New-York tribune., 1907-01-31
GRAFT CHARGES MADE
THE .SEELEY HEARING.
accused Former Official Refute'
Charges Before SuW. Sterens.
lr, telegraph 70 m Tritunt. J


Aibany. Jan. 30-Charges OF petty graft were
made against Frank B Seeey. the discharged
superintendent Of rerairs at Lock 10 Of the Erie
Canal. al uie hearing before Superintendent
Stevens OF the department IF Public Works. 10
day. Afidavits prepared by several canal en-
ployes on which Superintendent Franchot based
his discharge Of Mr. Seeley, we're testified 10 by
witnesses. Some Of these charges were NOT an
swerod directly by Mr.. Seeley who testified In
his own behalf. Others were explained. nut.
taken as whole. the hearing revealed an ap-
parent lack Of discipline among tho canal en-
pIoyes and a general spirit Of disregard for the
states welfare
Underneath the hearing lay touches of poll
ties which appeared here and there Telling
shout a set Of orders which were sent along 10
the canal men. Mr.. Seeley said they came from
Mr.. Tubbs. of Rochester"
And did you obey them?" asked superintend-
ent Stevens
''Oh. yes" replied Mr.. Seeley: I'VE were sup
posed 10 obey any orders which came in that
way just the same as If they came from the
superintendent himself"
Who was superintendent then7"
George ". Aldridge." said Mr.. seeley.
adding: That so. wasn't it. Mr.. Mead?"
turning to Winslow NJ Mead. deputy superin-
tendent
official, who comes from Mr.. Aldridge's town.
where the Mr.. Tubbs IN question is well known.
Among the charges made against Mr.. Seeley
were those that he hauled lumber for his private
stave mill or state scows; that his son Charles.
carried on the payroll his clerk. spent most
OF his time at the mill: that fewer lockmen were
on duty than required by law; that those
who didn't work at the locks either worked on
the Seeley farm at their own proper occupa-
iion zone drove ar ice wagon. another kept
haloon); and that many canal men were not COM
PEELED 10 wear their badges. which they said
were too heavy"
w ID. Aicholoy. Of Rochester, assistant super
intendent OF public works for the western divi-
sion, who had Mr.. Seeley investigated. testified
10 much Of this o. A. EggIestOn. Of Newark
Wayne County, lock tender who did some OF
the investigating. told about more OF IT, and said
ihat of the lock tenders in Mr. Seeley's
jurisdiction took money from the boatmen who
passed through the locks. which was contrary 10
the law.
Seeley himself entered a general denial OF the
charges. He did not in his testimony specifically
refute the charges about the lumber or the use
Of the states crane He said the men under
him were required to do their duty and If they
did not he discharged them. II was q physical
3npossibiity for him TO watch each Of HIS
1wenty-three subordinates. He was at work all
the time, and his son was not absent when he
should be working, although he gave some at
fentiOn 10 the stave mill. He believed there
might be some collecting Of money from the
bOatmen among his subordinates though this
was for extra services rendered TO the boatmen.
lie had never seen any money passed. Some
time ago he had discharged two men for this
and now the men were shy when he was
around.
superintendent Stevens took the case under
advisement- There is an impression that he
may not reinstate Mr.. Seeley. and that a great
housecleaning among the canal employees may
result The superintendent said that in auv
future case of sufficient importance he would
bold public hearing