been explained to you, that at 12 o'clock there were some eight or ten propositions that had been handed to the clerk; the Board assembled, and there was a committee consisting of somebody, I don't recollect now who.

Q. Contractors?

A. I guess they were contractors that came up while the Board was in session and asked that the period for receiving propositions should be postponed until 4 o'clock; that was before the Board, alleging that there was a large number of contractors that had not arrived, ad the Board, I presume, passed a resolution to postpone until 4 o'clock; I don't remember though; that question was put to the Board and was passed; the board then assembled at 4 o'clock, I was down in my office, or down in the Canal Department, and remained there all the time; no one came and spoke to me, and I exchanged no words with any one; I went up then at 4 o'clock, and the propositions were opened; what took place when I was not in the room, I don't know anything about.

Q. Didn't it occur to you as a very suspicious circumstance that a committee of contractors should want a postponement of the time in order to have more competition?

A. I didn't think anything about it.

Q. Did you ever know of such a circumstance before since you have been Auditor of the State?

A. I guess I never knew such circumstances to occur as did occur last December when I was here; and I am sure I don't want to see it again.

[By Senator STANFORD.]

Q. Did you not read that article in the World, before the awards were made on the 13th day of December?

A. I think not; I think it was handed to me; the 20th day of December was on Friday, and Saturday, Monday or Tuesday I think I saw the World or some one handed it to me, and then I concluded if I was the only man to be indicted, and was the only man selected of the whole lot, to be indicted, not to pay much attention to it, but let it come up to the grand jury, and let them go at it if they liked.

[By Senator GIBSON.]

Q. Can you ascertain what appropriation you paid the De Graw claim out of?

A. Yes, sir.

Adjourned to Wednesday, July 17, 1867, at ten o'clock.

WEDNESDAY, July 17, 1867.

The Committee met pursuant to adjournment, at 10 A. M.

Present-Messrs. STANFORD and GIBSON and Mr. MITCHELL, Counsel for the Committee.

Nathaniel S. Benton, a witness, recalled, and testified as follows: Q. [By Senator GIBSON.] Out of what fund was the De Graw claim bill paid?

A. There is an appropriation act, chapter 85, Laws of 1866; it is the general appropriation bill to pay canal damages, passed March sixth, 1865; act chapter 219, Laws of 1866; another appropriation act to pay canal damages, passed March 26th, 1866; then the act for the relief of Charles J. De Graw, chapter 903, Laws of 1866, passed June 21st, 1866; now on examination I find there was a surplus of the appropriation act of 1865, and a surplus of the general appropriation act of 1866—a surplus out of both those general appropriation acts—after the paying of the awards named in the acts from period to period, out of which the De Graw claim as I say could be paid, and as I say was paid.

Q. Was any part of the De Graw claim paid under chapter 85, of the session laws of 1865 ?

A. I can't tell now without going back and looking at the book to see what appropriation it is charged to.

Q. I asked you last night to give me the authority of law by which that was paid?

A. Well, I give you the authority there.

Q. I want to know what fund it was charged to, and what appropriation raised the money that paid it?

A. I will send you back a memorandum, and you can put it down as my evidence; the answer will be out of one or the other.

Q. Under what appropriation was the award made by the Canal Board to Jarvis Lord, for canal damages of $30,000, paid? A. That was paid out of the ordinary repair fund.

Q. What is the date of the passage of the act to pay Jarvis Lord? A. The date of his act is April 23, 1867. Do you mean the original act?

Q. Yes.

A. I guess that act was passed in 1866; I don't remember the date of the passage of that act.

Q. Was the act for the relief of Jarvis Lord passed June 21st, 1866, being chapter 900 of the session laws of that year? [Handing. book to witness.]

A. Yes; the second section contains this appropriation clause: "The Treasurer shall pay on the warrant of the Auditor of the Canal Department such sum, if any, as may be awarded by the said Board to the said Jarvis Lord or his assigns, under the provisions of this act, out of any money in the treasury appropriated or to be appropriated for the ordinary repairs of the canals."

