New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-06-29
ROBERTS ON THE STAND.
THE STATE CONTROLLER TEsTIFIEs BE-
FORE THE CANAL COMMISSION.

popArIoN INTERESTED IN A CONTRACT
MORE EARTH WHICH TURNED TO ROCK
Try TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.l
Albany J,Ine 2s-The Canal Commission heard
Interesting testimony to-day from James A. Rob
erts the State Controller. IN regard 70 the caha'
contracts He proffered himself as witness IN
,,,au Of the statement that he was once stock
holder in the DegraT Roberts stone Vu"'iy
Company. which has furnished stone for oaha'
o.r.cto~ Mr. Roberts stated that he no
sooner knew that the corporation in which ne was
q stoclsholder was interested indirectly In cahai
contract than he sold out his stock lie had 10
sacrifice H. He had estimated its worth 10 DC
$4,000 He sold It FOR $1,000
Mr. Roberts stated at the beginning OF MS 'esu-
,,onv that he had been Controller for nearly nVe
yosrs He had attended. he believed. majority OF
the meetings Of the Canal Board. He was present
whom ne plans and estimates for the propos en-
largement OF the canal under the ss'"V" sche"e
were adopted. l.,
What was the extent OF the examination OF IN
,-stieation OF those plans made by the Canal Board
a, that meeting" asked Mr.. Blackmar. couhseI OF
the Canal Commission.
1T was merely perfunctory answered MI i'oO
erts. 49,, 49,,
snecial engineering knowledge; more IMAM ohe'
Il think only one 80
That is the State Engineer and Surveyor!
Yes. sir
What was the extent OF the examination VI 'I'o
,lans and estimates by the Board as whole for
the purpose OF determhhs "he'"e' ''e' ~ ~
approved or not?'
1T was in the first instance. merely perlunc'oiy'
Let me say that at the time | looked INTO inns
matter and made up my mind that II was oeyonu
my power TO give intelligent judgment on '"ese
mans and specifications unless | went on the
ground and went over It. Otherwise the only thing
for me TO do was TO rely upon the officers who had
in charge the making of these plans.
prom time to time there were contracts for
extra work presented 10 the Canal Board?
Yes. sir"
How did you obtain information as to whether
those contracts should be approved or not7
ION the reports and statements Of the State En-
gtneer and the Superintendent OF Public Works
WAS there at any time a meeting at which any
OF the plans for extra work agreements were pre-
sented that the ratification OF them was refused
by the Canal Board2'
II do not remember any"
And which Of the State officials aid you rely upon
for your information"
81 think largely upon the State Engineer and
more or less upon the Superintendent Of Public
Works"
HOW THE STOCK WAS SOLD.
There was evidence taken In the city Of Roch
ester that the DegrafT and Roberts quarries wero
interested in sub-conract believe. In one OF the
contracts for the improvement OF the canal under
there that you interested in that corporation
or firm. VIII you tell the Commission what your
interest was IL any. and whether 1t a firm
corporaton?"
1T a corporation. organized. think. in 1892
! had been a stockholder in that corporation. and
/ think president OF the company from the time OF
its organization. Mr. Degraf the superintendent
told me he had taken a contract from one OF the
contractors to do some OF the work under Chapter
70. TO furnish stone. told him then that thought
1t would compel me sell my stock and he tried
reason with me that II would not; but after
siderngthe matter | made up my mind that while
1t not legally violation OF the law, 1t vio-
aton Of what the law was in tended TO prevent and
l determined to sell my stock and so notified Mr..
Degraff From that time on used due diligence in
my efforts to sell the stock, but do think that
! had disposed OF IT until some time IN the earlier
part Of January. 1898.
Then I sold the stock to Charles E. Clark. Of
Buffalo"
NO HAND IN THE CONTRACT
did you have anything to do with the negotia-
lions which led up TO the making OF the contract"
Il had nothing to do with that; indeed. had
nothing to do with the making Of the contracts for
number OF years; not from the time we first
started in the enterprise. That had all been done
by MI Regraff, the younger. who was superntend-
What was the extent Of your holdings?"
Il had $1,000 worth OF stock"
a tIat 10 par value
What was the capitalization Of the company
Did you learn that negotiations pending
ior the making Of such contract as that before
the contract was nader
Il did not"
-, And we are to infer you had no knowledge that
or Indirectly in contract or sub-contract?''
Was there anything said between yourself and
MI Degran as to whether this contract was profit
able or not?
Yes; he told me It would be profitable"
sale Sc Sa M a T %as ny ha5 absolute Y
iersst drec, indirect in the stockT' any H.
WOad ryy you object to telling the Commission
~ received $1,000 although inventoried the
stock for FIVE years past at par. and had believed
Has ne Controllers Office any force or means
iST "a g fne of the different de-
And when a certificate comes in. for instance.
on canal work from the Engineering Department.
accompanied by a draft from the Public Works
Papers. OF ascerteining the correctness Of the
None at ALL"
EARTH THAT BECAME ROCK.
John c. Wait. resident engineer Of the Eastern
Division the second witness. testified in reply TO
question on the subject that Deputy State Engineer
Roberts gave him authority 10 reclassify material
once classified earth" rock" H. IN his opin-
ion, any injustice had been done on Contract No.
. Of the Champlain Canal he had personally
classified excavatsd material es EARTH" and then
later had reclassihcd the material rock"
Mr. Wait argued thai he had not rec,assined this
material: he had merely discovered its true char
acter and he'd classed the material as rock.
But" said Smith NJ Weed. you yourself classi-
fed This excavated material once as earth2"
yes sir answered Mr.. Wa o.
And It was paid for as eoTth?" continued Mr.
Weed.
Yes sir"
And then later you called this excavated ma
terial rock. and ii was paid for rock"
yes sir"
Mr. Weed quietly lauShed. 1T appears to me-"
he SAID that this vas clea: case A. reclasshca-
ton"
Mr. Blackmsr counsel for the Canal Commission
also made interesting Comnclt on Mr. Waits
rI,,ior ,n,,fh 10 81 a. II IL sirlnss