Page images
[ocr errors]

ney from the treasury upon the commissioners’ orders, as directed by the act of 1825, and paying it upon their drafts in favor of the persons entitled to it, and taking their receipts for such payments.

Rendition A, voucher No. 34, 1st $10,000, ............ $50 00 4. 4% 44

B, 13, 2d “ . . . . . . ...... 82 50 “ C, “ “ 11, 3d “ ............ 85 00 “ D, “ “ 35, 4th “ ............ 80 00 “ E, “ “ 10, 5th “ ............ 80 00 “ F, “ “ 7, 6th “ ............ 80 00 “ G, “ “ 15, 7th “ ............ 80 00 “ H, “ “ 27, 8th “ ............ 80 00 {{ I, 4& 44 18, 9th Co. - - - - - - - - - - - - 80 00

[ocr errors]

George W. Fitch was the treasurer of the commissioners until the 8th draft of $10,000 had been drawn and accounted for, and his deposition is referred to for proof of these payments to himself. There seems to have been no standard for fixing this allowance, other than the judgment of the commissioners as to the actual value of the services performed, and, as will be seen by the charges, there was considerable variation in the allowance upon the three first sums drawn, but after that they seem to have settled down upon an uniform allowance of $80, or à per cent.

Jeremiah Foote was the successor of Mr. Fitch, and his deposition is referred to for proof of the payment to him of the 9th sum drawn. The 10th draft, completing the $100,000 appropriated, has been drawn, and vouchers for the most part of it have been returned, but as a part yet remains in the hands of the treasurer, no voucher for his commission or allowance has been returned.

Compensation to the Secretary of the Commissioners.

The accounts show that the commissioners also appointed a secretary, as by the act of 1825 they were authorised to do, and the following payments were made to him, as a compensation for his ser

Rendition. Vouchers. -
A. No. 23, from appointment to 26 Dec. 1825, $100 00

B. 12, from 26 Dec. 1825, to 24 June 1826, 12 50
C. 16, from 24 June to 28 September, 1826, 3 75
D. 14, one day, 27 Jan. 1827. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 50
44 30, four days from the 29 June, 1827, .. 10 00

$128 75

As this office appears, from the accounts, to have been dispensed with after the last date above given, it was thought it might be more satisfactory to show the time covered by each voucher. Asher Tyler was the secretary, who was not examined. It was said that

very considerable duty was required of him during the first season, preparatory to the actual commencement of the work, and while the surveys were making, as well as in reference to the letting of the jobs pursuant to the act of 1825, which justified this allowance for that season. After that time the payments to him, as will be seen, were very small.

In one case the payment will be found not to correspond with the voucher, as entered on the abstract, in amount, but the residue of the amount of this voucher will be found entered under the head of miscellaneous payments, it being for sundry small payments which he had made, and which were allowed to him by the commissioners.

Costs of Suits and Arbitrations.

The following payments, shown by the vouchers contained in the last rendition marked K, appeared to have been made for costs incurred in consequence of suits brought against the commissioners, to wit: Voucher No 12, for attending two suits, one at Jacks' Reefs, and another at Syracuse, and for payments to witnesses, and for other expenses, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $36 68 <& 13. This is a charge for attending two suits also, and at the same places, but at different times and with different

parties, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 50 44 19. For attending twice at Jack's Reefs in

the same suits, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 00 44 28. Payment for assistance and advice in

settlement of accounts, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 00 44 31. Payment of a judgment and costs ren

dered against the commissioners,. . . . . 13 10 44 32. This voucher has been rendered with

the last one on the abstract, since the investigation, and therefore they were , not the subject of inquiry. This is a payment to two counsel, of $50 each; to three arbitrators of $16 each, for 3 days services, and to the sheriff for bringing up a witness upon habeas cor- *pus, $6.63, the whole being for the settlement by arbitration of a suit depending between William L. Perce and them in the supreme court, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 63

[ocr errors]

It will appear from the testimony that the commissioners have

been involved in considerable litigation, growing out of the personal

roperty which was mortgaged to them by Perce to secure the ful[A. No. 70.] 6

filment of his second contract. Several persons claimed interests in the property, or parts of it, and as the commissioners disposed of or used it, suits were brought against them. Much ill feeling was excited, and there is reason to believe, from the frequency of those suits, and the remote distances they were brought from the scene * of the transactions, that they were made greatly vexatious and expensive to them, whether such was or was not the design of their prosecutors. The propriety however of crediting them with these expenditures, by virtue of the law under which they act, has been a matter of considerable doubt in the mind of the Comptroller. He has no doubt that the payments have in fact been made, but whether the law authorises them, out of the moneys appropriated to drain the Cayuga Marshes, is the question.

Miscellaneous Payments.

The following payments do not admit of classification, hardly any two of them being for the same object or same description of services. They are therefore put under the head of miscellaneous payments. They embrace charges for printing notices for letting contracts, for blank books and stationary for the secretary and treasurer, for postage paid upon the letters to and from the printers, for special messengers, for the use of horses and waggons for such messengers, for hands to row boats to make examinations of the river and the bars therein, by the engineer and commissioners, and for a great variety of the like services.

Rendition. Vouchers.

