Year: 1875

report or the Canal Investigating Commission


An passed June s. 1874 directed the Comptroller
or the State pay William Baxter his legal rep
rcsentatives for building and equippng certain steam
boats for the navigation OF the canals the sum OF
$35 900 on applying for the money TO the Comptroller
In the following month the assignee OF Mr. Baxter was
informed consequence Of the doubtless accidental
omission OF the appropriation clause in the bill there
would DO no fund or which this claim could be paid
until the annual in in the following spring
He stated however that he would pay the claim II the
Attorney General would give opinion that he would
be warranted doing. We will give what followed
in the language OF Mr.. H. H. Van Dyck, the agent and
assignee or Baxtcr:'I asked him (the Comptroer) II
he would obtain the opinion OF the Attorney General
the subject He said he would but inquiry,
IL appeared that the Attorney General was not
In town at the time but he said he
would obtain it his return; / up
again about days afterward and the Attorney Gen.
sral in town, but the Comptroller absent;
called uron the Attorney General TO ask him in
TO the matter whether the Comptroller had asked
his opinion upon that question: and he said he had not


then called the attention OF the Attorney General TO
she act ITSELF and after reading IT, he said he didn't
why il might not be paid II there was money out OF
which TO pay and the conditions OF the act had been
fulfilled; l gave him the certificate showing the
conditions had been fulfilled; he said that inasmuch





lroller were to paying, he would not volunteer any
opinion in the until he specifically asked by
she Comptroller. / then left without seeing the
Comptroller but met him in New York accidentally
Ioon afterward and told him OF my visit
General Pratt, and that l surprised he
had not asked his opinion upon the matter; don't
remember what he gave for not having
Zone IL; but he said that he would do it as under
Itood him distinctly, that he would ask him; not hear
Ing anything upon the subjec>1 came up again, but
think in this very interview in New fork-l am quite
sure il that nterview-he told me that there
was person who had obtained an opinion from the
Attorney General in nearly analogous TO this one
Of Baxter, but that It cost the parties 81 600
FOR the services OF such person. he said distinctly, as
Said before that he would ask the opinion Of the
Attorney General; came up again, perhaps
the Comptroller whether he had asked the
Attorney General for his opinion and he replied
NO. he either said wasn't his business that he
wouldn't out 10 obtain opinions from one for the
purpose Of drawing money from the treasury; but in
the conversation he told that there a person
who he thought might obtain the opinion from the At
torney General; this person had done so in another
Ease but that he required or received 81 600 for his
services in the matter.


Mr. Van Dyck, despairng OF getting the money in
any other way finally concluded to avail himself Of
the services OF the gentleman referred TO by the Comp
trocr who proved 10 be Thaddeus C. Davis the Canal
Appraiser. He says


told him would pay him 81 900 II got the the
Attorney General was a. syrac@ss and this wa:
The next day in the Mr. baxter had received in.
formation from his in Troy that there


a. per cent reduction from the face being the only
Attorney General or snbmttng to the discount
proposed- was anSSas 1 to ava mgse q tss ne Aorney
in the other Mr. Baxter would be compelled TO subm


men, n ocIoek of The olown day by which Time ex
pected receive telegram from syracuse stating whether
The opinion Of the Attorney General had or bad not been OBJ
reduction Of per $500 the exgencies Of
draft for the agreed the second day after


The gentleman Troy here referred to proved to be
Francis 5 Thayer the Auditor OF me Canal Depart
the Comptroller that he gave Mr. Davis letter To take
20 the Attorney General at Syracuse dated January a.
The opinion OF the Attorney General was received at
the Comptrollers Office on the 18th OF January-the
month


why il was necessary to send to Syracuse for the
opinion OF the Attorney General when his Office in
the same building with the Comptroller and up only
one pair OF stairs why necessary the
request his opinion by Mr. Davis instead Of sending
IL BY post, and why case the Attorney General
put of town Mr. HOPKINS could not be content with the
opinion Of the Deputy Attorney General which he had
been constantly the habit OF accepting, both before
and after this incident are questions which Mr.. Hop
kins does not satisfactorily explain. The Attorney
General testifes that, prior the receipt Of Mr..
Hopkins note he had stated 10 the Comptroller in the
Comptrollers office, that he thought there
difficulty about paying his claim that the Legislature
must have intended 1t should be paid the original
provided and that he thought il safe enough
pay IL He left town Immediately after this
saton under the impression that tho Comptroller was
entirely satisfied He received the Comptrolers let
ter conveyed by Davis, at syracuse on the
following morning He says:-"I thought 1t
strange after ] mad understanding with the
Comptroller here, giving my opinion, that he should
write, but then knew he was sometimes very particu
lar to have the opinion Of the Attorney General in
writing and | thought to myself il that is what no
wants, will give HIM my written opinion; gave
him n short opinion reciting that my opinion the
same as had given to him and directed the letter 10
him. The Attorney General says the letter OF Hop
kins left by Davis at his Office and that he had
conversation with him upon the subject Mr. Davis
himself produced the following letter received the
night before he started for SYRACUSE


DELEyAS HousE, ALBasr, Room io7, Jan. Ie 1875.
discount at Troy was out of town . failed e see hm
must rely your exertons collect the claim will i'm
sum of 1900 as stated Please act with such promp I
dude you find practicable and oslige yoars uy


The Deputy Attorney General also testnes that he
had been visited by the claimant his agents. that he
examined the question: became satisfied or the Comp
troer's authority 70 pay the claim and one day, when
casually In the Comptroers Office on other business
stated TO him that parties had been him twice
had rather excited his sympathies for their pecu-
MARY condition, and that If the Comptroller wished
his views the objections TO paying the award he
would like 20 hear the Comptroler's opinion before he
decided he had heard the argument OF the claimant
20 which tho Comptroller replied that he didn't wish
any opinion from Mr. FarchLd He didn't want any
opinion from anybody but the Attorney General,
'whereupon,n says Mr. Fairchild, IL begged his par.
don for having partially volunteered opinion and
went out.


Thus 1t appears that considerably more than month
lapsed after Mr. Hopkins had expressed his difficulty
about making the payment OF this CLAIM without the
opinion Of the Attorney General before he made appl
cation for H. though when he did, 1t was furnished
without the loss OF a single mail II did not
lime 70 be OF any service to the state creditor who
was obliged pay S. 500 10 obtain what only hs
legal right From the testimony OF Mr. Thaycr and
Df the Attorney General II appears that before
Mr. Thayer closed his negotiations with Nr. Van Dyck
pc bad asceraned from the Attorney General in person
that his opinion was favorable 10 the payment OF the
claim II also appears that the Auditor and Comp
roler had full understanding with each other in
regard 10 the pressing necessities Of the Baxter
Claimants, and the various efforts making 10 remove
the technical obstacles 10 their payment. but nm.
fortunately for them, Mr., Thaycr was IN a postIon
10 learn the Attorney Generals opinion by which
ne put INTO hs pocket $4,000 that he was
not entitled TO- and for the want ar which
they Obliged to sacrifice the So 500 that thev were
entitled TO- y docs not appear that Mr. Thayer enoved
any facilities for obtaining opinions from The Attornev
General that were not equally enjoyed by tie Conn
trollcr while II does appear that the claim Was finally
paid the opinion OF the Attorney General for which
Mr. Van Dyck had TO pay 81 900 instead Or $1,000