to; some of them made out in pencil, and a few of them lost. In one case, a period of over fourteen weeks, in one district, no returns were made; and a subsequent return bore upon the back of it the statement that no collections had been made during that time. Some of them bear no dates at all, and two were found lying loosely in a desk drawer, with neither amount nor date, and signed in blank by the collectors. Others were certified to by a notary with no signature of the collector. There are numerous returns that should have been made from 1875 to September 15, 1878, that do not appear either on the cash-book or anywhere else. The chief clerk of the department was requested to produce these, and he stated that they were not on file, although shortly afterward he did discover one of them, and turned that over to the commissioner of accounts who was then examining the department. One sum of $700 was

charged to the counsel of the corporation.

Your committee desire to call attention to the report of the experts on the pay-rolls of the department and the system of keeping them; and also of the cash receipts and payments that were treated as off-sets, from the year 1870 to 1872. They desire to specially refer to the report of the experts as to the account between the city chamberlain and the department, wherein it appears that deposits of money which are charged in the dock department books as having been deposited, while the fact appears from the date of the chainberlain's receipts, that many days elapsed between, and in very large amounts; and in the department year of 1881, but nineteen deposits were made by the treasurer with the city chamberlain, notwithstanding the fact that one of the by-laws of the board already quoted requires that the money shall be deposited semi-weekly by the treasurer. This seems to have been the practice for several years past; large accumulations of money being allowed to remain in the hands of the treasurer, extending from the sum of $12,000 to $125,000 at one time, and which the treasurer knew nothing about, which your committee believes offers every inducement to any dishonest employee to commit a defalcation; and it was not until the cominissioners' attention had been called to it by a letter from the experts that this practice has been changed.

The committee also call special attention to the report on the dock fund, which is exhaustive; in which it appears that there is a difference between the dock department and that of the comptroller, amounting to over $85,000. Up to 1878 no account of the dock fund had ever been kept upon the books of the department; no accounting between these respective departments ever seems to have been had; nor is any explanation given of this difference in their respective accounts.

Various charges were made by the dock department against the law department, but the same were subsequently substantially withdrawn. (See correspondence between these departments.)

Much evidence has been presented to your committee upon the question of cost of what is known as the bulk head wall, a stone wall

which is being built around the city water-front. An examination of the report of the experts will give the various statements of the department engineer and other employees, as well as of their own examination; in which there seems to be a difference of about $100 per lineal foot. Other parties appearing before your committee have asserted the fact that it costs something like $500 per lineal foot, and that it is impossible for them to know what it costs.

Evidence is also before your committee tending to show that walls equally as durable or good can be built at a much lower price. This is a matter which we commend to the attention of the legislature. We would specially recommend that such laws be passed as would place the dock department upon the same foundation and management as the other departments of the city of New York, and we can see no reason why such should not be the case.

It is in evidence that but one examination of the dock department has been made by the public accountant since it was organized up to the present year. In that examination, part of the Burnham defaleation was discovered; and although a report of that fact was made known to the mayor, no further examination was made of the departinent. The public accountant testified that he went to the department to make a subsequent examination, but it was abandoned, as the testimony shows, at the request of the mayor. Your committee would recommend the passage of an act requiring the public accountant to examine every department in the city of New York at least once a year, as we believe such a practice would have a tendency to prevent any future defalcations.

In conclusion, we have only to add that all the sources of information that would lead to an intelligent and satisfactory conclusion have been exhausted. The recommendations made are founded solely upon the testimony before us.

Respectfully submitted,

ARTHUR D. WILLIAMS,

Chairman.

OF THE

STATE BOARD OF HEALTH

OF

NEW YORK.

TRANSMITTED TO THE GOVERNOR FEBRUARY 8, 1882.

ALBANY:

WEED, PARSONS AND COMPANY, PRINTERS.

1882.