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. _CANAL INVESTIGATING COMMISSION_ FIRST REPORT TO THE GOVERNOR[3] "_To his Excellency the Governor, and to the Honorable the Legislature of the State of New York_: