New-York tribune., 1875-09-02
and 122 with bushes and logs on it, which made up
the area Of 470 acres for the clearing of which the

state paid. large number OF witnesses state that
the number Of acres Of both kinds Of land much
less that in some instances land that had been
moved for years was measured into the territory
estimated as land to be cleared and in instance
when the engineer was including meadow Of about
sixteen acres and his attention called to it, he
said he meant to give the boys good measure.
INCoMPETENCY Or THE APPRAISERS.
In March, 1874 after the contractor was paid of
on the terms indicated, q third rehearing OF the
claims of the landowners on to be heard before
the canal appraisers. There were % claimants
Each supported his claim with his own testimony OF
that Of two OF more witnesses. The State was rep
resented by able counsel, but it appears that but
two witnesses were called on the part OF the
State and those were examined briefly and in
but case. The appraisers allowed the claim
ants for the value Of the lands taken as they
were before any timber was taken Off by the
contractors 1t IS plain that there were witnesses
whose testimony material and who could have
been AMI should have been called to have shown the
real value and character of the land taken. One OF
the appraisers explained this omission by saying
that they did not regard the testimony as SO
material, rs they formed their estimates i'll the main
from their own view of the premises. In some cases
this may be satisfactory, but it is not very plain to
how the appraisers could learn much as to the
had been taken away years before, and the land was
ten feet under water.
This work was begun under the direction OF Mr.
Commissioner Fay. The contract fixing the price
for clearing and chopping was made by dr. Com
missioner w. w. Wright, who made the final set
tlement with tie contractor; and the appraisal
and payment of the claims was DUNG the term
of MIR. Commissioner Stroud. Mr.. Z. A. Sweet
was then an assistant engineer in Immediate
charge of this work. Mr. Thomas Goodsell was the
resident engineer who verified by affidavit the
correctness Of the final account. Mr.. Howard Soule
jr, division engineer, certified that he had made
thorough personal examination OF the work ard the
work was fully completed according to tie terms OF
the contract and he final account was coirect and
Mr. w. b. Taylor, then State Engineer, indorsei the
final account examined and approved"
A SUMMARY OF TIE POINTS OF THE EVIDENCE IN
THIS CASE
As this Committee cannot present any formal re-
rort until tie Legislat ire cOnvcncs, it has con-
cluded to transmit to ycu the foregoing history OF
the construction of the Oiisco Lake reservoir, with
a copy Of the testimony proving the same, together
with the evidence of the MessIs. Beldcn. and MIR
Sweet heretofore taken, to be found on pages 3i9
357. Ala. 434, 55O 565, of the printed evidence
taken before hs Committee last Spring for the fol-
lowing reasons:
l. Raising the water and relaying the area OF Otsc9
Lake proposed and accomplished tor The purpose OF
using the waters from the lake as feeder Tor tHe Erie
Canal anon the Jordan leYcl.
. me grea TO be Hooded comprised 600 acres of
land very mach Of it low swanpy land, chiefly valuable
g. Thc cost as at first estimated was for about three
only 10 be used for Tie purpose oI mlhs u neS
da n for eiubbing aud clearing the lana iire'0r ana
for building road in tic place of one that woaid DC
flooded 10y The building of the dam
A. That for the portion o he work eInbNaceh IN wha'
was termed in tue contract ch0ppng clearing, ana ein
bng the contract price was $40 per acre. embracing Dut
o. Thai an act Of the Legislature snbs bsoqucntlypro
cured TO be passed providing iGr comretn3 e etc o
some GOO res provided the contra tor wOnld agree 10
IL at the saHc prices already provided IN S contract
G. Thlt agreement vas s99seluently made between
oner hy which the contractor agreed to do all the chop
ping and clearing provided in the contract Tor the
The original contract provided for gru bng rs vel az
caopjing and clearing The second cont ct contlh.i
so arre Was Of course for guDng we'll as clear
ing Tic srubbng was not done and the contractor Ws
Wei p4il the same ~ ii be had grubjed the WHOLE FOR
such payment there was not the shadow OF aHtloFy.
z. 1adt under the authority OF that att ana ol the
assumed 10 clup clear &C., the balance OF the Land IN ao-
c0rnnce with the terms ana i'll Tie maner Provided ior
j." .1l Yy tae tcstimony OF Mr. A. Caldwell Beden ap
pears ihat the whole amount OF timber cut ny him he
,d not sell about 81 900 worth =,
g. BY the tcstinony of The Witnesses examined ~ me
hearing The Committee just closed IL appears ntI
the contractor sold or carried away timber q" hc value
O at least $4,000. - .. -.
sired TO clear the land themselves but were not allowed
To- do so by the contractors That the whole ni cleared
cleared by those who would have received the nbe; as
fuli compensation for clearing the same, icr whcn he
H. That the o gearing 1t waa an o.'en and
plain violation of tine contract and gross iraud nph
Inc state contractor simply TOOK out The best tim
her; cut the trees so as to leave stuhis from t"oto
eight cst high; left veIy much OF the tinbir they 1i
aut ON the gfoind In position in which IL ieil; lett
Inc ola logs sumps of Old trees, brush and small aos
on the ground " sucu an extent as TO leave sSafe me
nf ~. IA
testimony says that he never had The contract IN his
nor the aaeToo o @ ai % S saw saw
the gineer IN charge of the WORK TO $50 tat me COR
tract aud specifications were properly caii.d out ne
says he simply carried out the instructions o hrs superior
~ Meadow land which had for years been cultivated
and moved with machine, rs il alleged ~ tho tea
tnony, included in the engineers nta~Jcnitit as nm
per Land and as land cleared by the contractors
and IL il TO tDat the engineer when sok 10
about mcluding such lnd timber OF land to nc cl,aicd
t6pte was land Zip there" which Le cleared of
Jgs DEBRIS &C. for winch they woulG net b9 allowed
1e truth beng that portion OF the iand up iIcre WAS
touched Dy the contractor. Tne only gtuhIS done was
tho three acres upon part OF wnS" tie Dam |;,s 'u
the extent OF grubbing done any wLee Iae Board ID
for Sach explanation a, nc e!?e Oh ts WnO,c 81 9ec
Is. Some 47D acres Of land were allowed tor as land
t Was cleared and Jj7 acres Of the 473 were allowed
timber Land, the irHth Ds.hs tiat WY IL So
OF that timber lG1d or cV, cleared ~ she noSsy
imperfect manner pursued by the contractor la sone
instances the amount tniOer land allowed IVES double
;ne quantity actually existing ani no paii even o tiat
was thoroughly or properly olr3rrd Noi 1905 of
IA Tne result Of such "ecaIng" has been that every
i1 ins nr,ish, &c and a "IavoraDls' wind Bows them
tWari the dam AT the foot OF the lake over winch iaany
whole trees lOSs &c ll 10 tho hhHiheht HsH vi lie
Ij the slope wall which was built on the water side
of The dam Instead Of be cng laid On proper JunaIiOn
of timber az p[o'%HS& % & oI ~ ori ii ,e mud g ~
scrapcd away aid but tier of stone deep oi
dinTy hsid stOne' o0a 0i n% nns ,nr"Va IN hnd
~ ,nrly aupI mad