The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-10-14

OF THE ENGINEERs-MoTIoN LosT--YATEs
AND BABcocK TO BE TRIED BY THE BOARD
ON MONDAY.
ALBANY N Y. Oct IS, 1875
The Canal Board met to-day at hafpast ten A. M
Treasurer Raines offered the following preamble and
| resolutions
where's che constitution q the State provides that rtcls
Of the officers IN this article mentioned shall be
whereas charter e q % may % prescribed oy law and
ferred upon Che Canal Board the appointment
authorized the Canal Bosrd 20 70 1 prescribe
ts S ss h11S
he s sy the e %
hap s snd y % b By
from Canal Board the to Sppons dSns s
duties u the EnneoPs at So sae time ns
hs Canal ~ In Special charge
PGwss nr o cause AMY AMY EN-
method by which any engineer could Be brought
e rg before the Canal Board and whereas the Canal
and them only charges preferred by
whereas the special Of tho Eastern
against suspended the division nor resident
'h sdsd fhas & oas that has no
dcen IN the matter Of the aegedauds Of the engineers
Attorney General Pratt said that would make short
1 work of It.
Lieutenant Governor Dorshemer said II would II they
agreed to the resolution, but it would be with
his vote. He inquired Of the Attorney General what
his opinion on the question.
Attorney General Pratt said he had not examined the
question carefully and declined to give ruling
The proceedings thus far not altogether regu-
| lar.
The Chairman put motion to lay the resolution on
the table and declared IL carried
He then inquired whether the engineers wished to be
tried separately or together.
Mr.. Yates said he would prefer separate trial for
FORMS sake although the testimony taken referred 70
himself and Mr.. Babcock.
Treasurer Raines said before any proceedings
taken there important question TO be decided
whether they had any jurisdiction Of the matter They
had been told by the Attorney General that things were
not exactly regular SO lar as they hao gone ana yet
understood the law, we're not properly made, and II he
was right it belonged to the Board OF Canal Commits
sioners and the State Engineer. Another important
question be considered whether that Board was
responsible for the of the engineers for the past
two years, and he moved 70 take the resolution rom
the table Carried
Canal Commissioner Stroud would like to have the
opinion of the Attorney General on that subject
Attorney General Pratt said he not prepared to
give opinion the matter, but II II referred to
him he should be happy examine the law and report
upon it. They were at stage when it was necessary
to act TO the strict construction of the law and he
was not prepared TO give an opinion as TO the CON
deputy had examined into the statute.
Treasurer Raines-Another matter We are proceed
ing TO the trial OF these engineers without either the
State Engineer the Commissioner Of the Eastern
division being present / do not know for what cause
The Charman-It was stated here this morn
ing that the sickness OF the Commissioners
wife, which threatens her death at any mo-
| II.
Sweet was absent do not know The Treasurer knows
the Board has power to compel their attendance
The Comptroller is also absent
Treasurer RanesI merely raise the question OF
propriety. move to refer the resolution to the At
torney General for him TO report at three O'Clock Car
ried.
The Chairman remarked that he voted to refer the
question the ground that II there is any question Of
law involved 1t should be examined by the Attorney
General and have his report
Treasurer Raines then moved that the Board take
recess until three o'clock Carried
Z. M
Attorney General Pratt reported question OF juris-
dction rarsed by Treasurer Ranes The Attorney
General gave as his opinion that the Board had uris
dction.
Treasurer Raines protested against the continuation
OF the proceeding in the manner in which II had been
commenced and argued at length, citing several laws
the subject against the OF the Board to proceed
until the State Engineer and Commissioner In charge
took action and formally reported charges He declared
he would sit the Board and take part in proceed
ings which his mind clearly in violation OF the
statutA He asked why 1t that these charges
made by outside parties referring to the Investigating
Commission without the State Engineer and Commls-
soner saying a word as to their truth or falsity.
Lieutenant Governor Dorsheimer suggested that
all that necessary FOR the Board tcao. Inc people
were prosecuting them They were involved in dis
graceful complications, and i was the duty o. y
they were guilty OF disgracaful social offence, the
same drunkenness These officers, he SAID, may be
innocent That was for the Courts 70 say But SO far
as the Board concerned II its duty dismiss
themP He moved that John B. Yates and Stephen z
Babcock be removed. This motion gave rise to debate
between the Treasurer and the Lieutenant Governor in
which the above points were reiterated and strength
ened on both sides
Treasurer Raines moved substitute as forlows:-
ResolyedThat the State Engineer and Commissioner in
charge are hereby reqns,sd to report g this Board with
meantime they remain suspended
This was lost by vote Of one to six.
The Attorney General said when this matter FIRST
brought up he supposed there to be investiga
ton. 70 the complaint against these officers, he
desired 10 say II served and issued without any
consultation with him at all He did not and could not
take statements OF the Investigating Commission with
out examination He called attention to the sixth report
issued by that Commission, in which the position Is
taken that all work on the Champain Canal required
new surveys maps &c "Now,' SAID he, there is no
law for this at ALL" There statute requiring
surveys to be made, as the Commission claims As to
the charges against these engineers he thought IL
moro than far that they Should be given hearing He
therefore moved amendment 70 the Lieutenant
Governors resolution that the trial be suspended till
the brought before the Courts involving them is
decided and in the meantime they remain suspended
Treasurer Raines was opposed to this III would be
construed evang the question: lodging the issue Of
irving the charges brought against these engineers
Judge Yates, counsel for his brother, then addressed
the Board al some length with much feeling and de-
nounced in severe terms the proposition TO dismiss
these without hearing.
Lieutenant Governor Dorsheimer replied, insisting
that IL not his intention to condemn these men by
removing them He thought they had become SO in
volved guilty innocent to mako il necessary for
the Board TO remove them This the Board has power
to do and II has been It's practice heretofore even in
matters OF politics What he wanted to do simply
get rid OF men who became tainted He hoped they
would be able establish their innocence though he
did not expect they could Their guilt or innocence
could be established in the Court where their
we're
Mr. Hamilton Harris counsel for the engineers, said
that the trial referred TO did not involve these gentle
men. There no charges made against them
They against other parties. Tho point was that
this Board had invited these to here and de-
fend themselves against charges made against them by
third parties and to adopt this resolution would DO
simply condemnation OF them without tho hearing
rendered them He satisfied that they could prove
their innocence If accorded this bearing and be hoped
In fairness IL would be given them
Lieutenant Governor Dorsheimer-Wel win with
draw my resolution
Attorney General Pratt-So viii l. then
Considerable conversation was then had as 20 when
and how the investigation should proceed when II was
finally determined TO have witnesses examined instead
OF reading their testimony given before the inyest-
/ eating committee, and that the investigation should
| ccrrnrr nnr.M nrdn rnnrt Al fhrna y M