The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-04-22

tndn tIU,VVU or imprisoned not more IMAM
two years or BOTH
The presentmcnt then continues with
Its next recommendations:
wi. That Section $50 OF the Penal
Law be amended SO as to provide
that a conspiracy to commit a crime
shall be the same grade OF crime as
the crime which the conspiracy was
formed to commit and making
conspiracy to defraud the State or
any governmental subdivision thereof
under the law suggested under sug-
gestion v. a felony.
WI. That a law be enacted MAX
ing II a msdemeanor for any person
to solicit a campaign contribution
from contractor engaged on public
work or for any contractor to mako
any campaign contribution to any po-
liticai organization OF the State. q
county or municipality therein"
As to criticising the Board Of Water
supply the Grand Jury presentment says !:
Some OF the men selected as commits
soners have been so subject to political
influence. or 80 incompetent, that their
action in the awarding Of certain con-
tracts has been controlled and directed
by political influence. There is no direct
evidence before us that this influence
tas been exerted for the financial benefit
Of men now officially connected with the
said Board OF Water Supply. but there
Is evidence that there have been occa-
sions upon which there Is reason to be-
lieve that at least one man then officially
connected with the said Board Of Water
supply profited by such transactions"
Blames BenseI's silence.
The presentment th,n relates the story
Of the alleged delivery Of the boatload OF
stone" which was TO-. $41.250. by a rep
'resentative Of Patterson & Co. Of Pitts
burg. to James G. Shaw. as referee, In a
deal for an aqueduct contract
THE bidder" says the presentment.
"was approached on behalf Of a certain
Individual. whose close come elton with
certain prominent politicians was so gen.
orally circulated as I, lend great apparent
weight to any statement coming from him.
with the statement that the award OF this
contract could be obtained by the pay
ment Of a sum OF money equal to 1 per
cent. Of the bid, II the bid was low. and
to per cent. Of the bid. II the bid was
not low
Tho presentment tells Of the depositing
OF AN amount equal to 5 per cent. Of the
bid. in this case" continues the pr
sentiment. "a then member q the said
Board Of Water Supply took an active
part in procuring the acQuiescence OF the
lower bidders In the final award. One OF
the lower bidders in this case was pos
sessed Of better financial ability than the
bidder to which the award was made.
The financial weakness Of the successful
bidder was demonstrated by tie fact that
in the course Of the work II was forced
nto the hands Of receivers, by whom the
work was completed. To US II Is increC-
ible that this award could have been made
without the collision Of a member Of the
board itself
The effort Of this Grand Jury to trace
the final disposition OF the per cent. OF
the amount OF the bid was locked at one
point by the refusal OF a former member
Of the Board Of Water Supply, now the
State Engineer and Surveyor. to testify
under the terms and conditions OF a
waiver Of immunity. which he had al
ready signed and Acknowledged in due
form. and at another point by the entire
failure OF recollection on the Fart OF two
witnesses with respect to all the essential
facts concerning the receipt and delivery
Of what there Is reason to believe was a
substantial part Of the sum paid for the
award OF this contract"
The presentment says that "the pro-
visions OF the labor law. as now admins
tered with respect to public works. are
such as to lend themselves to a use by
torting tribute from contractors en-
gagged upon such public works.
Here again specific instance Is cited
where an indictment could not be found
for the lack OF proper legal evidence. The
presentment tells OF q contractor who got
an aqueduct contract. but feared trouble
with labor organizations. on active
representations made to II by then
member Of the Board OF Water Sup
ply" the presentment says, the contract
ing Arm paid certain Individual. "re-
ported to be closely connected with GER
tain prominent politicians, the sum OF
1000 In return for expert advice on
tho In Or aifuafipn "a q insurance
both legitimate and illegitimate labor
troubles in connection with work to be
performed under the contracts awarded
TO II on this bid" The presentment adds
that the company retained the Individual
a second time. paying him $4,000.
The presentment criticises the salaried
consulting engineers OF the Board of
Water Supply. 1t points to the loss to tho
city OF $3.50. 900 through what the Grand
Jury believes was the fault OF the engi-
neers.
The special Grand Jury was not dis
charged yesterday. 1t is expected to con-
tinue its work
ALBANY, April 2l.-"My work shows
for for itself. and II that Is the sor, of
feeling some people have II is very
curious availed myself Of my rights
under the law"
State Engineer Bensel made this COM
ment tonight on the presentment OF the
New York county Grand Jury which
declared he was UNIT to hold office be-
cause he refused to waive immunity.