New-York tribune., 1875-10-20

STATEMENTS OF THE DELINQUENT En-
GINEERS.

TENTIoNAL wRoNG-A VISIT OF THE BOARD TO
THE CANAL PROJECTED.
ALBANY, Y. Y, Oct. 19.-Tbe Canal Board
met at to-day, to consider the eases Of Engineers
Yates and Babcock. The Licutenant-GoycInor the
Secretary OF state, the Treasurer the Attorney
General the State Engineer, and Commissioners Stroud
and Jackson were present Deputy lAtorney-General
Fairchild present FOR the people Judge Yates Tor
Col Yates, and q. W. Miller for Mr. Babcock. Judge
Yates asked for separate trial for Col Yates, a. the
charges distinct and separate. Attorney General
Pratt thought it unnecessary. After conversation
Treasurer Ranes moved that Col. rates be allowed to
a separate trial Lost. to D. The joint trial was
then proceeded with
GENERAL DENIAL or NEGLECT.
Col. Yates called to the stand lie was sworn ana
examined by Deputy Attorney-General FaiTchid lie
testified tha he appointed 10 the Office OF DIVISION
Engineer April Il, 1874 he has been in office ever since
he the provisions Of the Mohawk River c0n2t OF
II d. Denison the work was done during his admins
tration; the contract let time in 1863; le did
not know the details Of the contract he could moi tel
whether the walls removed and rebuilt had been built
the they had not been during his time
Mr. Yates was asked what constituted dry vertical
wall He answered partially, and asked to see copy OF
the socifcations Mr. Farchid pressed the question.
The counsel for Col Yates objected. saying that the
aud specifications would show what constituted
a dry vertical wall
Mr. Farchid protested that this proceeding was not
the interests Of the people and he did not think the strict
rules of a court should apply. He merely wanted the
witness TO ten what certain wall consists Of ordinarily
The counsel for Col Yates was satisfied with tie cN-
panaton and answered the question stating
the materials required H. then stated that during the
lime the work was going ON nc did not look nj
tract; looked the work, aud was satisfied that il
was going ON property; he had iul confidence IN ms
false estimates.
Mr. Fachid read description Of dry vertical wall,
and asked the witness If he had examined the work To
leayl Il IL complied win that description -
Col Yates answered that some Of the walls were not
made in accordance with the contract and he had on
jccted Ia them Engineers differed az 10 which cement
was ne best H. had always examined tne sana ana ana te
ornates that the work done according to con
Sometimes work not done exactly in accordance
with the SPECIFICATIONS, ana ye II Is properly donci NE
is the case when the materials AT hand are no cNaey
Gone There 10 not single piece Of Work on the canal
from Albany 10 Buffalo which is done in exact comp
ance with the specifications il is impossible to do II So
On the division Of the witness he examined all the work.
following the practice Of his predecessors, and
saw to ii that the always done as faithfully
possible The witness added tht tins was ms answer 10
the charge of neglect.
THE FALSE ESTIMATES SIGNED BY YtTEs.
witness related the details of hs oversight Of
his division at considerable length showing that he had
frequently inspected the wors he had been informed
that piece 0i wall had been laid mp against rock face
a given for r which was satisfactory; The
reason that the wall really less expensive
made than TO skip that piece he was not OF lis own
knowledge informed Of tlis work
The Lieutenant -Govcnor-By what authority did you
sign and forward monthly estimates of the work which
had not been done accUrtnig TO contract!
Col YatcsI did il as il bad bccn the practice for all
time of the best il the state had done il, and
Mr. Farchild produced specimens Of cement which he
bad pulled out Of the wall Of the work yesterday He
submitted them 10 the witness.
Col. Yates said OF that cement sood. ana some
Mr. Faircllild also produced several pieces of
from hc wall. The witness said tney we're not proper
enough Int did net look into tie back OF it he would
have Of the wall built OF such stone n he had
been the inspector; h. examined the work, bat depended
uuon his assistant TO thai the details were properly
executed.
! WHY ~ WALL WAS USED FOR \ % CENT ONE.
Mr. Fairchild-You made the final accounting in the
willard johnson coairactl Wimcss--i did l looked
over the work ana it properly done it all
done under my predecessor.
Mr. Fsifcmld-Where there any recordedanthoriiy
for having "a vertical wall in that work The contract
called for slope wall, at % cents per yard and yet
there j33i9 yards of vertical wall constructed at
A per yard. wiincss-I know of authority it
all before my time know that il has been the practice
change from slope TO vertical wall whenever the best
/ interests To be gubscrvcd
q. ". Miller read tie Appropriation law OF 1874,
which provided that vertical walls mlSht be substituted
foe Others by The Board ol Canal Commissioners when
/ ever they deem IT necessary.
Nj FairchilJTl,e contract authorized 1000 yards Of
vertical WALL and yet found there $4,000 yards
built. Now now did lon come 10 pass mat NlLess-
| II was, supposed regular done ny autbority-and
| Treasurer Ranes turned TO the proceedings of the
| Beard and found that Attorney General Barlow had
gwen an opinion that tine commissioners codd make tEe
IIs witness then explained IN detail how the work was
done, and the authority for IT, lie sad Commissioner
Iay or ordered the work done The witness had n9th-
would take all the responsibility or H. The witness then
read another law, whch authorized The building OF ye-
teal wall, nywhere along the Ere t"iai, when deemed
| necessary by the Canal ComnSsinncrs.
Mr.. F'irchiid-In I'll these things that yon did and
omitted 10 do, Mr. Babcock concirred with you did he
noti wtness-Yes Sir.
MI fairehi,d sid he would NE to nave IN. boaId 90
up and see this work II could III tia way gel more i-
formation in half day than could IN tour days exam,
! nine Witnesses here. The Treasurer moved that ihe
Board go and examine The work at 10 r. M tomorrow.
| YATEs's EXPFRIEXCE AND DIIIGENCE
The witness wag then cNamncd by Col. Furn9n
he stated that lie has acted civil engineer since 1893
various railroads. and four years in the army in
charge OF an corps under Gen. sherman; has
! been the Erie Canal seven months only he had
always directed snborinatcs that al work
done In accordance with the contracts, as nearly ~ pos
| MIR Fairchild asked how 20 900 pounds of iron
to be used under the johnson contract The witness rc
piled tat il had been used before e came into once and
the passed to HIM he TOOK II Tor granted II
was correct hc could not tell whether IL was or not
! without tearing the work dovn for investigation.
TIE witness was then el'mned by Judge Yates as to
duty Attention was called To le building Of bridge
which had not been provided Tor "a the contract aud
Judge Yates read clause in the contract which required
aud authorized the doing OF all the work necessary
Under this clause, lac claimed the bridge Was buil and
the witness said was actually necessary hence ne sup
| posed il had been ordered
The Board then took recess till 3 p. IN.
Tire Canal Board reasscmbed at . p; m; and the ex
animation OF Mr.. Yates resumed ana finished Moth
| ing elected
IADCOCK NAMES ADMISSIONS,
Engineer EibcOca then called 10 the stand and
examined by Deputy Attorney-Gencral farchild. He
said that he appointed 10 his present position in
1874. lie detailed Tie duties Of engineer and described
the OF building walls, saving that If contract
called for a six-nch wall, and in order to level it up
stone smaller dimension used, it Was always re-
garded ~ fulfilling the requirements Of the contract
His attention called Ia various pieces OF work which
| ,g1l. lat.a laP.I ham
properly done. done the Toquir,monts Of the
! contract : was practicable. -