The reason vour committee consider this transactioQ so vory
odious, Rf isi)8 from the circumstance that Mr. Hunt knaw at Iba
time 6[ his appointment, that he was advertised as a pubKa da-
fiiulter, or a fugitive from justice from the st^e of New York :
and yet, under such cireumstanoes, to phce liiai in a sitoatioa
whereby he cooki plunder the people of this state, was ao ac* sa
flagrant, that year committee are at a loss to aoeouol for the uu^
tives that prompted the measure. To explain mora M\r the
manner in which he succeeded in coverh^ up his transaettoos, wa
wiH state, that it appeared in evidence there were aaHMfoua »-
staaces, in which he disposed of the state property to those who
had daiois agamst the stale, and at the same tisae, la^ainrf tbeai
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
HOUSB DOGUMENTa HI
to tigD f^Qoeban^ ns ibr money, paid, thereby eaaUkig Urn to
pofd^ei the amount of the sale without fear of dotectioo ; and it
was ooly discovered by the testimony of the individuals wiUi
whom such transactions had taken place, and by a comparison
with the pay rolb of hands.
How nr Afr. Hunt should be held liable for these sales, or fcr
tftts money, is a matter that your committee do not feel called up«
on to cSkr an opinion. The fact will enable the House to judge
with as much certainty as the committee.
That the state has suflbred severely from the manner in wbioh
this bumess has been conducted by' those agents, is a matter so
•el&evident to all those who seek information, that your commit*
tot need not offer further proof in relation to it
Yet to nlence all cavil and put the matter beyond doubt, yoor
eommitlee will mention one fact more, amoi^ numerous others^
that sn^t be oflbred.
A prsctiee prevailed to some considerable extent, and which
your committee are of the opinion was exceedingly pernicious^
and which a careful supervision would have prevented, namely,
the attowtng these superintendents to certify to the correotoesi
of tbeir own accounts^ whether the same were for wages or pro*
perty sold.
Our second propositioo relates to transactions which we belioM
to be of recent origin, and your committee are of the opinion, that
Ibey are confined to the operations of this particular commission-
er. We particularhr allude to payments that have been made to
several individuals tor the buiUing of bridges where the Clinton
and Kalanaaoo canal crosses or will cross their farms when eon-
sHuetod, and this too before the bridges were buih, and without
any evidence that an)r thing had been done towards their building.
IVnat renders thk still more objectionable, is, that the vouchers
shew thai the bridges have been huitt and the labor performed.
Il 6irther appears that the Auditor General, nor the board ^
intemal improvenient, knew nothing of the circumstances^
In our tnird proposition, we would call the attention of the
House to an item m the accompanying documents^ where It will
appear that twenty^one hundred cords of wood, or thereahojnls^
were puschaaed by this oommissioner before the road went into
operation, and long before any thins like that quantity could bn
wanted if the stats. The loss by fire and otherwiss^ of a con-
si d sg a hla partaen of the same since, has convinced all, that the
state affain must pocket the loss»
AjKWMr suhyeet, in conoection with (his part of our iniiuiry,
naay uot improperly he alhided to. It appears by the testimony
thai waaeneited during the course of this exanniastion» that John
Beach was instructed to purchase in this city, artkJss of prov»>
siens aaigroeesiB^ and ship them for Saginaw* to the care of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
im HOUSB DOeUAfBNTa
oQe€hmlifier D. Williams. The purchases were made in tbe
&I1 of 1887, to the amount of about $4,000, and paid for by Mr,
Hunt, which transaction will ultimately coat the state several
hundred dollars ; as some of the property was sold on credit, ami
other part for wild cf. . money, which is now totally worthless^
and will in all piobability continue so. Your committee cannot
help believing that this transaction was entirely unwarranted by
faiw, as it was inexpedient, unnecessary and unwise.
In support of our fourth proposition, the testimony of Mr.
Adams, the clerk of the board of commissioners of internal im-
provement, is most important. His testimony established the facts,
that be was boarding at the time at the house of the collector of
this port, and that Mr.. Hunt requested him to say nothing on the
snfaject of thdse blankets.
