D. A. WELLS TO TILDEN

"Norwich, Conn., May 5th, 1876.

"My dear Governor,—I have canvassed the political situation in this State since I last saw you, and think there is no doubt of your receiving the unanimous support of Connecticut at St. Louis. Indeed, there is no diversity of sentiment, so far as I can hear, Loomis, of New London, being the only one of the delegates whom I should regard as doubtful. Dick Hubbard, of Hartford, who heads the delegation; Waller, of New London, the Speaker of the House (who will probably go as a substitute); and Hunter, of Willimantic, are all to be relied on as warm supporters, and they will control the delegation if it should need controlling. Barr, of Hartford, is a tricky fellow, and if you could bring some influence to bear on him it may be as well, though I am advised that it is not necessary.

"There is one element of the future that I do not like, and that is the probable election of Barnum to the Senate from this State in place of English. Barnum is so unfit, so much of the Tweed order of men, and a pig-iron protectionist into the bargain, that the effect of his election will be bad, not only in the State, but throughout the country. It will be cited everywhere as a proof that the professions of the party do not amount to anything; I do not, however, know what you can do about it, or whether it would be advisable to exert an influence if you could; but it is an event that is likely to disgust the free-trade element intensely, and also those who have a deep conviction of the necessity of political reform. Eaton is probably more responsible for this movement than any other man, except Barnum.

"Do you think I had better go to the 18th of May conference? I see nothing antagonistic in it to your interest; neither do I think it will amount to much. I know the Republican managers have a most profound contempt for the whole movement, and haven't an idea of allowing to Bristow to be nominated.

"Command me for any service I can render.

"Truly yours, "David A. Wells."

"Hon. S. J. Tilden."

Shortly after the inauguration of Mr. Tilden as Governor, in January, 1875, he sent to the Legislature a special message setting forth his convictions of the corrupt management of the canals of the State. This message abounded with specific details of fraud of so infamous a character that even friends of the implicated contractors in the Legislature felt constrained to grant the request of the Governor, and by a concurrent resolution, adopted on the 31st day of March, 1875, authorized him to appoint a committee of four "to investigate the affairs of the canals of the State, and especially the matters embraced in the special message of the Governor, communicated to Legislature on the 19th of March, 1875."

In compliance with this authority, the Governor appointed four gentlemen, whose names are signed to the following report, two theretofore having acted with the Republican party and two with the Democratic. The Governor's commissioners organized at Albany on the 12th of April following; but before they began to take testimony the friends of the canal jobbers in the Assembly managed to pass a resolution appointing a commission of that body also to make a similar investigation, but naming in the resolution commissioners satisfactory to those who constituted what was known as the "Canal Ring."

This commission met two or three times, and then offered to the Governor's commission, under pretext of saving time and expense, to join them, so that the two commissions should constitute but one body. Of course this proffer was promptly declined, and the legislative commission took no more testimony, and was never heard of again.

The interval between the organization of the Governor's commission, in April, and the time for the introduction of water into the canals, near the end of May, was devoted exclusively to an examination of the most important works in progress or recently completed in the prism of the canals.

Between the 31st day of July of that year, when the commission submitted its first report, and the 14th of February, when it submitted its final report, it issued twelve reports. That which follows gives a summary of the facts developed by the investigation which confirm in every detail the charges made in the Governor's message, besides adding very much to the total amount of confirming testimony. The reason for this confirmation being so complete was that the Governor, almost immediately after his election, employed privately, and at his own expense, an engineer in whose professional training and experience he could place entire confidence, the late Mr. Elkanah Sweet, to make an investigation of the recent canal work, gave him authority to take down any portion of the work to ascertain how far and in what way it was not in conformity with the contract, and gave him also authority to inspect all the canal contracts in the archives of the Canal Board and compare them with his observations. Upon his report the facts presented in the Governor's canal message were based. Mr. Sweet, therefore, was naturally employed by the Governor's commission to make the yet more thorough and elaborate investigation required of them.

The Governor's canal message, with this incontestable confirmation of all its allegations, gave him a national fame, and contributed more than anything he had previously done to make his nomination to the Presidency a political necessity for the Democratic party.

Several previous efforts to investigate frauds in the operation of the State canals had been made by the Legislature, but all had theretofore proved abortive. One reason which contributed largely to prevent the investigation of the Governor's commission sharing the same fate was the exclusion of reporters from the meetings of the board during the examination of witnesses. By this means nothing of its work was given to the public until the testimony was digested into an intelligible report of what had been proved. The testimony was necessarily so largely technical that if given to the press day by day, as received, the public would have soon tired of the subject, and, what was worse, the witnesses would have been tempted to shape their testimony rather to its effects upon the newspaper public than upon the commissioners. The consequence was that when the reports appeared they were read, and their impact upon the public was proportionately prompt, instructive, and penetrating.