New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-10

EXAMINING FRAUDULENT CONTRACTS
THE HEARING OF AUDITOR THAYER by THE LEGIs-
LvTvE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE CONTINUED
UNBALANCED BIDS OF HORACE CANDEE J. NJ
BARNETT, AND GEORGE b. sHER:nL CONSIDERED
CONTRACTS NARROWED DOWN TO FAVORED
AND WEALTHY RING.
IRON A REGULAR CORRESPONDENT oP THE TRIBUNE.I
ALBANY, April 9.-The Legislative Committee
for investigating the canal frauds had short session this
afternoon at which ell the members were present The
Auditor Of the Canal Department, +. S. Thayer, was
further examined, and his examination concluded,
for the present at least The Committee decided not TO
meet again until Tuesday next, in order to give their
counsel opportunity to lay out work and to secure the
evidence of witnesses.
Auditor Thayer's testimony to-day related mainly to
three contracts, which have been printed in THE TElB-
uNE and to the conclusions to the system to be made
from them The three contracts those Of j. NJ Bar
nett at Utica the Erie Canal, OF George b. Sheriff. on
the Champlan Canal and Of Horace C0ndee on the J0r-
dan level. In the beginning Of his testimony, as
illustration Of the loose methods In the canal
system Auditor Thayer stated that the work Of one OF
the canals was by declared closed and finished In
September 1862, but the construction account WAS not
closed then, should have been The Auditor as the
first illustrative contract, produced one let TO Horace
Candee of Syracuse for work the Jordan Level OF the
Erie Canal The total cost estimated by the engineer
was $4,000. The amount stated in the bid was
cent per cubic yard prepOsterousy low figure said
the Auditor; probably 81 would be only fair price
On the other hand earth excavation was put at % cents
yard when % cents would be high enough The object
putting in bids for work at nominal prices was to make
up tco,sly low bid in the aggregate. The laws upon
contracts require that all bids shall be balanced ms
bid was not balanced, yet the Commissioners,
Messrs- Stroud Barley and Jackson, accepted
it, and gave out the contract 10 Candce
Mr. Thsyer examined to the bonds and deposits
required contracts. lie stated that a deposit oi
$50 900 and bond Of $4,000 required for $4,000
contract The assumed for requiring 80 large
bonds and deposits that men might not undertake
contracts who unable TO carry them our,
but the laws and their enforcement were
such as practically to confne the contracts to
men who could control bank or great deal
Of money-to favored class ring. The severe bonds
which are eXactcd create sort Of money MONOPOLY, and
largely reduce the number OF bids offered for the work
The system is Instantaneous TO tho state The work at
Present in progress is III anticipation of an appropriation
made, aud is sort OF credit system requiring large
capital from the contractors.
Asa second illustrative contract, Auditor Thayer pre-
scented that OF john NJ. Barnett who contracted TO doa
piece of work Utica for j02j the engineers esti
mate being Sl2A5O The contractors bill which
paid was $25,374 81. The extra work allowed was
s39,779 az, making a total Of S65l63 SO, or nearly
100000 more than the contract price. TIC Auditor
commented the various items, the prices
OF which, he said were In several cases vastly ulSo
por,ionate The contract OF George b. Sheriff. dated
August go was cited in illustration, the contract
price was $500 There was paid ont on 1t, however
S32 552. Hard wood contracted for at $50 per
thousand when it not worth half that amount, ana
great deal used while oak contracted for at
$40 per thousand less than half its value and none o ii
used The Auditor did not know who canyassed this bid
but was very badly balanced Tho extra work on TINS
contract was only $780, and the engineers estimate was
The contractor secured the work his bid OF
$6,65o and was required to deposit $1,000 ana give
bonds for 81 ,OOC more.
At the conclusion Of his testimony Mr.. Thayer was
questioned as TO the advsaby Of letting contracts in
gross without bids for each bit OF material used which
give room for fraud in unbalanced bids. He said that
there could be only one objection that The contractor
might slight his work, and this could not occur IL the
engineer does his duty The contractor could not GER
tn!y slight This work much he intended to do IN
bidding for rock excavation at one cent per and FOR
spikes cent per pound, rs had been frequently
done,