New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-09-03
SIZZLING M1DE LANY.

A GOOD instance of the way in which
hundreds of thousands of dollars have been
drained from the State Treasury into the
pockets of canal thieves is found in the testi-
mony in the Hand award printed on another
page. This is the award which has just
brought George ID. Lord and Thaddeus {.
Davis into unpleasant prominence. The Canal
Commissioners give to contractor who asserts
that he has lost money on his con-
tract an amount almost exactly equal
to the amount originally paid, arbitrarily
increasing the cost of his work 10 the
State from $39,5S5 to S76,440. On what
evidcnce7 On the bare statement of the con-
tractor himself and of the engineer in charge
of the work. On the sole evidence of the
interested party, with that of an employ6 of
the State presumably and almost as a
matter of course in the contractors
control. There were no other witnesses,
and no cross-examination worthy of the name.
The claimant also submitted a sworn state
ment of expenditures, which was merely ia
bic of fictitious figures, now shown to be lu-
dicrou,ly fraudulent, which had been raised at
the command OF Mr.. George ID. Lord There is
nothing to show that any vouchers for these ex-
penditures were submitted, or that, if there were,
any effort was made to test their genuineness.
To crown the hagrancy of this action, the
Commissioners awarded not only more than
the full amount of expense as claimed by the
contractor, except for interest and wear and
tear of machinery, but profit of twenty-five
per cent besides.
This is only sample case. The books of
that stOrehouse of iniquity, The Canal APP
praisers' Office are loaded down with awards
like it in methods and results-awards made
on evidence that in mercantile life would not
determine the ownership of a load of bricks.
Whole patches of cases. involving in the ag-
gregate perhaps several hundred thousand dol
lars, will be decided on the evidence of the
same two or three witnesses, without cross
examination, and without the presence of wit
nesses for the State. 1t is no new thing for
the counsel for the State to be in collision
with the claimants-there are Others besides
Mr. Davis who could tell us all about that.
But one word more about this award. Every
one connected with the transaction seems to
have shared or was to have shared in the
profits. Lord got the lions part. Bowman, his
counsel, got some, and Davis, counsel for the
State, also some. Commissioner Barley adj
mits having received $4,000, but insists that
he returned it. Even the inspector in charge
of the work was not forgotten. If Bennett
and Hand, the claimants, received nothing it
was only because their greedy confedcrates
robbed them. The Canal Commissioners
who made this award were Alexander Barley,
Reuben ". Stroud, and James Jackson. jr. What
have Mr. Barkley's colleagues to say7 The
Commission refuses to disclose at this time the
names of "other persons" to whom large
sums were paid. The circumstances of this
unanimous award force the suspicion that only
prompt statements from these Commissioners
can alay. Mr.. Stroud, in particular is in need
of IN explanation. He is a caUl'lttr f.. 80