New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-08-04

ton or written statement has been submitted to tho
| Canal Board, and that the alterations which hay,
| been made in TIE conditions OF tas contract which
have ..gA It's expenses to the state frepa @74 is3
| TO 3i0l 2IJ have been made without any authority
of law whatever.
! Why tie work on dis contract has been directed
bv ria StaIe3 agents ~ Systematically in the inter-
cst of the contractor, ard With s'ic1 reeae5s indf
ference to the Interests OF the Staie, nealds some
explanation. The subject has received ana VIII con-
time 10 receive careful attention. IL would lie
| premature 10 lay before you all The testimony We
have taken upon this subject ufil onr inquiries have
covered some what larger surface than has yet been
possible. - 4 ....,.o.. o,,. oo...,.
tions now that most of the fraud ierpctiitoh nlcr
this contract may be traced directly to Tie predoiai
| mating influence of leading canal contractors; =,
| liz will be quite too apparent 10 those who will
stnd~ tbs subject by t6e iixht of the facts we shall
lay before you that the laws relating 20 the canais
have been uniformly construed IN the interest OF tho
contractors, who appear 20 BE- the only permanent
politca power in the state. and THAI the accounts
of the State with them have been usually kept by
men moro or less directly under their influence OF
control.
FINDINGS op THE COMMISSION.
Other aspeots of the contract were developed In
the testimony taken before this Commission which
merit attention but they can be suitably pre-
scented in final report Combining ourselves there
fore az exclusively as possible TO the mode IN which
this contract has been LEI and executed we find;
Ffyst: That il was let without any preliminary
suryey or the production OF any sueh surrey, map
estimates Of the NOrk tO DE uOilc anu iutcAiiso
Seeond: That L. ii. Croker the Division En-
gineer, whose duty it was TO furnish them, never
made any such survey, map. and estimate.
Third: That V. X. Richmond, the sta.e Engineer
and Surveyor whose duty il was to submit them,
never subIaitted any such survey map or estimate,
with bis approval Endorsed tbeleoi vi hied any sucn
Fo~riL: That o. Bascom and John D. Fay, then
Canal Commissioners the DIST cf JrY, ana prior
Z, the letting of this contract certified 10 the Canal
BoaId thdt tdcy had that Gay examiner anu ap-
proved OF maps plan; ana 9s t sEGHD'r ,no
Deor for the work afterward described IN sad con-
tract; had approved nj the same and had recon-
mended their adoption though no ,nch paps or esti-
mates had been made examined by either 81 them.
ram: That the Canal Board Oh the same u - Gay
of July resolved, That the maps, plans and estl-
males whicA had that day been aPPioFea ny me
Canal OunnSslOners and submlttea 10 tiie ahai
Board be adopted, and advertised for letting
though 10 such survey maps, or estimates as the
law required SUBMIT II either TO te sai0 Doiid
OF to tie said Canal Commsslone
Sir'k: That the said contract was advertised ana
lot nv the said Canal Commissioners without their
having III their possession any such knowledge 81
the wOrk and materials required Ior ls execution as
the law required them to obtain before they were
authorized 10 invite proposals Tor H. 80 - ,
Serenth: That the recorded minutes OF the Canh
Commissioners snow thai the first acton taken ny
that Board III relation 10 this work was "a difecl ne
issue IF proposals FOR letting it, i'll execution OF tie
orders oil the Canal Board; that the report signed
30 l}ascom" and John d. Fay" presented 10 The
Canal Board the 2ls; july, lod2 winch rpre-
SchnUier and ii other work. had been submitted 70
the Canal Commissioners by t. ". Cr0cser, ID lSon
Engineer, and tiat the said canal commissioners
lad approved the same and recomhendci t1cm ior
ADOPTION entirely false III each ana every par
Ji,bth. That the resolution adopted by the Canal
Road importing hat maps, plans, ana estimates lor
the Port Schuyler and for ii other works, approved
by the Canal Commissioners, han pe'l su1hit.'n %
tie Canal Board the u Ia day OF Juiy, lHO3 ~as
based upon "A false certificate Oh Canal COIAlS'iOl-
CT. Fay AID Bascom. .;.o :, 1900 ,or ho.
