New-York tribune., 1875-10-19
ARE THE PROCEEDINGS LEGALi

THE VIEWS OF TREASURER RnNES-IMPRoPRlElf
OF NOT CONFORMING 10 THE LETTER on IiE
LAw-nm ACTION or THE BOARD LIABLE 10
REVISION N THE COURTS
(fEoM A REGULAR CORRESPONDENCE OF lilt rEiB' MI
AIRANy. Oct IS.-N the conclusion of the
meeting OF the Canal Board for the trial of engineers 70
day, Treasurer Rancs stated that the charge th ne N
obsmcting the course Of law by ls action M the EonId
is unjust He by the repors of the Canal '"nI"is-
sion that violations Of the law had been iftdlrh ho
only in the present Canal Board but apparently III Ill
the previous Boards and he thought was IN "Ncecn
time 10 come back 10 the strict letter of the law While
preparing to try these cu.mceTs i pccufry necessary
that the Board Of Judges should proceed legally. But IT
true that the whole proceeding against the engineers
~ now conducted, is egal The chafgcs have h" come
from The right source It Is plainly provided w Chapter
lG2. Laws OF SIS Section H. that
Whenever the state Engineer and Surveyor or
either Of the Canal Commissioners shall suspect any
fraud or misconduct the part of any rrin"cr "i a.
s>ani IN relation ion To thc tnGe & T"lS' S o,rd 1'i, & @
employ many aId such agents aud 'nsih',ls dN my
mas deem proper TO aid them IN hc nvc legations % lhe
matter, and draw on Their treasury "' ti'lr 'Ii"'
tiCu, etc.
Chapter .i77. Laws Of 1850 give, a. the Canal ConH--
sioncI in charse yy the concurrence ~ the state nei
nccr the pow of removing any engineer ior 'Ac lac
same chapter Section H. gives tbr Canal
with the state Engineer, power to suspend any c'r"'
for misconduct or neglect of dny. reporting such s7li-
sion forthwith to the Canal Board, with hi' reasons
therefor and serving copy Of such ep0r; on The eng
ueers 80 suspended. The Canal Board s'"ll near TIE
proofs and allie cations of the persons into! "d III
charge or retain such cn ,ncrr trry may deem ieh'
These laws said Mn Raincs. the laws mo-" III ior''
10 r,,nrccd further under Tie charges now presented
viii DE uni-c as >ui"cng the decision OF ih" Board
hereafter to q revision hy court before which n r.
moved Engineer may choose 70 carry an aF,H" I"o e
was time when tie Board In session lrt week. q" ir-
trace our steps ana .ta Alright There would thcn nav"
bee no room for thc qubbc that are likely i3 pe no"
n any moment aud ccr1sinl, chance !of an appeal
which @ecluS imminent now oi removal pea
carried u1 by M able lawyer 10 any civ oorti ~" 'he
,ronpd that tin Canal Board acting under thr charges
as now pr scncd is an incompetent court must be- ac
.faed . Sia,r i'll al least lrt to trouble a"d ~
pcusa, and anal Il R'toun viii he h"mpcrct
Attorney General Pratt stated fiat II Is not hc i'r
tiu of himself or any one in the Canal Board. hc III
d,rstands it, 10 reject the testimony aaDI b"fcTe t!i'
Canal Commission. ~ ~ forthcoming trial or i''
contrary he and the other ,acuibef OF the EoIid, hy
bcievcs have been diictntl' studying tic tcsiih"I!
relative 10 thc case in hand contained IN h- printed
ninncs of the Commission ana they ar agreed t''at
tbc testimony snail bc received. But the defendants
c1tcr a plea That the testimony docs not cover all tie
polnts of their defense and II consequently WI be
necessary TO call Il nuuhrr cf Witnesses who have h;cn
oort inc Commission. again. not aloE' to TIC
t,ots covered rs them The printed testimony, lat t1
addi iioual aHl kindred matter