^ As. the nmlter has been a iSubject of indictment, the House and
the country, no doubt, have the necessary information conoemio|f
it Yet your cemmittee cannot well pass it by without giving an
opinion.
It seems to them that the credit of the state should be placed
in bands that will not disgrace it, and whose example would in«
Gukate virtue rather than vice. It would seem to be unnecessa*
ry to attempt to prove that this commissioner has manifested ra*
tber a desire to subserve his own interests than those of the
state.
. After making the statenients we think we are warranted in
setting forth in this report, yet if further testimony is sought, it
will be found in most, if not all of his votes cast, as a member <^ih».
board of mternal improvement, affecting his own interests ; and
when the board were equally divided, his casting vote would de-
termine the question in his own favor.
How far this itiay be thought to be correct and proper, your
committee will not pretend to determine : yet your c<immittee am
^f opinion that a contrary course would probably have placed
Mr. Hunt's pecuniary matters* as well as his conduct, in a differ-
eni position before the House and the country.
Your committee have had occasion to observe through the
course of this examination, that General Humphrey, as also Mn
Lothrop, since he beoan>e a member of the board, have umformly
sustained Mr. Hunt in ail his positions.
. It will also be perceived that Obed Smith was paid by Mr.
Hunt's agents, for services as a superintendent, while at the same
time, he was a contractor upon the public works.
Your committee are of opinion, from the testimony before them,
that this contract to Smith was let under suspicious chcumstances,
without public notice^ and upon better terms than others wete
willing to take the same.
Widi respect to the description of funds disbursed, upon the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
HCmSB DOOUMBNTSi VM
fotA tbe wtaMftes genersHy lettified, that it mtMly ccdsisted of
the worst kind of our safety fund notee, ii> dh«ct violation €X the
liiw I thereby causing the pixir, hard laboring man, in many in
Mancas; to sustain ^erioua Josses, which he Could ill aliurd to
tear. ♦
' Your committee are inclined to think, that when good funds
are received, cither by cocnmtssioDerB or contractors, the opera*
five. should invariably receive the samo for his labor.
Another fact that might have, perhaps, been more properly
motition^d in* the first part of this report, was sabstantiated by
frroof beyand a doobt> in wh*eh Mn Hunt exhifoita a perfect disf
regard to his awn rqputation*
It appears that one Cody was a contractor on the central rail-
road, «md in presenting his final estimate for adjustment^ received
the turn tif 91^294, to which he was not entitled.
' It saoms to be the usual practice, aa it regards contractors, to
withhold 15 per cent from each estimate, as a guarantee for the
fefthful performance of the contract, which deductions are always
nwiuded in the final estimate. Through negligence or some other
cause, the 15 {)er cent was twice added to the final* estimate.
After the ftct was known, that said Cody had been paid more
than her was entitled to receive, his voudliers were placed in the
hands of the Attorney General, with a view to collect the amount
overpaid, previous to the Auditor General assuming his dutv of
examining accounts ; and Wm* B. Hunt, well knowing the facts
and cipoumstanced attending the caae, and while it was in course
of Htigati6n, takds oile of tl^ vouchers out of the Attorney Gen-
erara hands, and presents it tu tlie Auditor General for payiiiept»
without informing him of the facts connecleid with it, which that
ofiicer refused to audit, for the reasons assigned in his communica-
tion addressed to your committee and accompanying this report.
* Your committee would 8raw your attention to the heavy
amount of cost Incurred by engineering on some of the works erf*
italefnni improvement before clrjsing this report.
It appears by reference to document marked (L.), that the en*
gfneerifig on tlie central railroad, up to 21st February, 1889,
amounted fo §29,656 65, including $4,851 88, expended by the
company who disposed of their right to the state in 1837. And
the enizineering on the southern railroad, under the supervision of
Gen. Humphrey, amoutJted to $47,466 90, during the same peri-
od of time, as will l)e seen by referring to document marked (L.)
This last mentioned sum, your committee feel bound to say, as
appears from the vouchers on file, has been swelled to this enor-
mous timount by useless and extravagant expenses, justly as
chargeable to any other object, aj to that of internal improve-
ment.
