New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-29
CORRUPT CANAL SYSTEMS.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FRAUD IN ORDINARY
REPAIRS.

CONTRACT sYsrEM-A PREMIUM PLACED on BAD
FREAKS IN Tux CINAL-JouN LEAHY AND JAR
Wis LORDS CONTRACT FOR KEEPING THE
CuEMUNG CANAL IN REPAIR-RIvAL BIbDERs
PLAYING INTO ONE ANoTHERs HANDS
lFRoM A STAFF CORRESPONDENT OF THE TRmUSEl
ALBANY. March 2s-Ibe earnest investigator Of
canal in this State for the pastSO years
is in danger of becoming bewildered at the start.
He will find himself. if he undertakes to grasp the
whole subject nc once, very much in the condition OF
the traveller WHO is lost frontier prairie or In the
piDey woods of the South. No matter what line of
investigation he may select before he pursues it far
he finds it crossed and recossed by other paths quite
as inviting as the he follows, and each leading
finally into some new field of extravaganza or
fraud-new to him, mean, for it requires little
examination of the landmarks to discover that they
have not only already been filed upon," but the
claims have already been proved up" by some one
of a dozen contractors with whose names THE
TRIBUNE has made the people familiar.
The frauds perpetTated in the award, superintend-
eDce, and execution Of contracts for the "extraor
binary repairs on the canals, which have already
ones that have been discovered or are likely to be
found. They lay comparatively upon the surface,
and were so striking In their character that they
were naturally the first that the inquirer met with
The wholesale robbery of the people shown by the
contracts already printed pervades every branch
of the canal service. Much Of the money which is
paid out every year for the ordinary repairs has
IL i. Ill.
collected as tolls reaches the State Treasury
The ordinary repairs of the canals previous to 1859
were done under the present system. At that time
ali the canals were III good condition. The repairs
had been very expensive. but they had been well
done. In 1859 the superintendent system was abOl-
ished and the contract system adopted. One of the
leading arguments in favor of the change that,
as there would be little work required to keep the
canals in repair the contracts would be let at low
figures This was true in the beginning. Contracts
TO keen single sections Il the canals in repair
Yet at first as low $4,000 81 800 year. But
tractors dId little work under this system pos
sible As long as a boat could be dragged through
the canals without placing it on wheels, and enough
of the tow paths remained to enable a mule to pick
ms way along. no matter what the risk TO his neck,
no dredging was done and no embankment built.
the contractors in several ways. Of course, the
less money they spent, the faster they grew rich
since the State paid regularly, whether any work
was done not. Then, the contracts were relet
from time 70 time, the rate increased the canals
went TO decay, and, finally, the more breaks" oc-
cured the more extra work there was TO be done.
Under the contract system, break" if it was
large enough was regular bonanza" 70 the con-
tractor The agreement made was that if the cost
<.f . he
contractor would pay for it himself but if the cost
were greater. thea the State would pay the excess
OF course dishonest contractors had epidemic of
breaks and The of closing them was generally
more than ~ 600 To illustrate this by single case
/ will cite the contract of John Leahy (afterward
assigned 70 Jarvis Lord for keeping IN repair the
Chemang Canal and feeders for five years from Jan.
/. 1S61.
The circumstances under which this contract was
let axe very interesting. The Contracting Board of
the Canal Commissioners advertised to let this con-
tract 10 the lowest responsible bidder on Dec. %,
1856 On that dav a great number of persons
sembled al the Office OF the Canal Commissioners IN
Albany for the purpose of submitting bids. and
among them were John Leahy and Jarvis Lord.
Before the hour for opening the bids those present
organized meeting, and it was agreed that the
night bid for tbs contract should be sold to the
highest bidder and that he should take all the bids
which were lower than his own and put in the
others John Leahy was the highest bidder for this
privilege aud ne put In his own bid OF $4,000 per
annum and those that were higher than his, and
destroyed the remainder. OF course, the Contract
ing Board OF the Canal Commissioners knew moth
ing OF the circumstances l have related and they
awarded the contract to Leahy and, on or about
Dec 81, three days after this performance, Leahy
assigned the contract to Jarvis Lord. OF course,
the price was excessive other contractors stood
ready TO do the work and furnish good sureties at
lower rates.
A contract obtained by fraud would naturally be
executed fraudulently. This one was no exception
TO the rule OF course there disastrous breaks
in the Chemung canal while Lords contract
timed Ii is reported that dam, which cost or
igiually about $4,000, one-tbird swept away by
food Jarvis Lord repaired it at cost 1t is said OF
$4,000 aud the State paid for this extra work,
except $1,000, which was by law deducted. The bills
for this work were regularly made out with sepa-
rate items for labor and material, but persons living
near this break" who watched the work as 1t adj
yanced say that no such amount of material or la
Dor as his accounts indicate, was employed. There
Is strange rumor here about names taken from the
city OF village directory and made to figure in canal
accounts but it has not yet been traced TO Its source
or properly verified.
But the Lord family were not the only contractors
who made money ON breaks" Others not
slow in learning the dishonest tricks as is shown by
the official records. A contract was made with
Edmund Raymond in September, 1860, to keep
Section No of the Champlan Canal in repair for
S22OOO and the contract was relinqushed in April,
1870, when the present system adopted This
contract was ia force months, and during that
period there were no less than fourteen breaks"
& The Legislature has been repeatedly called upon