Q. Was that paid under that section?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Paid under that section?

A. Paid in virtue of that section.

Q. What was the date of that payment?

A. The payment was made in December, 1866, I can't tell whether it was the 8th or the 6th. Now I have an addenda. This is the act 579 of the Laws of 1867, passed April 23d: "If any of the said awards shall have been paid to any of said claimants from funds heretofore appropriated for the repairs of the canals, the sums so appropriated shall be retained from the money herein appropriated. and restored to the funds from which such payments were improperly drawn, and the said money so paid into the treasury of the proceeds of the said tax or so much thereof as may be necessary is hereby appropriated and shall be applied."

Q. Did you draw that section?

A. I did.

Q. For what purpose?

A. I drew it in view of meeting that payment, and one or two others put in that schedule after the Legislature had got to my position, or the Committee had, and that was that you could not pay any award where the Legislature had made a donation, waived the right of the State,-you could not pay them out of the ordinary repair fund.

Q. You have done so?

A. I did in those cases, but the Legislature had not heretofore adopted my doctrine.

The witness withdrew and returned by messenger to the Committee memorandum of which the following is a copy: "De Graw's award was paid out of the general appropriation act, chapter 219, laws of 1866."

Nathaniel S. Benton, being again recalled, testified as follows:

Q. [By Mr. GIBSON]. By your memorandum you say the De Graw claim was paid under the general appropriation act, chapter 219 of the laws of 1866?

A. Yes. It is one of those three acts that I named here.
Q. Do you mean that it was charged to that appropriation?
A. Yes.

Q. What section of that act is it that it was paid under? [witness is shown chapter 219 of the Session Laws of 1866.]

A. Under section 2, paragraph reading as follows: "For awards made by the Canal Board, the Contracting Board and the Canal Appraisers between the first day of January 1865, and the first day of January 1866, where the said Boards have made awards for specific amounts with the interest thereon as now allowed by existing statutes the sum of $337,000, or so much thereof as is necessary for that object."

Q. You examined the books at the office and found it was paid under that act?

A. The entry in the warrant refers to that act.

Q. Was that the act for the relief of Charles J. De Graw, chapter 903 of the Session Laws of 1866?

A. Yes, sir; that is it.

Q. Was that law passed June 21st, 1866 ?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Do you remember how long after that the award was made? A. No, I don't remember exactly, but the award was made along in the fall.

Q. Does the section you have cited, in the act of 1866, authorize the payment of any award made after January, 1866 ?

A. Yes, sir; under the provisions of that other act; take the two acts together.

Q. Will you tell me how?

A. Give me that De Graw act; "The Treasurer shall pay, on the warrant of the Auditor of the Canal Department, to said Charles J. De Graw, such sum if any as may be awarded him under the provisions of this act out of any moneys appropriated or to be appropriated for the payment of canal damages." I think that is plain enough.

Q. But it is only for awards made by the Canal Board between January 1865 and January 1866—not for any others?

A. Does it not read "appropriations made or to be made for canal damages?" If it was not already made it was subsequently made. Q. Why did you insert the De Graw claim in this bill as originally presented?

A. Because I did not know at the time there was any surplus of that appropriation.

Q. How does a surplus of that appropriation enable you to make a payment to De Graw under that act?

A. Because when I take up all I have already paid, and compute what there is to pay between those dates, I find there is a surplus. By Mr. MITCHELL:

Q. How much?

A. Enough to pay that warrant.

Q. Do you say that the canal damages that were to be paid by virtue of section 2 of the Laws of 1866, chapter 219, that there was a surplus over and above the claims provided by that act?

A. Yes.

Q. How much?

A. Enough to pay that award.

Q. How much?

A. I don't recollect precisely what it was; I asked the bookkeeper about the 1st of April; I think that award was assigned about the 1st of April, or between the 1st and 6th; Mr. Wendell came to me and asked me when I would pay it; I told him I wanted to wait until that act was passed-the act of 1867, chapter 579; that I wanted to wait until then, because it was contained in that bill; then it laid along.

Q. Then the committee struck it out?

A. The committee in the Senate struck it out of the act of 1867 ? Q. What then did you do?

A. It left the appropriation perfectly valid under the two previous cts?