By referring to document marked (L,) the cost of engineering
98
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
V64 H0U8B DOOUM Bins*
cm im GimtoQ Md Kalunzoo omkI, vmier tbo n>Mi>gtof iaOMs
B. Hunt, will be found to amount co 906^^7 37«
Uoder this flame Commissioner, the oott of engineariog.oii ^tm
Saginaw canal* (document marked L,) in the year 1837» amouBls
to ten thousand nine hundred thirty-two dollars and sen^nty-eq^
eentfl, wbtoh, eonsidering the distMoe surTeyod, your ooMnilcae
ooneeive a ^wy extrayaganl amount in one yeaf •
Your committee. now proceed Co give the result of their invs^
tigation into the espeodittires and other maiteors oonneoted with
the SoutiierB railroad, under tke tupervisicio of ijevi 8. Honi*
phrey, who neorived hia appointment aa acthig CommiasioBer ^m
the above road, on the 10th of May, 183t,and was re-appoialad
on thb 9th of If ay, 1886.
Your conNtthtee will pneaeot the facts and atattmenta aa Ihqr
appear, from the booka and Touchers now in the office of die
board of taiemal improTemeot, as well as (rcim those in the office
of the Auditor General, from the commencement of said Oma*
esiisioner's operations up to the dlst day of Febroary, 188^
showing a correct statement of all the expendittirea ap to aaid
date, on the works under bis direotioo.
In compliance with ike request of yourcomrdttee, Gen. Hum*
phrey lias furnished the following letter, with accompaayiog do*
eumeots, marked A, B and C.
OwncK OP xm Boam» op IifmurAL Inraofi—ff, )
jMm^4prtl6»1880L y
7b T. P. Tueker, Esq., Chairman of the Committee of hwes^
ti^dtioTL
Dbab Silt-*-
I herewith enctose a statemept of the omoum o( moneys re-
ceived b\ me as agent of the board for the purchase of irqOi wd
the manner in which it has been appliedi as far aa payaieata baft
been made*
Abo a statement of mf account aa actiag Commissiooer firooa
the d^te of my report, January Isty 183^ up to the praaaqi
tioie.
Also copies of the resohitions of the board*
In comparing my aocouota with the accounts of the Auditor
General, there may be a variance on account of Touchera pvo»
duced and paid by me, but not allowed by him«
Yours respectfully.
L. S. HUMPHREY.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
H0U8B DOClOfBff TSi «»
To Thie P. Tucker, Esq., Chatrmdn of the ' Committee of In-
vestigation*
in pufBUaacf with year raquest, I herewith prMent a «tate*
iOMitjof the amouot of moncyS'ivceivGd by me as agent of the
board, for the purpose of paying for iron purohaaed under a re*
solution of the legislature, by virtue of the tereral nesoialiooi of
the board faerevRilHsubmiUsd: beii^in ail .i7M89 12
The above sums were placed to my credit in the Miohigao
state bank.
..The bauk has drawh a draft jn favor cf Hioka in €a, of New
Yorktfbr 928,Q0Q 00
They bate.al^ dmWA a dtaftin favor of J. H.
Whitoey^Jor «,207 M
. Both (f ivhioh havro beoa paid . .
. Tbery have tilsa jdmwn a draft in favor of Bene*
diet,BiMlConuogt of Albany,^ 5,000 00
The balaao^ due Hicks & Go. of •19/)00,and the
akmUot due Davis, Brookt.&Ca for •15,10fl J2, Mr.
Norton agreed to arrange in New York. Ihavebderi
i^dvisad tiai they were not foid. I have sinoefBade
an acraai^Dieiit with Datis^ Brooks & Ca acoordiog
Xb their reouestt and obtained a draft on the Bank oS
the River Bauin, for 15,000 00^
payaUe im New York at ninety days, whiob is satis- .
lactory to them and made at their request
1 luive pdd Messr& J. L. Wbituig 6s, Co, for
transportation, 1,300 00
Which leaves in my hands, dO«Oai 21
I have DOW in my hands the warrants of the Auditor General,
for the sum of twenty thousaod dollars^ which might be applie4
on that accoutSt if it should npt be settled by Mr. Norton.
