New-York tribune., 1875-12-10
CANAL INVESTIGATION.
THE ORISKANY AND CHEMUNG GRABS.
HOW THE STATE WAS TO BK MADE To BUY UN-
ppoptrIprv pRopyRTY CONFLICTING TESTI-

MONY on THE CHEhUNG INUNDAIloN
ALBANY. Dec. 9, 1S75.-The Joint Legisla-
tive Committee Investigate canal frauds reassenoled
at the Canal Appraisers Office this morning. Walter b.
Pierce appeared without being subpenaed and said he
wished TO make statement OF the facts as to his claim
for damages caused by the divergence OF the waters of
the Orskany Creek that he did not want TO put 1t
under OATH "a was paper OF the nature Of test
mony in all respects, and that 1t contained argument
He WAS informed that the Committee could not take
any statement unless IL made under oath. After
some conversation Mr. Pierce and proceeded
to state the his lie said that he was utterly
ruined by the action of the officers of the State and that
his claim was entirely just one. He said he WAS
obliged to his factory to Utica, and was put to
great loss and expense In order to satisfy his creditors
he assigned his claim
To Mr.. smitlr-Tbe reason OF my putting on AMENDED
claim when made out the second claim was
in possession Of fuller facts and found tLat was IN
the damage 10 my stock the quantity 0 TOBACCO was es
mated not weighed did not know that the water was
restored in six weeks removed the factory by Install
Inenls. making three removals never TOOK any nOtce
whether the water restored In six weeks. hau
lease for four months time enough 10 cut up
tobacco could have stayed longer after my tease
had expired but would not have stayed as he rent was
MI Smith, see you put in s4oo rent; how is that
Mr. Smith, You received from the state all the losses
you sustained 90 you think was honest to charge ior
The rent asof NneSs-Most assuredly paid that rs
Mt smithBut Won got allowance for all losses and
damages and want know II that ought not 10 cover
fhe Zoo for remit Winess-No SIR my creditors can
ceed my obligations to them on my turning over 10 INN tsn
in consideration for my claim aud another matter wor
nns Snehna fYV Understood it was never paid un some
time last Summer; got to work In Utica on the ls OF
two month, for which Charged e., 900. very mod
crate charge Commissioner Chapman would give me no
satisfaction, and would not talk to me at all Commis-
sioner Wright told that tine State would pay me- he
was always pleasant aud gentlemany Chapman was
rude; it costs hfy cents on dollar to get justice IN
claim before the Canal Appraisers. 80
asseroni wtneSs-I do not; but it is the universal
opinion. ,,.-.. .o,... -. -.
made such charges witness mean lhal attorneys
charge that Every body told that ia order To get
ustice before the Appraisers would have to put in my
claim for two three times s large as the actua amount
due with view to having II cut down , ,,.,, Wit,
Mr.. 6mith-WhO was one man that told you thatf VII
ness-Chauncy Wilcox OF Utica told me that - ~
Mr.. smith-Who else you say "everybodyf witness
Mr. Smith-Did Mr.. seymour tell you sof Witness-So,
sir he told me TO put in just what was due me- do MT
Ms an ordinary tobacco factory has an ordinary tobacco
factory has as many as had yes think that reason,
not tell many had and that ought to DO satiSiac-
tory.
Alfred Teae was then called and sworn. IIo testified
that he had purchased tho upper Dexter Bill for $4,000
two years ago.
Abel b. Buell. was called and sworn. He testified:
Ipurchased the lower Dexter Mil property paying for
it $4,000 and allowing Dexter to give the water 10 the
state at any within eight years 10 also under
stood that in the state took tho water then Dexter
give Sl2OOO ana take 10 inc Dd
OF whatever the state raid nm aso II the otaie
did take the water within eight years then inc te
to the properly; including i the wafer wac no 70
water within that time, and the property passed TO my
hands giy here ws ~ n9stnfne s tb bnt nf ~ faod
/ think Dexter initiated the movement; DeAteTs idea
wanted me 10 take il under conditions named. that
could dispose Of the water to the state ara mus gel
useful TO the state the stream could be used IN the
mill; while holding the property spent $4,000 IN put
ting 1t III order
James Merriman testified that the allowance Of S33 900
was more than the Dexter property worth.
Ex1State Engineer Vim. B. Taylor was recalled. Pro-
ducing maps he explained the history OF the movement
which finally resulted IN the construction OF the feeder
He considered that the dam Improperly located AMI
the feeder not put where needed. After concluding
his testimony Mir Taylor said he desired to say word
in regard TO the testimony OF Walter b. Pierce which had
lust been gwen To the Committee Mr PIERCE had ap-
Ulied 10 lin get the certificate signed BY Barkcy,
lping him 10 DO so NJ the urgent request OF Mr.. Pierce
he spoke BarEley and he gave lnn the ceitlcaio'
Mr. Iaylor added that ne sorry 10 hear Mr Pierce
severely ccise the state officers aIor he had at S re-
quest Leiriended him.
Danlcl A. Shaw was next sworn and testified that he
had known the Orinsky property for 80 years the dan
age, $4,000. awarded by the apaises TO the MIL Th;ch
he formerly owned. he said was too largc De sold the
property for $4,000, and thinks he got lis iuI value
CHEMUNG OVERFLOW.
\ recess was then taken until p. IL, the Committee
reassembing at that time Oscar NJ ClaGharty. son Of
Alex Csnbary, foreman OF the section of the Cbemung
Canal MpOrt at the time OF the freshet in ls57
was sworn and gave detailed account of the freshet
and the damages caused By IT, lie could not romcmbcr
the waste being cut. The witness thought that
the ircshct damaged the canal seriously but the act OF
the canal being there did not the fIcset and The
CONSEQUENT damages. ~ have not tie shadow OF
doubt" hc said. that all these damages would have oc
CURED If there had been no canal there II has always
i o & M ans, lin ar,st The Siate fer these damages
until several years after the freshet did not in fact
know auythn. ubOui them until saw them published
mfa,na,,piy ~ ,n0 IN false" r'O '''N
Levy Perry was recalled and examined as to the nature
Of the food In Miles Creek He said that he opened the
waste weir into creek. but that had nothing TO do
with causing the flood
Wilson Sayles examined on the same subject. He
was caught in the rcshet at suckcryle, that be-
ing the name Of the place before damages claimed
lie said
reached the summit Lock the morning after the
reshet and laid there five weeks owing to the break IN
the canal below the waste weir there then IN good
conditlon had not been cut here was perhaps nse
had washed away the towpath in one place and was
RAINING into TIE canal; think the reshet would have
occurred whether the canal was there or not
Jamos f. Cutter, boatman who had the same expert
ence testified to tie same effect Sayles
Oliver Peek said he mover saw such food Tho canal
rose and oyerfowed he said and II the waste weir
the summit level had been cut. it would not have made
any difference. The freshet and damage not
caused by the canal being there.
Samuel Geary. who was on the road from Elmira the
day the food that the promises were damaged
by the creek and not by the canal.
Dr. Hoke. who resided at Millport in 1857 testified
that he did not believe that the canal had ythin to do
with causing the freshet.
Stephen C. Banks called in behalf Of the claimants
ct the request Judge Smith He said tina, at the time
of the food he ran up the canal and found Canhar,y
and Sterling. foremen there; they cut away the waste
wer and that let the water out and down upon his mill
dam property
To Mr Smith counsel for the Committees I was a
claimant for about 800 $500 We talked about
claims right after the damage. but II six
wears before We moved. The creek would done
the damage; IL was the Of the canal which
came my mill and tore II all to pieces There