New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-10-26
THOSE FABULOUS C4YAL CLAIMS.

THOSE FABULOUS CANAL CLAIMS
The Democratic newspapers are buSily at
work endeavOrng by means Of a letter from ms
former law partner to whitewash' Mr.. Hill :
connection with the Canal Ring claims. The
unsupported statements of Mr.. Hills partner,
who shared in the award, are of small account
as an offset to the sworn testimony of many rep
utable witnesses.
Let us examine these statements i'll the hight
of that testimony. Nj. Hills partner, writing
IN Mr.. Hills newspaper, says that they did not
"hunt up" those ancient CLAIMS. james ;.
Locke, who was awarded 81, 40, was asked
on the witness stand why he waited twelve
years before putting i'll claim against the
State. He swOre that he did not know that he
had claim. The following is taken from his
testimony:
Q-You didn't know of tho right this claim A.
No. sir.
Q-You got your information IN some way Al got
1t from Hill and Smith.
Q-Then they communicated to you that you had been
injured, and that you thought you had TINS claim A.
Yes. sir.
Odd you understand that there had TO be law
passed before you had q claim Al understood
that after ii was told me-
Q.-who pay the expense If they didn't get any
thingl A.-They were to pay their own expenses.
MI I'LL lUut llty stCuItu IHtSc CldlIllS
by offering to collect them without expense TO
the claimants, providing he and his partner
were allowed to retain Onethlrd or one-half of
each claim, as the case might be. Persons with
honest claims do not go about hunting up law
yers on such terms, nor would the claims, If
lust, have been allowed to rest quietly for
twelve years. until all evidence of the damag
| had disappeared. But it is not necessary to
suppose anything in this case. Mr.. Locke
and others of the claimants SwOre that Hill and
| his partner came to them and suggested that
they put in claims against the State.
Mr.. Hills partner says further that the State
was "defcnded by able Republican counsel
| Here is the sworn testimony of H. BOardman
Smith, the able Republican counsel referred
| to-
Iswear positively that retained to defend
| the State against those claims
| Neither alleged interviews" printed in
| Democratic newspapers nor the unsupported
statements of man who profited by the trans
action will offset the sworn evidence. Miner l..
Sherwood, Rensselaer, Brown, Curtis Miles and
other reputable witnesses living where the
| freshet occurred testified that the dam
age was not due to the canal ;
hence the claims were primarily fraudulent.
| Samuel Everett said that claim originally
made out for 800 was raised, on the suggcs-
ton of Hill and his partner, to $1,000. Hill
admits that the notorious Patrick got the bill
through the Legislature and that the appropria-
| ton was secured by the assistance of Tweed
| 1t has been shown that the claims were not only
fabulous but that the allowance of nearly
| $4,000 for interest was unprecedented and
preposterous. But great part of the $50, 200
went into Mr. Hills pocket.
| If the whole affair had not been scandalous
the Legislature would not have investigated it.
Mr.. Hill was not then candidate for Office nor
did any one suppose, after his Tweed record,
that he ever would be. There were no partisan
or personal reasons for the Legislature taking
such action. 1t was wholly in the interest of
honest government that the shameful transac-
action was exposed. Mr. Hill cannot invent
partisan reasons now 10 escape the damning
| record.