(DOCUMENT R)
* RMohlttons of the board :
"^ Ritsohred, That the Auditor General be directed to dthw tni
Mii*nttlt te favor of Levi S. Humphrey, agent of the fcoafd of
kHennd ttirprovement, to purchase railroad iron, the sum of twenty-
e%M thoiMMlnd dollars, to pay for railroad iron purchased for \h6 :
•tate, by Hicks & Co. of New York." -. : \t
Adopted January 0th, 18^0/
Ybas— Mf; Bvrtt Mr. Mizner, Mr. Hunt« Mr, Robinson, Mr.
jEXMUIUp "'O.
Nays— 0;
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
7fte HOnSE DOCUMBNTS;
" Resolved, That the Auditor General be directed to draw his
warraot in favor of L. S. Humphrey, agent of the kmrd of coiBi-
missionerS) for the purchase ot 100 miles of railroad iron, under a
resolution of the legislature, passed 6th April, 1838, in sum of
thirty-two thousand three hundred and twenty-eight dollars and
nine cents, for the purpose of making advances on said inoa and
for die payment of freight." ^
Adopted January 14th, IS to.
YBAs^Mr. Humphrey, Mr. Mizner, Mr. Hoot, Mr. Robni*
son, Mr. Lothrop — 6.
Nays— 0.
^ Whereas there is still due Messrs. Hicks & Cc^ of New
York, for iron, the sum of 910,000, to James H. Whitney^ the
sum of 96,207 01, fur iron and charges thereon; to J. H. Whit-
ney the sum of 93,864 06, for iron and charges thereon ; to Da-
vis, Brooks &; Co., of New York, the sutn of #15,103 12, for
iion ; to Edward Wbalin, the sum of 93,260 13, for freight of iron ;
ranking io the whole the sum of 947,430 12, and for which an orw
der on the Auditor General in favor of L. S. Humphrey, for 932 -
328 09 has been ajlowed by the board ; leavii^ an anpaid bal*
anceof915,]ll 03:
Therefore, Resolved, That the Auditor General be requested
to draw his warrant in favor of L. S* fiumphrey for the sum oC
fifteen thousand one hundred and eleven dollars and 4bree ceats,
for the purpose of paying for iron, and transportatioaand charges
thereon ; purchased under a joint resolution of the i^[isiatuve.
Adopted February 12th, 1839.
Yeas — Mr. Burt, Mr. Lothrop, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Huaq)bfe^, Mr.
Robinson — 5.
NaVs - 0.
iSUdement pf account of Levi S> Jlumphrey, Acting Commission-
er , from January \sU 1839.
(DOCUMENT C.)
1889.
Jan. 18. Received warrants of Auditor
General, 920,000 00
Feb. 1«. <« *< 25^000 00
M4n 14. 'V " 20»000 09
1839.
Jan. 12. Returned vouchers to Auditor
General, 920,736 26
965,000 oe
Carried forward,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
* Brought ferirairdv •* f
Jaa. 29. *' forerrors, d^l 60
Feb. 15. «" to Auditor Ge-
neral, 27,044 86
Mar. 18, ** *• 21,976 13
•69,957 26
Baboee, H057 25
Vouchers in possBMion of L. S. Hum-
phreyrior eipenses of survey in Cass
oounly, not paid by Auditor General, #S,I94 88
Less amount of pay roll, voucher ncttn^
. ber 14^ which* is twice credited, 1,079 54
•2,115 a4
Vouchers in possession of L. S. Hum-
phrey, for expenses of survey in Cass
county, not paid by the Auditor Geue*
ral, • •1,805' 57
•8,878 10
The •2,1 15 34, iscredited the state in the report of L.S. Hum*
pbrev, Aclibg Commissioner, he having received up to December
81et,>175v000 00, instead of •177,115 34.
Your committee may remark, that the latter document shows
liie amount of moneys received and expended by Mn Humphrey
since the date of. his last report to the l^islature, up to the i4tli
of March, 1839, being 21 days later than this investigation ex«
tends.