A. Nos. 14, 20, 26, in all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $9 75
D. 13, 14, in all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 50
G. 10, 12, 13, 14, in all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 00
H. 1, 17, 26, in all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 18
I. 6, 12, in all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 32
K. 14, 23, 24, 26, 29, 33, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 63

[ocr errors]

A very large share of the above will be found to be but parts of vouchers entered on the abstract, being in most cases connected with the drafts of the commissioners for services, and constituting the remainder, in each case, of the voucher which is not entered in their accounts for services before given. In one of the vouchers receipted by the secretary, this is also the case.

Rendition I, voucher 12, above given, is for $43.57, and was a balance found due to the late treasurer of the commissioners upon a settlement with him, which was paid to him by his successor. All the above payments appear to be well vouched by sub-receipts, attached to the drafts of the commissioners, and there would seem to be no doubt that the payments were made in good faith, as they have been allowed by the commissioners. As to a very few of the items, and to a very small amount, there may be some doubt as to the propriety of the expenditure under the law; but those cases, if any, do not now occur to recollection, and the number and manner of these payments do not permit the detail of each, as a very large share of the whole amount consists of separate payments of less than one dollar.

The $1,086.01 in the hands of Jethro Wood.

It will be seen by the deposition of John Jackway, that, on the 19th Dec. 1829, a settlement was had between him and Mr. Wood, in relation to this money; that Mr. Wood presented an account of payments which he had made, amounting to $330.89; that he satisfied Jackway and Dr. Fitch, who assisted in examining the account and vouchers, of the correctness of the charges; and that Jackway took Wood's note of that date, for the balance, after allowing #. the account so presented, that balance being $755. 12. Towards the close of Jackway's deposition, will be found a detail of the charges allowed to Mr. Wood upon that settlement, designating such as were supported by vouchers and such as were not. The list of demands supported by vouchers, as will be seen by the deposition, amounts to $169.89. The vouchers for these payments were exhibited upon the investigation, and carefully examined; and they seemed to support the charges made, except in the last instance. The payment to Jeremiah Foote, for assisting engineer, $3, it is believed is included in voucher No. 34, of Rendition D, and ought not, therefore, to be allowed. A charge of the same kind, for similar services and to the same amount, is included in that voucher, and Mr. Foote could not recollect that he had ever, but upon one occasion, rendered such assistance or received such a payment. This will reduce the amount to be eredited to Mr. Wood, upon this list of vouchers, to $166.89. In this deposition will also be found another list of payments amounting to $11, none of which were supported by vouchers, as the witness testifies. He says, that from his recollection at the time, and from the information then given to him, he was perfectly satisfied that the payments had been made as charged, and therefore he allowed them. This evidence will not authorise this allowance at this office ; and should the Legislature believe, from the testimony, that Mr. Wood is entitled to the credit, their direction will cause it to be given to him. Three other items were also allowed to Mr. Wood at the same settlement: the first was for a watch, $50. The history of this watch will be sound detailed in Mr. Jackway's deposition. The following is all that is required for the present purpose: Negus had left the work on the drain, where he had acted as the agent of Perce, and John Buck had been appointed the agent. A man by the name of Hazzard had been employed upon that work, and fifty dollars were due to him for his services. Mr. Wood owned the watch in question, as his private property, and he agreed to let Hazzard have it for his claim for the services, and was to send the watch from Jack's Reefs to Montezuma, where Hazzard had agreed to receive it. Wood sent the watch by a person by the name of Harper, who ran away with it and did not deliver it to Hazzard. On the strength, bowever, of Wood's having assumed the payment of the $50 to Hazzard, Buck, then the agent of Perce, allowed him the amount in the settlement between them. That Wood lost the watch, would scem to be satisfactorily shown ; but that fact does not entitle him to charge the loss to the public, or authorise the allowance of such a charge, if made, at this office : that $50 cannot, therefore, be passed to his credit. The next of these items is a charge of $50, for the payment of this very debt to Hazzard. This is conceded by Mr. Wood himself to be a mistake, as he was allowed in the settlement with Buck for this payment: this $50 should therefore also be re-charged to him. The third of these items is $50, allowed to Mr. Wood because he presented a note given by Perce to the treasurer of the commissioners, and said he had taken up the note, and that it had gone to the credit of the Perce contract. The witness, however, does not know how it was arranged between Wood and the treasurer: the rational supposition is, that the note had been taken for some advance made by the treasurer to Perce or Negus, and that when a draft was presented in Perce's favor, the note was deducted from the payment, and that thus a voucher for the amount of the note had been given to the treasurer, and had been by him returned to this office, to account for the money he had drawn. The witness is unable to say that this was not so, and neither Mr. Wood or Mr. Fitch could explain the transaction, as both were at that time inquired of respecting it. The opinion was, therefore, and still is entertained, that Mr. Wood ought not to be credited for this charge upon the evidence as it now stands. This closes a review of the attempt to account for the $1,086.01 in Mr. Wood's hands. lf, then, the conclusions above expressed be correct, the matter will stand as follows: Amount remaining in Mr. Wood's hands not paid to Buck, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $1,086 01 Accounted for to Jackway on settlement,........... - 166 89

Remaining in his hands unaccounted for, ............. $919 12 Of this sum he has given his note for . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755 12

Leaving in his hands, to be secured, ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . $164 00

Money remaining in the hands of George W. Fitch, late

It has been before seen that one of the vouchers given by the Richardsons for $1,400 was that paid by the sum of $510, while the receipt to the full amount of the voucher was given and returned by the treasurer to this office, and passed to his credit; thus leaving in his hands, on the settlement of his account, this amount of $510.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »