After consultation and mature reflection, the Contracting Board respectfully decline to furnish you with the resolution indicated, and after expressing a hope that this refusal on our part may not impede or obstruct the course of public justice, hinder the setting aside of fraudulent and corrupt contracts, or render powerless the arm of the law to vindicate the honor and protect the interest of the State, if any such offenses have been perpetrated, we will proceed to state the reasons why we decline to have any part or lot in the proceedings designated in the preamble and resolution of the Convention referred to in your letter. We do not know the fact, but we assume that the "authoritative testimony on the files of the Convention," mentioned in the preamble, refers to the printed report of what is called the Legislative investigating committee, made to the Convention, and printed by its order, and if we are correct in this, we respectfully dissent from the bestowment of that dignified appellation upon a mass of verbiage, that does not bear upon its face any authentic marks of a judicial procedure, and we aver, that this alleged testimony is nothing more nor less than the copy of the stenographer's notes of what certain persons stated, when called before the committee or the chairman and interrogated: that these notes were not copied out, and the copies submitted to, approved of and signed by the persons whose evidence or testimony it purports to be. The statements and assertions may be as false or untrue as any fiction can be, and the affiant cannot be convicted of perjury, for he has not admitted that what is there written out is his testimony; and not only this, the committee in this proceeding have not only departed entirely from all precedent in like cases, but have failed to follow the rule directed by the statute in such cases provided, and we cannot withhold an expression of surprise upon reading the asserted fact, that by reason of a corrupt combination among the bidders in December last for the repair contracts: "Such contracts were given to the highest bidders instead of the lowest as the law contemplates." Not one of the seven contracts awarded in December last, nor the eight awarded in March following, was given to the highest bidders, four of these contracts were given to the lowest bidders, as follows: Section 12, Erie canal, awarded to the lowest bidder for $8,952.00; highest bid, $51,000.00; Section one, Oswego canal, awarded to the lowest bidder for $18,500.00; highest bid, 30,000.; Cayuga and No. 4 shows "the number of complaints in each year preferred. before the Board of Commissioners against members of the force, together with the disposition of such complaints, during the period above mentioned." The number of patrolmen was increased in the city of New York, by resolution of the Board of Supervisors, adopted Dec. 30th, 1859, to 1,400, and by like resolution, January 17th, 1861, to 1,800, and in pursuance of chap. 806, Laws 1867, to 2,000. The number of patrolmen was increased in the city of Brooklyn, by resolution of the Common Council of that city, adopted December 13th, 1865, from 300 to 308; by like resolution adopted January 15th, 1867, from 308 to 318; by like resolution adopted June 13th, 1867, the number was increased to 368. By chapter 84 of the Laws of 1866, the quota of patrolmen for Richmond county was fixed at 25. By action of the people of the town of West Farms, Westchester county, in town meeting held in 1866, the quota of patrolmen was fixed at 6. By like action of the people of the town of Yonkers, Westchester county, in town meeting held in the year 1866, the quota of patrolmen for that town was fixed at 12. The rate of compensation for members of the force has been materially increased since the organization of the force in 1858, by several acts of the Legislature. See Session Laws of 1857, chapter 569. By order of the Board of Metropolitan Police, THOMAS C. ACTON, President. STATEMENT No. 1.- Aggregate number of the Metropolitan Police Force, as it existed on the 31st day of |