The New York herald., 1875-11-19
CANAL FIR AUDS.
Testimony Before the Canal Inves-
tigating Committee.
THE cHEMUNG CANAL CLAIMS.
Explanations by the Implicated
Claimants.
ALBANY Nov. IS. 1875.

alleged canal frauds the Appraisers office this
morning. Pressnt-Senator Cole, Assemolyman Sew
arr and their counsel Henry Smith and Rufus W.
Peckham.
Mr. Henry G. Beach, Mr. G. H. Sweet, Mr.. D E.
whtord and Mr. George e. Briggs gave evidence as TO
ihe dam In Otsco Lake
TIKI cHIMvNG CANAL CLAIMS.
D. b. Hill appeared before the committee, requesting
permission TO the testimony IN the Chemung Canal
claims matter He was given the testimony ard asked
TO be put under oath order to make statement lie
ssid his attention had been called misstate-
ments which had been printed throughout the State,
and he would refer them. He said he knew Of the
Hood in 1857, ard he Of the opinion that the
age caused by agent of the State named Faugh-
erty, neglccting his duty, Gnd for tins he dis
charged instead of opening the lock gates he closed
them, and cut open the waste wcs; this caused tho
damage to the surrounding lands; the matter
hnally taken in hand and it was found necessary to
secure the passage Of special OF the Legislature;
the business of collecting the claims was put in the
hands of Mr.. G. /. Smith, who to prepare the
papers and argue the before the Legislative
mittees, and to try the matter before the apprais-
ers, and was receive one-third of the awards;
the food occurred in 1851; in 1864 the Legislature
passed act authorizing the appraisers hear the
claims of other parties who had suffered; they
heard and awards made; in 1869 the Legislature again
formed partnership with Smith and informed of
these claims being his hands never visited Albany
with reference to these claims awards until the act
was passed. my partner made all the arguments;
never hunted up any Of theevidence; never sought
of these claimants to get any of their claims it
has been reported through the Press that at
the time this passed was member of the
Legislature; that Is not fact; | member in
1872 in my capacity as member OF the Legislature
never had any hing 10 do with these awards; all OF
them we're paid except three these paid after
vas out OF the Legislature: something has been said
ns a tha rln a.ia trA
lhere may have been some additional charges my part
ner had charge all the financial business OF this
er these appealed to the Canal Board but
the appeals were dismissed in all but three cases; ap-
pearcd to argue IN these three cases. trial
ordered by the Canal Board and the Appraiser
Eimra to try them; but there was decision that they
could not be tried over again; 1 insisted upon new
trial. but was overruled; In 1873 they called be-
fore the Canal Board again; argued two OF them and
the Canal Board affirmed them in 1874 the remaining
one was reargued and that disposed of in like
ner witness named Crout Is reported as saying that
| asked him to vote for Webber In the adjoining
county Of Schuyler as his election would help
not voter, and could have no interest in
his elections during the proceedings firm had some
bak the charges for additional services subse-
quen TO the awards aud the appeals in the Stearns
case my partner agreed with for little
third IN the Sleeper case one-halt and in the Locke
case no agreement made, but to be paid
Tor our services, and he was charged 81, 500;
brought to Albany several times in these matters;
had some difficulty with Locke about our charges;
wish to that prosecuted these claims in my capa-
city as lawyer that believed and believe now they
Judge Brooks, one of the appraisers was inter
esled in Two Of the pieces of prop
Is untrue, he has only lately obtained such
such interest aud obtained by de purchase he
there was no COLLISION between Judge Brooks and our
brm; the wese heard before Judges Brooks and
Wasson; Mr. smith and myself are not partners
and have not been tor a year and half; the
claims were made out and itemized and sworn to by
lhc claimants long before the bill authorizing the hear
Ing was passed; the claimants are all respectable
rilizens.
Mr. Hill then said he ready answer questions.
Nr. Smth-How many claims there in which
The firm inlercsicdY
Mr.. Hl7-Nineteen or twenty think: have no
list Of them | think the aggregate sum awarded was
about SOL 0O0 about $39 coo tohe claimants and
about So 900 the COUNSEL present at the
appraisers hearing nearly all the time At Elmra; one
taken ana the testimony put in for ali ON
the question OF liability; H. Boardman Smith was the
attorney on the other side; he is no relation of my
! ease contested on my part as we'll as could;
the other side IL was contested we'll Witness shown
The book of written testimony taken in the and
said there were fourteen and half pages Of testimony
taken the question Of liability.
Mr.. Smth-fhat embraces all the testimony on the
question whether tho canal had produced the damage,
and also on Banks claimY
Wtness-Yes, sir, but think Judge Brooks did not
take down all the testimony.
Mr.. Smith--Name the witnesses
Wness-omsbury, Locke, Banks, Judd and McWhor-
ter making hve in all two of Them were claimants.
Mr. Smith-Gye the names Of the witnesses called
on tho part of the State
Wtness-There none that see here.
Mr. smth-WhatY DO you not recolect in
involving $4,000 whether there were any witnesses
the other side
wtncss-l cannot recoect whether MI Shorterwa
called for the State; looking at the testimony
he was called by the claimants
Mr. smith, now ask you, Mr.. Hill, whether you
think as lawyer that that case was contested as II
ought to have been on the part Of the StaeY
Mr. Hill-So far as the trial is concerned think 1t
Mr. smith-Do you think II this had been private
matter II would have been contested as this wasY
Mr HILL do not know.
Mr. peckhan repeated the question: applying it to
him.
Mr. Hnl-That would depend whether was satisfied
that was right or not In this case the contest
properly made IN my opinion, as the State had no case
Mr. Smith-llow long this hearing ont
Mr. Hili-Two and hall days occupied in TAX
Ing all the testimony
Mr. Smith-Much Of contest the question of
damagesy
Mr. HILL do not think there much dispute
10 what damages the claimants suffered.
Mr. Hills testimony then concluded He then
stated to the committee that whatever reflects upon
hosc awards reflects in degree upon the counsel
TINS investigation be continued long enough he said,
would like TO have some witnesses examined, either
put there or here. OF course, | bear the
pense.
Mr. Cole--What do you wantY or course We want all
Ihe truth we can get bearing on this case,
port 10 the Legislature.
Mr. Hll-well / don't know how far YOU propose to
carry this case but would like 10 have the testimony
oi some I'VE or SIX Witnesses; some of testimony,
NJ least such has been published IL wrong and
want the opportunity TO show that
Mr. Peckham did not think 1t possible or proper
70 60 all this ground again 1t there is no corrp
lion IN this matter we want W make that appear We
here only to investigate this matter ia a general
way
Mr. Hill-wcl sir make the application for AN op
portuny to produce witnesses to show the justice of
Ihesc accounts.
Without passing upon Mr. HIPS application the com
mittee took recess until hali-past three O'Clock
RECESS.
The committee reassembled q quarter to four.
whcn Judge Brooks appeared and asked permission
make statement in reference to tho testimony OF
OF the witnesses, named Frost who reported
have testified that Judge Brooks OF the appraisers
made an award IN avor OF two pieces OF property he
owned, giving the inference that lie had acted his
behalf III which he saId he ought be in the
penentiary instead OF here. He asked TO be sworn,
aud he The testimony read, and IL
found to be that the witness said Brooks had Cages
the property. Judge Brooks sud that prior
March, 1870 lie had interest in any property
referred To here with the exception OF the Arnot mill
In 1857 this mill injured.
Arnou owned 1t till July. 1856 when he conveyed 1t to
Mr. MELONS, and he sold II to me in 1871; Arnott owned