New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-10-23
THE EIGHTH REPORT.


To His EyollfRcy ne Hon. S,MUEL j. TuDES, COG
crRor Of The state Of Nec- York:
An act passed june =, 1874, directed the Control
Ter of the State 20 pay VIM Bazt hi, legal repre-
sentatiycs for binding and euippng steam
boats for the navigation Of the canals the sum OF
$35, 900. On apply ing for the money to the Con-
troler in the following month, The assignee Of Mr..
Baxter informed that, in consequence Of the
doubtless accidental omission of the appropriation
clause in the bill there wOald he no fund out of
which this claim could be paid until the annual
taxes came in in the following Spring. tie stated,
however, that he would pay the claim If the AttOr-
ney-(iencra would give opinion that he would bo
warranted in SO doing We will give what followed
in the Language of Mr.. H. II. Van Dyck, the agent
and assignee of Baxter: Il asked him the Contrnl-
ler) if be would obtain the opinion of The
Attorney General on the subject. He said
he would; but on inquiry IL appeared that
the Attorney General was not in town at the
time, but he said be would obtain II on his return;
came up AGAIN abont ten days afterward and Tho
Attorney GeneIal was in town. hut the Controller
was absent; called upon the Attorney General TO
ask him in reference 10 the matter whether the Con-
trOller had asked hi, opinion upon that question, ana
he said h. hal not then called the attention OF
the Attorney General to the act itself, and after
reading IT, be said he didn't why il might not 10
paid if there was money ont Of which tn pay IT and
the conditions If tle act had been fulfilled gave
him the certificate showing the conditions bad been
fulfilled he said that inasmCch a. he didn't know
VIA. the objections of the Controller TO paying,
he would not volunteer any opinion in the matter
until lac was specifically asked b. the Controller;
then left town without seeing th" Controller, but
met him in New-York accidentally soon afterward,
and told him Of my visit tn Gen. Pratt, and that
was surprised he had asked his opinion upon tho
matter /; don't remember what reason he gave for
not having done it. but he said that he would do IT,
as understood him distinctly. that he would ask
him; not hearing anything upon the sub
ject | came up again. but l think IN tins
very interview in New York; all quite sure il was
at that interyiew-he told me that there was per-
son who had obtained opinion from the Attorney
General in n case nearly analogous to this one OF
Baxter, but that il cost the parties 900 tor the
services OF such person. he said distinctly az sad
before that he would ask for the opinion If tho
Attorney General; / came mp again. perhaps fort
night OF ten days aftcrwarl, and asked the Con-
troller whether he had asked the Attorney General
for his opinion, and he replied, No; he either
said il wasn't his business or that he wouldn't 60
ont 10 obtain opinions from any one for the purpose
of drawing money from the treasury; hut, in tho
conversation he told me that there was person
who he thought might obtain the opinion from the
Attoney-Generl; this person had done so IN an
other ease but that he required or received $1,000
for his services in the matter.
VAN DYCK DECIDES To EMPLOY DAVIS.
Mr. Van Dyck desparing of getting the money IN
any other way, finally concluded Ia avail himself OK
tho services of the gentleman referred 10 by tho
Controller who proved TO be rhaddeus {. Davis, the
Canal Appraiser. He says:
told him woui pay him ~ 900 II got the money.
The y-,ienrr was at y racuse aud ths gentle
man WAS to call there and lin immediately that Is
a. the next day. In ine mean tiil' VIZ BaHtef
had received infoi nation rom ms IA 10y
that there WAS gentleman in that ely who would PROB
aby take the claim no 10 per cent reduction from ihe
htainir" m" opinion OF the h;1incy-(;eneIai sub
mitt.nG the discount proposed Il w;s anxious TO ava
myself OF the Attorney -GcnoIa.s o;ihoil whhh ~ouia
only cost 81 900; Whereas IN the DINER case, Nr Baxter
would p. compelled Ia submit 20 discount OF $1,000.
accufdiuAy arranged Win the gentleman Wa wlsio
take tb warrant NJ a discount Ia wait mi o'clock of
The following di, by which line expected To receive
ihe 1rnry-t; haG Tad not been obtained Not
receiving any reply from hnn sod u clam NJ r.dc-
Baxter were such a. admit 81 no longer delay. 10
draft for the amount as agreed the seeonu dy
alter
The gentleman in Troy here referred IA proved to
be Francis ;. Thaycr the Auditor of the Canal De
partment II appears by the testimony of Mr. Hop
k;rs the Controller that hc gave Mr. Davis letter
70 take 10 the Attoney-tieneral at Syracuse dated
Jan. H. The opinion of the Aitorney-General was
received at the Controllers office Oh the 18th OF
.January-the same month. Why it was necessary
TO send to Syracuse for the opinion of the Attorney
General when his Office WAS in the same binding
with the Controller, and up only pain of stairs,
and why il was necessary 20 send thc request for his
opinion by Mr. Davis instead oi s,G.,in- i; by post
and why in case the Attomcy-Gencral was ont OF
town, Mr. Hopkins could not be content with tho
opinion of the D'puty Attorney General which no
had been constantly IN the habit of accepting, both
before and after this incident are questions which
Mr. Hopkins does not satisfactorily explain.
rHE ptti,UiIIGs IdAGINARY.
The Attorney General tcsiiies that. prior 10 tho
receipt of Hopklnss note, lac haI stated to tho Con-
troler, III the Controllers office, that he thought
there was no DIM uty about paying this claim that
tine Legislature must have intended II shonld DO
paid AZ tl.e original statute provided, and that no
thought il safe enough TO pay it, lie left town im-
medLtely after this Nrr~ation under the impress
received the Controllers letter, conveyed by Davis,
at syracuse, on he following morning. He says:
Thought II strange, after had IN understanding with
the Controller Lete. giving NY opinion, that lac should
Writc then knew he was rou, times very particular
Ia hlV. opinion Of the Attorney General ia writing,
aud thought to SELL II tat II What hc wants viii
1--WE him my written opinion M | gave him short
opinion rccllng that my opinion The same as had
gwen 10 hun, and directed tine letter To him.
The Attorney General says the letter of Hopkins
was left by DAVIS ut his office, and that he had
- conversation with him upon the subject. Mr..