236 



1. 7/. Bishop — The State Woi-ls of Pennsylvania. 



the revenue arising from the finished lines of the public works 

 should fall short, as it did last year, about $350,000 of the sum 

 expended in their repairs and superintendence, and that their fur- 

 ther prosecution should be viewed wjth alarm by the warmest 

 advocates of internal improvements by the commonwealth."* 



The report of another committee appointed by the legislature to 

 investigate the conduct of the canal commissioners and their agents 

 and read in the house of representatives, April 7th, 1834,f contains 

 evidence of corruption different from any yet mentioned. It was 

 proved to the committee during their inquiry that there was "an 

 utter destitution of moral principles in the supervision of the Sus- 

 quehanna division, and that the most fraudulent and criminal 

 practices against the commonwealth were carried on by one who, at 

 the very time of his disregard of every suggestion of honesty and 

 prompting of duty, was a judge of l^orthumberland county." The 

 person in question was a supervisor on the above-mentioned divi- 

 sion. According to the evidence which was taken during the 

 investigation, he gave script to a certain laborer for the amount of 

 his wages. The workman was told that this paper would be dis- 

 counted at the Middletown bank. To cover the amount of the dis- 

 count, the supervisor directed the laborer to add eight or nine days 

 to the check roll which was presented to the auditor general. This 

 was done and the state was defrauded to this amount. Moreover, 

 there were brought forward and- sworn to books containing accounts 

 of the number of days each laborer had worked on the canal. From 

 these and other records it appeared that one sum was paid to the 

 workmen and another charged to the state. This was proved by 

 an examination of the auditor general's report. In this way the 

 supervisor padded the accounts of a single foreman to the amount 

 of $381. 



On the Delaware division, the abuses were somewhat different. 

 It was shown to be the practice of a certain supervisor to take state 

 laborers and set them to work on his private property. The time 

 they were thus occupied was included in the pay roll handed in to 

 the auditor general. In a single month the amount of money paid 

 out by a contractor guilty of this practice was $857.88 for work 

 actually done on the public works. During the same period the 



* J. H. Rep., 1841, II, p. 589. 



fSee J. H. Rep., 1833-34, II, pp. 887, 888, et seq. 



