New-York tribune., 1875-11-13
NINTH REPORT.

State Of Acc- York:
On the 9th day of August 1870, the state enterednto
contract with W. Williams of Rochester FOR the re-
moyal of slope wall and wall benches and constructing
40 feet of vertical wall the berme side OF the Ee
Canal in the City Of Rome" The bondsmen we're VII
liam Mudgett and George ID. Lord, from which fact we
infer that the latter the chief If not the sole party
interested in the contract originally 1t wss subse-
duently assigned TO John T. HOsch The engineers es-
mate of cost was $500; the accepted bid s5563 %;
the amount actually paid The contractor, $3.50 49, the
work was completed and final account rendered py he
9th day of June, t71 on visiting this work Ill Aprl
last this found several hundred feet running
of the wall fallen into the canal and the remain
der badly buged. Since then more has fallen making
over onothrd of all that constructed under this con-
tract that has tunhlcd into the canal other several
hundred feet Of fallen wall rebuilt last Spring by
the Canal superintendent at cost 10 the state, as we
arc assured by the superintendent, Mr. Giles Hawley'
under whose direction it done, of 81 l27 The con-
tract provides in regard the wall as follows:
The wall to he composed Of sound well-shapcd, and
durable quarry stone. not less than six inches IN thick
and three feet of bed The smoOthest and broad
est bed shall in all cases he laid down; and when the
setting bed is rongh or uneven, the projecting points
shall hammered of All high projecting points on the
top bed shall b. hammered off, so as to give inc sue
ceeding stone firm hearing In all cases the bed shah
stone is laid. But Jewelers. shall be placed under
stone by raising it from its bed One-iOuIi ~ the wall
sha oe compo'@G o IL H'I; % b 5 % i t tcK ami MI from
pa u 4 feet back for thicker walls
The Commission found by inspecting the work, and the
results Of their examination fully confirmed by the
testimony that the wall built without the slightest
regard 10 the requirements of the specifications The
stones were generally OF less than half the required sze
those the in large part chips and spas and
were laid without any attention to the principles ol good
construction, set forth III the specifications. thin
f3ce eight TO inches in thickness seems 10 have been
laid up with regularity and the back stones tumbed in
behind them without bond order For the purposes of
a retaining wall it was utterly worthless. ". H. Furs-
man, special foreman the canal at Rome being asked
the condition OF the wall last Spring, testified as follows:
1t in bad crumhng condition falling into me
canal in sections 30 or go feet apart Just as soon as inc
water against ii it would fall into The canal there
are two places now, IS and the other over 80 feet
C. How much bad fallen in this Spring before the water
O. How much has fallen since the water was let ini A.
Two pieces; one 2S and the other 80 feet.
Q Is all the remainder oi the old portions ID aGlp'eu
o. Bnlripc and ready TO faIli A. Yes. Sir.
q TO What cause do YOU attribute this resultl A. No
strength of wall and nothing 10 back 1t.
@ fs the wall deficient to the size of the stones A
Q Bid yOu observe any bond in the walll A. No.
q. No binders through the wall A. No. Sir.
O. How was it laid upl A. In the foundation there was
only one timber front side, aud about from 2i to
3 feet plank nailed right back.
O. Would the stone, so far as YOU have examned-and
believe you have examined it carefuly-average six
inches in thickness and three feet area in bedi A.
O. What would be your estimate OF the average size
O. Well take the face stones would they up TO
within half of that size a. Not to exceed 1t.
O. As the in the Tcarwcre they OF the same
or smaller szel A They are OF all sLes-chips most of
o. Are they laid with any regulality3 A. No, Sir.
q What portion is Laid with any regularity A Just
o To what tmcknessi A. That could not tell you
without measuring II. . .
the full thick OF the wai A No. Sir; IL is eight to
ten inches In the middle.
q How much OF 1t Is laid with resuiariVf A. Notmhg
@ O. Which is Of what thickness, wOuld you Think A.
I met fhgNf qla MARI gfn
O. Ino wall is no then. laid regularly for its fu thick
O. is there anything like oncfourh the whole volume Of
the wall composed Of headers which go entirely through
think from the bridge down you cans ma header
O. You said there were no through binders' A. No,
Sir least have never seen them where the wall feli
O. You have seen and inspected samples Of the whole
sre;chi A. Yes, Sir; have had to lay it back
at the base A. No; don't know how you would meas
ure H.
O. Was it over three fceti A. Perhaps might have
hetn in places and PIG ia others il according
@ DID You observe any lining such the specifications
called fori A. No, Sir; never foot OF gravel
o. Did YOU ObGerVe the dCcrng-whcther in good con-
dit.on' A. 1t soft maple put IN with shiplap;
it had been in two years you could take your heel
YGR SyH d %a not anS y4 3h 9l .So A. on hs hs
are 1000 or 5000 feet OF that rotten timber.
q. You say SOFT Inapes A. ls1prose so
..
. Did yon observe whether the back OF the wall was
vertical or notl A. Ii is not vertical; II was tllled In
with spals and small stones; 1t was IGnbl"d IN on an
irregular Line, having considerable incline from the
Top toward The front Of the b1se.'
Giles Hawley, nm Inspector appointed by Division
Engineer CrocScr being asked what condition this wall
was in when nc took charge OF its reconstruction test
hcs:
1t hal tnmbled in in several places in the canal for
distance Of from 300 to 400 feet
O. What the character of tho stone A. The stone
was good enough 1t had been large enough they were
not a. lal &c as stones ought 10 be.
O. Were there good many small stones therei A.
Yes, sir.
remained standing, that 1t was Dnilt without bond A.
O. And your Judgment is it likely TO fall A. think
II villa great share OF it-nOt all
MIR Barnes also testified that "this work does not
within 20 per cent OF that demanded By the contract II
is less In valuation" He excuses himself
fer passing inferior work and making oyercs;imaes ON
the ground that lie had the instructions and sanction Of
his superior officers Hogan and Cfockcr. Daniel For
the sub-contractor in the work, testnes that the wal
WAS nj what the specification called for' there II
part OF IT that pretty miserable DC TIC work under
this contract was not only badly done but was over
Estimated by the engneers In tho final account tho
quantity of the wall computed for width OF three feet
ten inches at The Commission found the base
did not exceed three feet The oycrchage this item
,s 16e cubic yards at SO 75 $d5s 81 1.-The quantity Of
emLanlunent WAS increased beyond the amount eXhlD
tied at tho letting from 2s0 to l7s533 cubic yards
The terms of tho contract forbid any allowance for en-
bankment when sufficient material for It's construction
can be obtained the excavation within distance OF
200 feet measured along line parallel with the canal
The diagrams and final estimate Of the engineer show
that there was large surplus Of excavation at all poins
The entire item OF embankment is therefore an over
charge and amounts to 1888 cubic yards al oo cehs
1892 &C. The lining obtained from the excavation,
spJ within distance Of 400 feet The contract requires
in such eases that the quantity OF lining shall be dc
d., 5ed from the excavation This was NOT done Thia