New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-30

with the above mentioned proceedings DE-
cember 1860, the Canal Contracting Board
awarded contract to Charles Van De kar
for the repair of Section No. OF the Cham
plain Canal for $1,000 q year, but the
Ring conspiratOrs caused the bid to be
defaced, 80 that the contract was Cancelled
and given to Ryal G.. Briggs ut S17,j5O year,
Briggs straigbtway assigning 1t to Willard
Johnson. The loss to the State on that trans
action was $4,000. The repair contract on
Section No. 10 of the Erie Canal was given at
the same time to Benjamin Butler at $4,000
per annum. the bid of John Davidson OF
S25 900 being defaced; loss to the State,
$4,000. The repair contract on section No.
II was let in the same way to Valentine +.
Whitmore at $4},50O, the bid of $4,000 by
Elliott ITarroun being defaced; loss to the
State, $4,000. AS the Lords were parties to
the auction, so they were participators IN
its consequences. and may be said to
have derived pecuniary benefit from all the
transactions we have specified, even when
their names do not appear In the contracts.
During tho continuance of the Ledhy con-
tract, assigned as we have seen to JARVIS
Lord, break occurred in the Chemung
Canal BY the terms of all the agreements OF
this class the contractor was TO bear the ex-
pense of repairing breaks up to $1,000, and
all above that sum was to be paid by the
State For this break the contractor charged
the State about Sl25,00O, and the defendants
answer to the libel suit now before us alleges
| that the entire expense of the repairs cid not
really exceed $1,000. This is the same case
| described by one of our correspondents yes
| tcrday.
The sworn answer of The Rochester Democrat
embraces seven other charges against the
| Lords. one or two of which our readers have
| already heard something about. There Is the
| famous case of John Hand, for instance, who
| made o written agreement in 1871 to give
| George ID. Lord twO-thirds of whatever ad-
dtIonal compensation Lord could persuade
the Legislature to allow him on account of a
| contract for dredging the Black Rock Harbor
and the Erie and Ohio basins at Buffalo,
George Lord being then an Assembly,
man and his father Jarvis n Senator.
Well, the Legislature made a grant of
$4,000 extra compensation, and George Lord,
having induced Hand to sign receipts for the
amount got the certificates of indebtedness
from the Canal Commissioner and trans
| ferred them to Jarvis, refusing to give Hand
any part of the proceeds. In the next place
it is alleged that JARVIS Lord was the as
signee of repair contract on the Chemung
Canal originally granted to James Bellows, and
that he obtained from the State in 1865
$4,000 and in 1885 $4,000 for repairing
breaks, the actual cost of which did not ex-
coed $4,000 in the one case and 5000 IN the
other. The State being liable only for the
excess over 5000, the aggregate hanl made
| by these two operations amounted to ,0Jo. 1t
is also alleged that jarvis and George Lord
| were the owners of repair contract on toe
Erie Canal under which they obtained in 1868
| $4,000 for repairing a break which cost not
more than $1,000; that Jarvis Lord was the
real owner OF repair contract let to VILLAIN
w. Reed. under which he obtained more than
S120,0)) for repairing breaks on the Genesee
| Valley Canal in 1864 and 1867 the actual cost
of which was less than $4,000; that George
| ID. Lord was the assignee and jarvis Lord the
real owner Of repair contract let to ID.
| McGarry Oh the Chenango Canal, under which
the State was induced in 1865 to pay $4,000
| for repairing break, the cost of which being
less than 5000, should have been
defrayed entirely by the contractor
and that Jarvis and one OF his
sons Obtained from the State, in 1868, $4,000
for repairing break on the Chenango Canal,
when they were bound by their contract TO
defray the whole cost themselves, inasmuch
as it was under $1,000. All these allowances
are eaid to have been obtained by fraudu-
lent vouchers. The last-named contract was
bought by Jarvis, George, and Frank Lord at
an auction held in Syracuse in May, 1866, a
transaction substantially the same AZ the
| Stanwix Hall affair.
Summing up these charges, we find the fol-
lowing little account against the Lords
| Oyercnarse in five years on the Leahy repair
| contract ......... .................. s55.O0O
| Oycrcharge on repair contract Section ], Erie
Canal and Albany basin 323oo6
ovorch,rge nm tho Briggs con .......... 10000
ovr,h,roc ON the Butler 5000
ororch,r,a IN tbe Wbitmore contract ........ 65OOO
Oy.rch,rgo on Chemuug break ............. 122.OoO
Extra allowance to JOAN Hand. 1900
oyo,charce ON Chemun, break 1865 .......... 5000
Oyerchargo on Cnemung break, 1866 1900
ovorcnorcc m tic break 1863 Observation-Disclosures. 1900
Oyercharye on Ct nesee Valley breaks.......... 10000
ovr,,ar % on Cbcnanro break 6j......... 25 900
| o,erchorge nm Chenango break 1863 ........ 1900