New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-23
ANOTHER SHGT ar CONTROLLER HOPKINS
THE UTICA OBSERVER RrICRSs TO THE CHARGE
sprClrIC ACCrsATlONs AZ LAsT

THE UTICA OBSERVER RUTURSs TO THE CHAEGE-
spICirIC ACCUSATIONS Al LAST.
The Utica Obserrcr in reply to The albany Journals
defense of Controller Hopkins, makes the charge
that the Controller told Mr.. Van Dyck, who claimed
the Baxter award, that he tMr. Van Dyckl might
get favorable opinion OF the Attorney-"enefa''
through Tbaddeus C.. Davis. by paying 81 900 Tor it,
Mr. Davis formerly occupied the same Laws Office
with Mr. Hopkins. who, it is understood. was chiefly
influential in having min appointed Iaiiai APPRAISER
by Gov Dix. TIE OJserrG saws:
In 1871 the State Of Ncw-YoIk offered reward OF
500 600 FOR an invention which should successfully solve
the problem Of s;eam ansr on is boat which
without ting all the requirements was deciden! !he
best fiat competed for The prize On the plea that the
conditions were not fulfilled, the Offered reward was with
held But the gisatuTc 81 lSti Iirst an "ct ucc'
nt the ContIoeg TO pay William Baxter or lis legal
renrsentat,es the sum Of go 600 whom it should aI
pear OH the certificate Of the state Engineer t,at he 'd
to the competing boat, The CITY OF New YORK
The seven boats eomple,ed the eeT nhn
s sas bprSma pre snn Of the BaHr Company
appeared before the Controller and demanied tue
money He pu; of from time To time OH one excuse
and another. one day, on going TO the Controller :
Office he found Mr. norns in eCnsuatSe Win Inad
here what we we already said 10 Wit that M. DAVIS
and Mr.. Hopkins were never in paltnei.hiE. iney
merely occupied the same Office tosetlei III budlo anu
Mr. Davis appointed Appraser on Mr. Hopkins re-
commentator. ON the occasion Ia qu' siion Mr. an
Dyck again urged the pa iuct of his claim Inc Con
trolcr sand that before paying il be must have the
written opinion Of the ttto.ury-Htnera! approving IL
Il * ALLEGED that he Lad previously secured verbal
ouiOu IN that officer 10 tar elect nat the claim might
safely he paid Il Is iniLo. alleged that con''rSa'n
Controller Hopkls-i cannot ask the A'orhoy-'cn-
Mr. Van DycI--IIow then Is II 10 be obtainedi
Controller Borsns-iCI might get 1t through my
fcnd Nh Davis Lere Dut you woud have 10 pay Tl'ooo
The Bax,er Company was cnlhaIras3ed 1t had ex,
ha,scd It's resources II fulfilling is contract to pu seven
boats on the canal II is asserted that M Van Dyck
with the full knowledge and consent OF he Controer'
and IN accordance Win bis advice paid 70 Nj DAVIS the
sum OF : 600 st the opinion was not Forthcoming
Finally, Mir. Van Dl ok Was gwen to ude stand either
by The Republican canal auditor Mt. Francis = ihayer,
or Uy tie Controller, Mr.. Nelson H. Hopkins or by p0ti
these Officers mat be could not reasonably hope "a ge h'S
money until the Summer OF 1870. IL was i'll January,
$50 that these Negotiations were earned on, and the
threao ned delay decidedly veSailOns 10 MT Van
ana offered buy the claim OF FD5ODO and pay therefor
the sum Sjl 500. THIS apparently the bcs that
Mr. Van Dyck could do and he accordingly accepted tc
offer In months tilne-ai is e. say, on flc l7t Of
February. is7j-the claim paid in fu - Francis b
Thayer, who while holding the office OF Auditor q! the
Canal hoard contIivcd make $500 by practice
which is left for our Republican contemporaries to char
Eetu ming to Mr. Hopkins. find that the llth OF
January, ls7, be addtossed note TO Att1rney General
no official data AT hand. We are unable To determine
rIl IN - Tbaver The Controllers Letter Was answered
By the attorney General on the lSth Of January Therein
tie law officer of the state says The appropriation II
must be confessed very specific YET the Legsla
urc must intended the several amounts TO be pad
a. provided IN the Act of 1871 With some hesitation il
is my opinion II would be safe TO pay them"
We understand that when the Atlorncy-General was
informed OF the circumstances herein narrated he sought
out The Controller ami Indignantly charged him with cir
cuatin the base ana grountess siane that his official
opinions could bc Influenced by pecunary considerations
and that from that day To this Judge Pratt has moi
been Oh speaking terms win Mr Hopkins;
This as understand ii, Is the scandal regarding the
Baxter claim. The Albany Lremg journal has forced
the discussion of IT, Under pretensc of relating the facts
connected with tie payment Of The award IL ignores all
the more important points in the Our Albany co
temporary appears to speak by the authority OF the Con
troer and when returns 10 this question hope thai
his dcfense-if indeed he have Uncwil he clearly dc
yeoped