New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-08
PAGE or CANAL HISTORY.


famous Black River claims for indemnity
from the State Treasury for damages done, or
alleged TO be done, by the bursting OF the
North Lake Reservoir, at the head OF the
Black River, in the Spring of 1869. There arc
several points involved in this record of a
nature to stimulate the efforts now making
by tax-ridden pnbic to perscvcre in the
struggle for better government.
I. 1t will be noticed that the disaster ITSELF
did not happen without gross neglect, and, IN
all probability, would never have happened
had ordinary precautions been taken by the
canal officials, whose duty it WAS to look after
the safety of tho reservoir embellishments.
II. 1t will DO observed that in case of an
extraordinary freshct, should the State be so
unfortunate rs to have dam on stream,
and should that dam give way, the State Is
likely to he called on to pay for all the danl-
age done, even at places one hundred miles
distant.
III. In the nstance of the Blacl, River claims,
the reservoir which burst was ut the sources
of the river. Numerous large streams poured
in their waters at intervals along the hundred
and odd miles which separated the reservoir
from the mouth of the river, yet the state was
called on to pay nearly half q million dollars
in damages which, in the opinion of those
likely to be impartial, were not in any sense
caused by the giving way of the reservoir, and
in no manner connected with that disaster.
w. In such cases as that Of the bursting OF
fiji, reservoir the complicated and costly lit
jcation growing out of it suggests the impor-
lance of having at all times an honest trl-
bural for the settlement of such cases and able
counsel to protect tie interests of the State.
The Black River cases were IN the inst In
stance adiUdcatcd by only two of tho three
Appraisers, the third dissenting, and the
awards were made in manner utterly with
out precedent OF justification. Although these
awards were annuled by the Canal Board,
vet the individual claimants and the state
were subjected to large additional expense
for legal proceedings and counsel fees.
Considering the Developments made in these
columns Of corruption in canal affairs, we
freely admit that the records OF the Board
of Canal Appraisers when compared with
them present in many respects favorable
contrast, even those of the Black River cases.
But what opinion are the public t. form OF
a man who, after having held tho Office of
Canal Appraiser for fifteen years. appears in
the Supply bill, two years after his exit, with
q claim for seven thousand and odd dollars
for extra services" so questionable that
:beir nature is not stated in the bill and is
entirely unknown to the financial officers of
the State who were forced to pay the money.
What are they to think of man who, in a
small way so far, at least, rs yet appears,
speculates in his own awards and buys mp
claims on the Treasury. which he himself adj
indicates Yet such man was Mr.. William
WATSON, for fifteen consecutive years Canal
Appraiser, who signed tho Black River awards
in blank before the hearing of testimony was
flushed. 1t was fortunate for the State that
Mr.. WassOn was associated during his long
career with better men than himself.