The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-10

DAILY AND SUNDAY. Per Month s..,.,.. 70
pogtage 70 foreign counties added. 49, )
yacts Moro Eloquent Than Speeches.
Somewhat more eloquent than Lieu
tenant Governor HradINs's speech at
the Republican Club on Saturday night
almost - eloquent even as ELIHU Roots
Impressive argument 70 show that by
record and natural and proper progress
the LOGGED itddcetsqreaf BESJAMrE P.
opHIA, Jr., is FRANK HIadINs-are the
subjoined extracts fyom- the official
minutes Of the Canal Board az itsneeting
Of July 80, 1908:
Attached TO contract, Ns.S.~as SttfDlssree-
men, for dry exesystspa. o. roek at5td:ver subis
gard, q thsrs Sse no price for this work % the
bsddins shest when the contract was made
IA ~ 's - '... "a
Contract No. Q was one OF five con-
tracts held by the Hartman corporation
known as the Furnaceville Iron Company.
There was no rock excavation on the part
Of the canal covered by contract No. 0.
A member Of the Canal Board, Attorney
General CuNNEEN, knew the facts, for he
had lived In that region and was familiar
with the ground. He therefore brought
before the Odell Canal Board twelve wit
nesses who had been employed by the
contractors on this section. They all
testified that no rock Whatsoever had
been excavated there. 49,
IA further extract from the minutes:
II On calling the syes and noes. the resolution
vas adopted BY the following vote:
r On contract No. e,--Ayes. Mr.. HIooma Mr..
Nu4.xa Mr.. Bosp and Mr.. Born, 4. Noes. Nj
ouNrHsH, -
BY the vote of the Hon. FRANK Way
LAND HIaoINs the claim Of the Furnace
Vile Iron Company for pay at rock rates
where no rock, only dirt, had been ex-
cavated was allowed by the Odell Canal
1oard. Mr.. CUNNBEN slone protesting.
NM. HIoouNs had voted with Mr.. CUM
rnnN against the award, or had even re-
t1sed TO vote either way, the fraudulent
Nm would have been defeated; for
the.law requires the Affirmative vote OF at
lsaat four members Of the board on all
anestions involving the expenditure or
Appropriation Of the public moneys.
What defence Of MIR. HIodINs's de-
cisive vote for the Furnaceville Iron
Company's claim has been put forward?
Mono, except that which was offered in
Us behslf ton days ago by his friend
~. oDHLL. - follows:
g Mr. CuNHxnN objected 70 tho award, but was
The only ono of the board who did 90: the others.
q undMstand. voting for It's payment, perhaps
Dot satascly under the belief that his contenticns
vsss eatirciy erroneous but that eertoin money teas
sss ~ isisss pAioh occurred bv reason Of he failure
n ~ essss 10 permit ~ contractor to eonttaus Ms
spsYA. This 10 ofSsu done In business mstters: n
osrtsinly was not improper for the Canal Board 20
vssw from this standpoint, II they deemed II
wise % 70 do"
That b to say. although MIR. CUNNBEN
may have been right in resisting the
swsrd for rock rates for dirt excavation,
the Odsil board was justified on broad
business principles in using the fraudu-
lent item as q means of compromising
the Harrimsn company for another and
different claim, namely. for prospective
pfOuO on CONTRACTS Ooflninateu ny the
suspension Of canal work.
Is that the defence Mr.. FRANK HIGGINS
himself would offer' II so, We pity him
and the various gentlemen who, like Mr..
Roor on Saturday night, have spoken
20 eulogistioally Of his independence.
sincerity and business acumen.
tFor the same minutes from which we
have already quoted show that on that
slfne day Mr.. HIGGINS voted to the
Furnaceville Iron Company, on It's five
contracts, ss4,ssS as direct compensa-
ton for those prospective profits,
which Nj. ODELL says we're indirectly
.snd Illegally made UP to the Hartman
concern, in the form of fraudulent
allowance OF rock rates for digging
dirt s..