By reference to Gen. Hunr^phrey's report to the board of inter*
sal improvement, up to the 1st t)f January, 1939; it appears that
his expenditures on the southern railroad were, •248,685 23 ; and
voQCliers stoce that period, have been duly audited, to the amount
of •47,981 12, which, added to the above, will make the tmal
amount of his expenditures* up to the 21 st day. of February, 1889,
equal to •296,666 35; whereas, the amount actually expended
by -bian, to the 2 1st of February, 1839, as appears from the books
and. vooehers duly audited and deposited in the office of the aboard
of internal improvement, and Auditor Generals oflice, is only
•273,467 ' 50, winch, sufastraoted from the above sum of •296,-
666 35, which Gen. Humphrey states as his expenditure, leaves
a difference in his statement of vouchers, up to January Ist, 1839,
of •23,198 85 ; showini? an error in his own stateasent and rei^
port to the president of the. board, on the 1st of January, 1880, of
this last sum, viz: •23,198 85.
From the above statement, your committee must come to tfat
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
im HOUSE DOCUMENTS.
GODcIusion Aat Gen. Hemphrey intoDM Id deooW^the botrd of
internal impratenieat, and through them the legislature, by hit rt*
porti conve}ing to them the idea that he had ex\iendet{ thisamomt
of 923,108 85, and hod the vouchers on file to warrant the same;
wheieas, the fbcts of the case show a far different state of things,
viz : that this aflrK>unt had never been audited* or even in exist-
Mce, Other than fictitiously, and should never have appeared in
bis report.
It will be seen by refererice to document marked (A.) how far
Gen. Humphrey acted in good faith, es agent of the board of in-
ternal improvement, and in whose hands 175,489 19, watf placed,
for the purpose of payitig for iron, aceording lo the reaoltttioot of
the board, (Doc. B.) One Ihing is certain, thai a large portion «!
the money yeC remains unpaid, as appears by his tta4emeiit ; siikI
the other portion that he alleges to have been paid, no vouchers,
as yet, appear to have been filed in the oflSce of the board.
Allowing that 985,407 %i to iiave been paidv there idU fe>
mains unpaid 940,081 21, which 66f». Humphrey states^ (Doa
A,) was to have been paid by John Norton, jr.^asper agreeiMnt,
10 New York.
This annount, it seems, has not been paid by Mr. Norton to
these diftrent individuals in New York, and it will be perceived
that on receiving advice of its non^paytiient, Oen. fimmphvey
states lie has made an arrangemeat with Davis, Brooks aiid
Co. according to their request^ and obtained a draft finm the Baok
ef the River Kaisin, for the sum of fld/XM), payable in New
Yurk at ninety days. Allowing the dedaction of tkis sms ifom
Ibe above amount of $iO/^l 21, it will leave in hisban<b tMr
081 21 yet remainii^ mpaid.
Further, Gen. Humphrey states there is now in his handsr iMr>
ruiU of the Auditor Oeoeral to the amount of •80^000, which
m^fbtf be says, be applied on the iron mooianU shookt Mr. Nor*
ton fail to pay tbe same.
Your committee are at a loss to oonoeive how this mmtf MOi,«
000, audited by the Auditor General on the 14th of Marreti, 189^
ooold in Boy wise apply 6a the iron account^ for which itm^mi^
quate sum of •75,4M 12 was expressly provided
If this twenty thousand dollars, or any part of it, makes a por*
tiM of the payments intended for. iroOf how can the ameant of
•76,489 12 be aceouoted Cor«
Your conMnittee are given to mldsrstami tha^thistwenCy thcMK
sand doUars was expressly intended for nayaieiits doe o» thie rnodt
and for which vooohers to tiiai amoant have been audited on the
iery day the said twenty thousand dollars was obtamedL
F0r a particular explanation of the amoams of mdaey «r'>
pended by Gen. Humphrey on the Soothers railroad^ ymir <
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
vaxnm Txx^hBsmm im
mHtae woM mU yoar attentioti to the amieied abMef, maiiecl
(E,) tether widi the explanatory noce thereto attached.
