New-York tribune., 1875-10-11

|
fraud Of the engineers would have been oisooVeroo' ~
| timely correction made.
| THE STATE ENGISFEn's SINGULAR NEGLECT oP DUTY.
We do not believe that 1t ever intended that Hio
responsibility Of tho State Engineer should cease "hen no
had sgned tho plans and estimates admitted by MIN 10
| the Canal Board In opinion, direct reSpohsioi'
rested upon him throughout the prosecution oi inc "oiA
and until he had examined and passed upon 'ne nnA'
account Mr. eX State Engineer Taylors testimony upon
this point much at variance with our views 'nH' "o
deem il best TO include 1t in this report
O. 7 find by reference 10 the Auditors Department
that this contract let 70 Denison for W. 20 I ni
the final estimate that the state paid ri4o5io vi
Denson for performing the WORK; now TUE is. py ~,
made Feb s.2 and the last Snpnp ,he
whole of this terIni A. Yes Sir 49,. oo,,-,o,
which was let FOR $3.50 80 should cost the state
Si16316 o. and ycu not know anything about hf A.
% iasF yon 10 rcpeat il asain 4. knew nothing OF
the increased quantities in this work nnii about DO .ne nv
of January 1878 that IL, of these quantities III inc WORK
varying from the quantities let; ,,,,, estimate, nm
O. Did you never any Of the monthly es,a,Gs :. up
seen them; they were in my office, reported monthly
O. You have stated, as understand u, th.t you were
ur.u the work early in tlir year 1871 Yes, Slr.
o. from what yon then. were you not LED 10 be,
licve that the quantity OF rock neceSSa,y 10 e
never knew anything about the quantity e4uiDtu ,
never had seen the quantity sheet ana hho" ho'''"s
O Never had made an inquiry A. 1t was not neces-
q would the same Lack of knowledge which you state
occurred TO You relative TO this work be eNcns,be IN me
DIVISION fnsinoer who held Office under you during this
pcriodi g. No. / think not he should know. ,
@ Was there any reason why me DIVISION Enf M
should have known any more about IL thah you oiu' ~
o. Give the reason in detail A. Because the ccnstruc
ton Of these contrncts under the immediate charge
OF The Division and Resident Engineers. -. -
q Won't you bc kind enough to show US any Law or
regulation of the Department, that places ic
ton of tie WORK under the supervision oi me DIVISION
Ep1eSgi va a. ss 9P Sa G1% nener e was The
OF The engineering department such ta IL "ae posSpi,o i
2f con- Or MSn n VIZ Tpon ,by rcstne upon yom rs
S,alc Engueerl a. Yes sir; siuhld hkc To duhiy A.
An this way tha unGerstood II. the state Lsneef
bo M rIar of t,r WORK during It's construction that
branch OF the business il entirely in tht hahus Oh tc
Tucnccr Tonli't Know Of any increase the cost of
the wora except accidentally, until t iinal account was
O. Then upon whom would yon iix the responsibility OF
sncn m INSTANCE as suggcsedi \. should fx it
up,p tho Resident Engineer.
o. can any work az curaordnary repairs, he LET or
reyt,rnad uuor fhr raral y ahnu first having received
iSr unTovni OK the stAa i:1gicr, A. TGc original
tim us and mans piece ~ Work must h. approved
by the State Engineer before the Canal iOaFd can au
q Then a;n i to unaer'land that after Tie STATE En-
cir rr has aD2rcvri The work his responsibility 10 IL ENDS
entirely! A. Until The coming IN oiGc tna accoun'-iS
a. Then wnat responsibility has hes Thcn the only
tiiIs he nss Is merely examination and approval OF
The fna account, 10 sci that II - 'nncr u III iecnI'ce
VITA ths tcrms 81 tie contract WHEN i rerrN com
parrg t with tnc contract. ,..,
presented 20 Sor did y1u approve 1i NJ y. hts. Sh
O. AMI why when yJu lOnhd 'he clea' ul'eIcP'hcs
A cerll,sc there the anlaNli5 Oi tnc tns!ntiS
tnat ths wo:k had been constructed; idont kho" WHAT
csc cOuic do, .-.-.. -. 49,.
gard the letting of thC contract that you now seem to
nayc-tha conceived IN fraud as lar as r exhibit
sheet was couccr;cdi 4. Yes. oir, had the same
opniou n the eNhi'ht sheet was concerned "
o. kr mi yo,t,,iuK thcn you perfectly justified
in t,I-sig tuat nuai accounts \. an, Sir
q lii,c you aay reason whatever io believe tht any
f,l cstliultc lUr extraordinary repairs upon tAe canal
be pdId until 1t pis's thioH@h t" oi"e oi oe ca
ammatiun of tuo state Engineer and SuryeyDrf \.
! IA 4 ID.
THE DISMISSAL OF ENCINEER BADCoCk.
1t only iscc to DR. Taylor 10 state That tins con-
tract WIS let "a July. 1871 aud nc did not otlce
TIL thc Is; OF January ls72 Nearly all the work under
IT, however, wa prosecuted during his adminstr"-
top the contractor being unable TO commence
opra;ios m alter the close OF navigation in Doeember
lS7l He testiG,s tBat he disciplined Mr.. Babcock in
tic winter of lS723 10y dsnia5ng him from thc ser
vice of the for s connection with the original sur
yey hut failed to brn the Canal Boards attention 10
IT, asrcquired b. the following section OF the law (sce
| Chapman, see. eJO
whenever the STATE Engineer and Surveyor. either
OF the anal Commissioners. shall suspcct any fraud or
miscaniuct tnc pan Of anS engineer or assistant ~
relation tu The pubur works. II EA2 hc his day 10 report
the same to Canal Board, may employ 80 many
| and slch agents ana engineers ~ thty may Geeln
proper Jru the investigation OF the matter
and draw on hc warrant OF the AUDITOR
for compensation and the eAsnoes OF the nvcstiga
| tipn.
UtLis had been done in Mr. EabcOcks case the fraud
in tie oxhibii sheet would brought to the
tice of The Canal Board before the final settlement with
DeUisOn made.
OF Mr. Crackers ac,ion relative to this contract we
can form no other oimon than tiat hc knowingly aud
viMfuly ials,lcd Li- estimates thereby cni!.ng great
loss upon state To the corresponding profit Of the
| contractor DeIi5Cn join BH.LLpN,
| DASIEL MAGONL,i ir,
4. f. ORR,
| Aybyuu Oct q 1879 JouN ID. VAS BUREN. il.