New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1889-03-22
REsUMING THE CEILING INQUIRY!
ATToRsEY-GENERAL TABOR ON THE STATES
REMEDY-MoRE EVIDENCE CONNECTING AN
DREws sNAITH AND SULLIVAN.

O4sbWc, nNA1I6 AMI SOt<LANANs
Albany. March 81 speciaD,-There was another
session this afternoon OF the Ceiling Investigating
Committee and tho first witness called was Attorney
General Tabor. Tho evidence brought out to-day
showed moro concluslvely than ever that there
close connection between the contractors on tho cell
ing Job and Superintendent Andrews. The Attorney
Generals evidence was directed toward showing, IL
possible what remedy the State has In the matter.
His testimony In this direction was extremely unsats-
factory, however, and showed that tbs State has q
hard job hand to prove that the contractors are
not entitled to their money.
Mr. Tabor, who was examined by Mr. Seward, adj
mitted that he had drawn the contract at Mr. An
drews's request, although there statute which
required the Attorney General to draw up contracts
for the Controller and the State Engineer who are
the only State officials for whom the Attorney General
draw UP contracts. Witness thought contractor
would be entitled to the amount Of his contract bid,
irrespective Of the cost OF the work and materials fur
nished. 1t would be no crime, according to the laws
Of the State In his opinion, for contractor to put
IN excessive or iusory vouchers, long the amount
thus called for was not In excess Of the amount Of
the bid He thought the money thus obtained
could not be recovered by the State,
provided the contract, was fully. performed
The Attorney General thought that the only way
the State could protect itself was In the payment
Of money in contracts; and said that no had made
provisions in this contract for estimates on which
money paid
Mr.. Tabor then said that somebody had spoken
to him about the extra compensation that Andrews
TO receive, and that he had the matter thoroughly
looked up; but that he heard nothing of 1t In an
official way until after this investigation began. Tho
said that the State had good grounds
for action against Andrews, to recover tho extra
$500 paid to Andrews as extra salary, because
there was a misunderstanding of facts.
Colonel John II. Mooney, Of the firm OF Clark
oBrsen. the aqueduct contractors In New-York, was
the next witness. The testimony given by him was
virtually q repetition Of that taken BY the Appro-
priations Committee. The bid which he made was
based on figures given to him by
Sullivan. This bid vas several thousand dollars
beyond the amount Of the appropriation
Ia didn't see how the STATE could be protected so long
as the work was done by contract and had been ao-
copied by the proper persons In charge.
Edward McEntee, one of the official stenographers OF
the Assembly testified that in place OF making teiVe
or fifteen copies of the plans and specincauons' ~
superintendent Andrews had been done, he had
struck of only six copies. This makes up the six
copies that supposed to have been handed around
among those said to be In the combine
A. r. Hitchcock deputy superintendent OF the
building testified to the political backing which the
various orderiies had from members OF the Legislature
what the purpose of this testimony was is shrouded
In mystery.
In connecting Andrews. snaith and Sullivan
az a aclose corporation In tho control
ot the lob the testimony OF James A. shattuck, who
wanted tho contract for the mason-work, was de-
cidedIy ignorant. He fried unnecessarily to got
COPY of the plans and specifications, but Andrews
showed him the plans in his Office. the
plans contained nothing regarding the yelling TO DO
taken down, and were Incomplete that tho witness
could not mako a satisfactory computation. The
plans that he looked over had the namo Of the firm
OF SuIlIvan a EhIer on them The witness had TO
do an OF his figuring IN Andrews's ONCE.
Iohn kcKlnlay, an iron manufacturer and conUao-
tor had to 70 TO tho office Of sullivan g. Ehlers 10
see the plans for the iron-wvrk.
n A rGroesbecl, cashier of the Commercial Bank
teg1fhed that HIS bank invested Dearly $1,000 In
registered bonds for Snah last October and he Knew
that snsh had invested gil 200 In stocks but did not
know what they were. Tho amount OF this last IN
yestnant and the date on which IL had been made
coYTespond precisely In both particulars with an In
vestnent made by Sullivan. The hearing goes on
tomorrow morning