them far possiole at the time
ferred to Judge Brooks led TO understand, and
| did understand, that only 70 examine the
witnesses who should appear; the understanding was
that come up the Court House and cross.
examine witnesses; never retained 70 defend the
State l had no time to prepare defence; am
positive ] spoken to more than one
day before the examination; Judge Brooks gave me no
papers, any information to the character Of the
claims II have been dcrcIict Il was because
knew of Commissioner Haght being along the canal 20
examine; appeared examine tho witnesses; Judge
Brooks and Wasson were present; the cases were
pressed sharply owing Judge Brooks being obliged TO
get away attend other cases. the best could In
the examination ofthese witnesses the question of
interest these claims mooted my hear
ing and never knew Of it being allowed till last ight;
understood that it tho duty OF the canal APP
praisers to the PREMISES the appraisers in view
| ing the premises, under restraint
there considerable merrimeut occasoned by my
asking Locke If these spikes noated away; assume,
aud submit had the right to assume that the inter
ests of theState being guarded by efficient and
faithful public onicers-the appraisers; had oppor
tunity TO prepare the and not expected to-
never made a brief and expected 10; never
summed up those and expected to; still
recoect made this remark to Judge Brooks-"This
is one-sided case, and undoubtedly witnesses could
be found who would reduce these estimates Of dam
ages; 2; Judge Brooks replied the appraisers would
look after that the witnesses, of course respect
able gentlemen; / recolect made some remarks
about tho absence OF Cloughery, the SuperntendenL
said thought witness ought TO be examined on the
main question Of the liabilities of the State / am told
by Hill that McWhorter brought my Office and
examined there that point; to the amount OF the
claims, deductng the twelve years interest of which
! heard nothing, they would be reduced one-half
think; though Judge Brooks owned property there
at the time a n-law of his had a mill there; still
thought practical lawyer would make proper re-
duction.
Mr. Peckham he substance OF your statement is
then that your retainer simply go there and
cross examine the witnessesf
Wness-Yes, sir.
Mr. Pcekham-And you acted on that supposton,
and, therefore, 1t merely a one-sded cases The
view of the State not presented at allI
Wtness-With this exception tho fact OF cutting ont
the waste sewers, and shutting shc puddle gates
made fully appear that there satisfactory
/ explanation for keeping the puddle gates shut
u Mr. d. r. Hill had permission ask the witness
questions
NJ. Hl-while appearing at the hearing did you
have any consultation with Smith and Hing
Wuness-No SIR
Mr.. Hill-They supposed you we're counsel FOR the
State2
Wltness-From appearances suppose so
Mr.. Hll-They treated you as suchf
Witness-fes sir have said nothing against them !;
as Tar as could see their conduct highly honora-
BILE.
Mr. Hlll-Did you see the law OF 1907
/ Witness--Not t got in the room; | did not ex-
anime the CLAIMS; cannot say that they we're made
include interest; don't recoect whether the act
ol 1869 allowed interest," can't say whether Is the
custom ia this State to allow interest; do mean
TO say that IL is improper in this State simply said
II was not customary with the general government
4 have no knowledge of the time when knew Smith
/ and HUI were retained.
4 Mr. Smith-From the way you try causes out there
i they must have had ground for suspectng that YOU
4 we're not trying the case as you would for an in
dviduaL
/ Mr. HiIl-Dd you cross-cxamine the witnesscsq
/ Witness Il did The best could under the circum
stances
/ Mr. Hil--werc you paid for your services1
\ Wnness-Yes, sir Judge Brooks asked mo to make
out my bIll
Mr. Hnl-was II not your opinion from tho evidence
adduced that there was claim against the State?
Wltness-Yes, sir could escape
Mr. Coe-Ifyou had been employed in the ordinary
Z
witnesses in behalf OF the State9
Witness-Yes, sir IL had understood Haight had
been looking for witnesses " had had any such nfor
nation, would have deemed 1t necessary
Mr. Peckham-Respectsble men may at times set
their claims too hgh2
Witness-Yes, sir; have doubt witnesses could
be procured al all times TO reduce twenty
per cent
To Mr. smith-If the banks OF the canal wero broken
away IL was not material whether the puddle gates
were opened not; the would rush out Of The
break instead of passing through the gates
Il IN Mr ogkh he iood uuu 9ut tar
away the banks OF the canal down below the summit
level by water coming IN from the creek, that would
be question OF fact whether the State was liable
Mr., Peckhaml am assuming this TO be tho fact that
the water was not materially raised in the summit
Wtness-But the testimony shows that tho waste
weirs the summit level
Mr.. Smth-0n what authority do you assume the
weirs the summit level cut2
Witness-lf that IS your queston--il you assume
they not cut-thcn think the would 10 dil
TESTIMONY OF CURTIS NILES
Curtis Miles was sworn.-Ho WAS acquainted with
the section OF country where this flood occurred and
knew aood he described the topography OF the
country, and also tho storm and flood; was a great
storm; never witnessed one like il since 1874; the
flood passed down the creek into the canal Witness
here described the course of the nood the same as
other witnesses. The summit level not injured:
of the impression that the waste weir referred to
by Judge smith in his testimony yesterday not cut
out; IL would not damage; there "a an
extent OF land there which is level and would hold
twothirds Of the water IN tho summit level the day
after the hood the tow path on the summit level was
4 overnowed, Newtown Creek sometimes down
overhOwng the land thereabout SO that il IL mpos-
sble, SO much so that you can't get Horscheads
Catherine Greek would have been overlowed without
the canal being there at all Il would in
the power OF Clougherty TO the water OF tho
canal II the superintendent had drawn the water on
the level he would have damaged thc boats on tho
level then perhaps the State would be liable and do
not think IL was in the power Of any do IN the
short time allowed any moro than done.
To Mr. g. III Smith-fhcre is little stream, which
flows down toward the summit level and runs into u;
II don't amount TO much bat thcre might have been
consid iderable water in IL At this time
After the examination oi several witnesses u
understood that Mr. Hill viii be given opportunity to
produce testimony
! ONEIDA IMPROVEMENT
The matter OF the oneida Lake Improvements was
I then taken up.
II Hart was called and sworn and examined as 70 the
value OF French's Island. lie had kept notcl there,
and paid 5000 $3.50 yearly; the bank had been
/ washed away, as said, by the water ing set
] hack In Lhe laka. oMng 70 dam 10 Onelaa Lake one