It appear! from a stalcrnant of the secretary of the board of
internal improvement, copied from the books of said office^ thai
Octt* Httinphrey received 'ifioneys fnwn May 18th« 1887, tti April
Ytb« 1898, ti> the amount oT $72,924 84. and had rotufoed • va«*
chera to May 18th, 1838, only fur $30,090 06, Jenving a balanoa
of #M434 78 unaccounted for under the admroi tratitm of the
former b6ord, at wiU appear frora documeni marked (E,) but ainot
the Auditor Genettil has been empowered to examine aceouBtii
this defamation, by the strict aitenlioo of that officer^ has been ro*
diiced to $18,690 IB, by compelling Gen. Homphrey toaf ply the
warrants issued by him upoa moneys prariously advanoed to the
9ih of April, 1838. .
By reference to the condensed abstract marked (F,) eootainitw
the entire substance of ali the vouchers, shouin^ their totiu
amount, as weil as their numbers* from the organization of the
first board of internal kmpro'vetnenftf up to the 2l8t of Febniary»
i8d9y k will be segi that Gen.. Humphrey has actually aceountol
for ♦278.467 60. ^
On referring to document marked (E,) it appears thai the
ttmount of cash actually received t)y General Huoipbrayv horn
May e^chteenth, ei^thteen huadiied and thirty-seven, to April
Tlh, 1888» was $7%224 84, «s taken from the books dinriog
said jFear, and previous to the Au(|ttor General ezerrising the
powers of Ms office.
By a further reference to the statementof the Auditor General^
up to the'2lM of February, 1839, it wiU be seen, thai General
Humphrey received from iiim warrants to the amount of $280^
mo.
These two last named sums added together, make the total
amount of moneys to the 2l8t of February, 184M>, received bjr
Geo. Humphrey, equal to $202,224 84 ; from this last sum de»
duct the amount of his vouchers to same date, $273,467 60, and
ii wili show a deficiency by Gen. Humphrey, of $18,767 34 aow
doe to the 8Ute« and for which there is not even a shadow of ex»
planation offNied.
k will be remembered, the $75y43i9 12, which General Hum-
phrey placed in the State bank to his credit for the purchase of
iron, fcrms bo part of the above accounts of expendtturesi beiof
a tepanile and distioet traosactioa for the unpaid babneei tf
Which the state is heki responsible uiilil they are liquidated ««>
cording to contract.
Without reference to the amount of $23,108 85i which should
not have appeansd in his report of the 1st of January, 1889, lo
the board of internal improvensent, juid the mysterious unwuw
rentable disposition of a large portion of the $75,439 12, entrust-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
7«0 HOUSE DOCUltBNTS.
6d to 6eh; Humphrey to pity forthwHk on the oontTBet for iroo
in New Yotk, your canmiitea can hnre no hesitation in saj«
be: that he is a defaulter to the state for the aforesaid sum of
•18,767 ai
As for the other two sums alluded to, ws leave it to the' le^s-
laiturer to draw their own infi^rences from Gen. Han>phrey*s own
statements* «
Your committee, before oonolodin^, would notice a ciroem*
stant^e arising out of Gen. Burdick's quitting the board. It a ppears
that Gen. Burdick was appointed pre«dent of the board of inter-
nal improvement, in May, 1887, and continued to act in that ca«
pacity until May, 1838. during which time, Mr Adams, the clerk
of the board,'received the tolls on the central railroad, prtncipaHy
in notes of safety fund banks; and on the 8th of February, 1838,
laid Adams placed in tlie hands of Gem Burdick 9680 59, and on
the 14th of the same month, 9666 05, also on the fourteenth day
of March, the further sum $1,600, in alHt^OiO 64.
. This amount was pbced by GSen. Burdick in the Michigan
State bank, to his credit, io^ the same funds received, there imag
no provision made by law at the time for the deposite of these
funds.
. : When Gen. Burdick retired from office, he gave to J. B. Hunt,
a check* on said bank, for the above amoant, which was subse-
quendy handed over to the late Dr. Alden, upon which he recehr-
ed: the sum of 91,000, in city funds, as a part of said amount,
leaving a balance of 9 1,946 64, which still remained to be paid oo
said check, (see Document 6.) -