The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1909-06-01

SVSSN sNS
n our fnsfds pho rasor 10 t4fh aoause1pfs 10,
eshicd'soB utsh 10 hare rejected articles returned
eA<y mua IN Az cases send stamps for naf puyposs,
The Canal swindle May Now Get
Into the Courts.
The barge canal act OF 1908 was the
ehaneless compact Of the Odellized Re-
publican party in the Empire State with
sswarm Of grafters and p~lunderers and
pilterers Of the public funds. For the
art Tina since the politicians and the
Contractors began to shovel the millions
out OF the Treasury the question of the
constitutionality of the law Is now in a
way to be decided by the Court of APP
peals. Proceedings that lead in that
direction have been begun recently in
the interest Of certain property owners
IN Monroe county.
It may be remembered that soon
after the passage Of the law commit
ting the State to an expenditure Of
SOL, 00o, 900 and in all probability in
vofving a further expenditure of from
tv1oe to four times that stupendous min
imurn the validity Of the act was denied
BY sorne Of the best lawyers in the
United States. Among those who held
the opinion that the law was uncon-
stitutio1al we're the Hon. CHARLES
ANDREWS, former Chief Judge OF the
Court Of Appeals, and the Hon. ELIHu
Rpor, now representing New York in
the national Senate and by many peo-
pie regarded as the actual leader of
the Republican organization in the
State. Other lawyers of equal dis
tinotion share the views Of Mr.. Roof
and Judge ANDREWS, but we mention.
them specially because OF the remark
ably clear argument which they sub
naitted during the unsuccessful attempt
to induce the Attorney-G General to take
up the CAUSE Of the taxpayers and check
TIA llsesl waste Of money at the very
start. The material parts Of the brief
Of Senator ROOT and Chief Judge
ANpREwe are reproduced on this page.
In visw Of this new hope Of a judicial
rssi6w Of the entire barge canal swindle
The argument OF these distinguished
juriseonsults ought to be studied now
With avidity.
The earlier effort to test the consti-
OF the canal improvement
lsw, in which the late JOIN l. PLATT Of
Poushkeepsie bore SC important and SO
hpnarable q part, failed because Attor-
MAYER refused in 1905 to
bring a case before the courts. remark
Inc in eject that the matter would soon
come up in regular course in the suit
some property owner Directing to
hsve bis lands taken for canal purposes.
The Poughkeepeie Eagle points out how
remarkably successful have been the
and b~eneficiaries of the huge
job in preventing or evading such pro-
ceedings up to the present time:
-,The snorts OF the opponents OF the canal then
esntrsd upon having such a suit brought by .
bona nds land owner whose land was crossed by
NE canal IS planned. Several such parties were
fouad and were willing and ready TO bring suit,
but In each case the canal authorities succeeded
elthsr 10 buying them OF, or deferred action upon
that sectIon Of the canal. In one place when a
suit was threatened work on the section was de.
ferred because there wa not a single bidder
when the contracts were advertised. lnssmuch
~ Organised opposition 70 the canal expenditures
eeSsed With Ar. PLArI's death some OF these land
swpers who Intended to resist were aftsrward
psEyssdsd out OF II and work on those sections
~ pfeeesded. On others II Is still held up. II We
ore .eofFsety informed"
We now call attention to the impress
Bivspwords Of warning with which Mr..
Rodr and Judge ANDREWS concluded
thsiy ArgunaAnt a. to this laws unoon-
btitutonality. They were urging the
Attorney General TO take up the case
In the common interest of all tho people
aud push It to q decision before the ex-
penditure Of any part Of the Siol, ooo, 600.
They said to MI. MAYER:
The time will come when special and personal,
Interest VIII DO Affected BY the Attempted execu.
tion Of the sct. and those interests will test Ito
validity IN the courts; but before thai time comes
The slsts will already have become involved In
vsst oeiigsnonS, by The issue OF bonds and the
mstine u oessrscts' end for these. however 10.
valid they may be beid 70 BE-, the credit and rood
uans of ths Sssts viii require that some provision
msds. Crest expease 10 teing constantly
Incurred which viii hsys bees wasted u the &C,
hsld unecnsatuuopsl."
This prophecy has been fulallsd in a
startling fashion. The amount Of az
psnditurs for work which the State has
slrvsdy hniahed on it, probably unoon-
MISUNDERSTANDING, plus the amount
involved IN work under contract, Is al
rcady somewhere betwsen thirty and
forty millions Of dollars. That much
has been wasted IL the law is held to be