The New York herald., 1875-10-20

ALBANY, Oct H. 1879.
The Canal Board met at ten O'Clock to take up the
cases OF Engineers Yates and Babcock. There
present the Lieutenant Governor, the Secretary of
State the State Treasurer the Attorney General the
State Engineer and Commissioners Strand and Jackson
Deputy Attorney General Farchd present for the
people, Jadge Yates for Colonel Yates, and w.
Miller for Mr. Babcock.
Judge Yates asked a separate trial for Colonel Yates,
the charges distinct and separate.
Attorney General Pratt thought it unnecessary.
After some conversation Treasurer Raines moved a
separate trial for Colonel Yates
Lost 2 to5
The trial of both together then proceeded with.
Colonel Yates was then called to the stand. He was
sworn and examined by Deputy Attorney General Fair
child. He said he was appointed Division Engineer
April IT. 1874 and has been Office SINCE except dur
ing the tmo of suspenson knew the provisions OF the
contract OF H. d. Denson for the removal and building
oil walls in the Mohawk River the had been done
during his administration; the contract let some
time in 1862 do not know when to be completed;
did not know the details of the contract could not tell
whether the walls removed and rebuilt had been built
under the contract; it had not during my time.
Witness was asked what constituted dry vertical
wall. He answered partially, but asked for a copy OF
the specifications to make his full
Mr.. Fairchild pressed this question.
Counsel for Yates objected to the question: saying
that the contract and specifications would show it.
Mr.. FairchId protested that this proceeding was not
criminal trial of Yates 1t was for the protection of
the interests of the people, and he did not think the
strict rules OF should apply He merely wanted
the witness tell what certain wall consisted of ordi-
narily.
Counsel for Yates satisfied with the explanation
tho witness answered the question: stating the ma
terals required.
Witness then stated that during the time the work
was going he did not look at the contract He looked
at the work and satisfied that it going prop
ery. He had full confidence in his subordinaes, and
did not believe they would make false estimates
Mr.. Fairchild read description OF a dry vertical
wall, and asked the witness II he had examined the
work to learn If it complied with it.
Witness answered that he had made examination OF
the work and found that of the walls were not
made in accordance with the contract and he objected
to them he did not object to tho whole work. as some
OF it was correct engineers differed which cement
the best; he always examined the sand and the
to if IL right; he always told his sub
ordinates to that the work done according to
contract sometimes work is done exactly ac-
cordance with the specifications and yet IL is properly
done this Is the case when the materials at hand are
not exactly what called for and obliged to have
the work done they do the best possible thing under
the circumstances Witness said there not
Buffalo, which is done in exact compliance with the
specifications il is impossible to do it his division
he examined all this work. followed the practice OF his
predecessors and saw to it that the work always
done as faithfully ms possible.
The witness added that this was his answer TO the
charge of neglect He then detailed what ho had done
at considerable Length showing that he had frequently
inspected the work He said that he had been informed
that there had been piece of wall laid up against
rock face, but reason had been given which salts
factory. 1t that really less expensive than
to skip it. He was not of his own knowledge informed
of this work
The Lieutenant Governor-By what authority did
you sign and forward monthly estimates OF the work
which had not been done according TO contract?
Colonel Yates-I did II, as it had been the practice
for all time; of the best in the State had
done it, and followed the precedent
Mr.. Farchild produced specimens of the cement
which he had pulled out or the wall OF the work yes
terday and submitted them to the witness.
The witness said that some OF 1t was good and some
OF 1t rather poor.
Mr.. Fairchild also produced several pieces OF stone
which he had pulled out and witness said they were
not proper stone to use in such work. he had thought
the wall good enough looking at the face OF It; he had
not looked into the back OF the wall He would not
have any of the wall built of such If no had been
the inspector thereof these walls ought be laid in
cement all the way through; he could not say whether
this was donc his assistant engineer could tell that
Mr.. Fairchld-You are here to answer for yourself
Did you look to if this done-to the wall
witness-I examined the work. depending upon my
assistant to that the details were properly executed
judged IL was.
Mr. Fairchld-You made the final accounting for the
Willard johnson contract?
wtness-I did; looked over the work and saw it
properly done IL all dono under my predecessor.
Mr. Fairchd-Where there any recorded
thorty for having vertical wall in that work Tho
contract called for slope wall at ninety five cents
per yard and yet there So 319 yards of vertical
wall constructed at 81 per yard
Wtnoss-I know OF none; it was all before my time;
know that 1t has been the practice to change from
slope vertical wall whenever the best interests
| be subserved
Mr. G. W. Miller read the Appropriation law Of 1874
which provided that vertical walls might be substituted
for others by the Board of Canal Commissioners when
ever they deem IL necessary.
Mr.. Fairchld said TO witness-The contract author
lied 900 yards of vertical wall and yet you found
there 5000 yards built Now, how did you
| to pass thatY
| Wtness-It was, | supposed, regular-dono by
authority and had no alternative.
Treasurer Raines turned TO the proceedings of the
Board and found that Attorney General Barlow had
given an opinion that the Commissioners could make
the change
was done and the authority for it. He said Commis-
sionor Thayer ordered the work done; had nothing
to do with ordering II; Commissioner Thayer said he
would take all the responsibility for It, Witness then
read another law which authorized the building OF
tical walls anywhere along the Erie Canal when deemed
necessary by the Canal Commissioners
Mr. Fairchld--In all these things that you did and
omitted do, Mr. Babcock concurred with you did he
not2
wtness-Yes sir.
Mr. Fairchild said he would like to have the Board go
up and see this work. 1t could in that way get more
Information in half of day than II could in four days
examining witnesses here.
The Treasurer moved the Board go and examine tho
work at ton A. NJ to-mor
Witness then cross-examned by Colonel Fur
man and stated that he a civil engineer and had
acted such since 1858 various railroads and had
been four years in the army in charge Of engineer
corps under General Sherman; had been on the Erie
Canal seven months only; never before his present in
cumbency; he had always directed his subordnates to
that all work done in accordance with the
tracts possible
Mr. Fairchd read the canal accounting in the john
and found 20 900 pounds of iron used
He asked witness how he found SO much iron had been
used
Witness repled:-Ths iron had been used before he
into Office and the amount passed to him; he
took IL for granted II was correct he could not tell
whether was or not without tearing the work down
for investigation
Witness then examined by Judge Yates TO his
diligence and aithiuness in the discharge of his duty
Attention called to the building of bridge which
had not been provided for in the contract and Judge
Yates road clause in the contract which required and
authorized all the work necessary. Under this clause,
he claimed, the bridge built and the witness said
II was actually necessary, hence he supposed IL had
beon ordered.
The Board then took recess till three p. NJ.
AFTER RECESS
Tho Canal Board reassembled at three p NJ, and the