il been the practice since, tor the Division Erener
Of the Eastern Division TO submit ior the Si~te
Engineer 10 approve, nor Tor tLe IahaI toIilhis
siOner to submit to the Canal BOARD any shrh SIT
Ycys las plans, spec iiieati0Is and estimated -
Inc law requires 10 lie made preparatory TO tine 1T
ing of contracts, while ii has been for the SANE
nrrfod. and sill is the practice of tie Canal Com
Ir.sioners and Canal Board before lnvitlng pIolo-
sails for "A contract. 10 pTocl lam II Ia the Prined
record of their proceedings thai scA s'I Ie{s, maps,
Submitted, examined and approved by their boards
respectively. 80. ,.,
iy the Canal Conn issio.ers at he lttilng of tlS
contract not based upon any aetdal survey ga
eSilnat e of the work to be- done and materials {" 10
furnished but mainly upon calculation VI ne di-
ferent kinds Of labor ana materials that would sui
fee in the aggregate to absorb TIC money ihtn re-
Gently appIov rated by the Legislature 20 tins work.
Ehienit: That over Slj0,CcD of the estii .ates
for Work done under this contract nave been allowed
for OTA and materials wrongfnly esunateG.
Ircifh: hat very considerable percentage OK
the money expended on all tie recent contra. ls IN
toe Eastern Division for constructive w"ih was
credited 10 the contractors with IlJl kAO~!oleo
that il had never been done.
TEsrfonfh: Thar not a single yard of the strac-
tnles built under this cOntr 4 - up 10 tie secea-
tions Mat much of the wall Is already oat oi l.e,
and I'm need uf repairs, and must COntlnur 10 Dc u
source ii considerable and pcrmancn'expcu,e.
Foaacith: That whereas the law undor which
this contract Wa LEI contemplated the Teplaeeihet
II wall benches between Port Schuyler aud mo
Lower Mohawk Aqueauct, mainly with slope Wall,
which the contractor bound himself TO build TOR ID
r.rTs n ward he has built slope wall, Dnt faJ
built vertical wall exclusively, and at the rate, waeIi
dry of a. ylfl, and wien IaIi IN ceilrii al -
yard, though at the prices AT Which he tooA ti' ''h
trace the whole work might have been completed
with slope wall for les, than the State Ehsiheefs
original cst innate Oi YSi,Olf. . =,
1iTcelfh: That many yards Of this vertical wall
were constructed along rock face on the DeTtno
side oi the canal, wnere cy were utterly worthless.
Sixteenth: That although 10 cement wall was csii-
mated for il the contract, and the law expressly
prohibits the making OF any extraordinary repairs
rx,s.pt by a contract let according TO law, 10 tho
lowest bidder upon conditions, III TINS case utter
ly lsregarded, the contractor was allowed 10 con-
Siruct l5:,7S cnbic yards Of cement wall, az tiie
rate OF ~ n cubic yar more thsn he contracted the
same day to DO similar work Tor on &n adjoining
level and for which he has already been credited The
sum of $lO7 ,O46.
S,rcufeepfh: That the vertical walls built unneces-
Sariiy unwisely and Ia large extent not sliogoth-
or without any authority OF law under this contract,
have been 40 constructed as TO eDcroach upon the
waterway of the canal ard reduce It's cross-sec-
tiona area an average of at least five per cent below
what 10 would have been If the contract had been
fait nfuily adhered 90.
Ijcbteen,h: Thatthe measurements were habituay
ma.,o by assistants employed from mCnth 10 month
for specific jobs who gave no bonds, many o. whom
were and ale c0nspcuouSly deiicIelt II tlie Aoio
important qualifications for sueh duty, VINO seem
10 have habifUaly accepted inferior work, ana 10
have measured and estimated the Work mcoTectly
with tie iuIl knowiedg oi The Resident and DIVISION
Engineers and usually under their instructions.
Nineteenth That responsible officer NJ the Canal
Department protested 10 have any accurate hnomi-