The New York herald., 1875-08-25

contract West Troy, which virtually awarded TO
sx-Asscmblyman Willard Johnson, and whom the Com
mission say tho real party in interest The frauds
Are similar character those disclosed in previous
reports, and show total amount far the invcst-
cation has gone, of fraud upon the State of over
$4,000
To THE GOVERNOR OF rHE STATE or New York;
On tho 18th day of October, 1s09 a contract was
awarded TO John v. Boomer, of Fulton n. Y,
70 construct tho lower side lock at tho upper side
West Troy the work be completed on before
the 25th OF April, 1871
The sureties were Willard Johnson and Willis s.
Newton
On tho 7th OF December 1862 and within two months
after 1t executed the contract was assigned TO
Willard johnson, who is understood to have been
originally the real party In interest," and Boomer his
instrument.
The ontract provided simply for the construction OF
lock and approaches each sixy-sx feet in length
at cost Of $40 026 without any authority whatever,
except what they profess from this contract
he States agents have permitted the contractor to
build in addition a weir; TO enclose the triangular
Tace Included between the upper side cut the Hudson
River and tho West Troy basin by vertical walls; TO
It's surface about 900 square yards, with stone
pavement and finally to build an iron swing bridge over
The waterway the towpath aggregating an expendi-
ure OF Sill 19S $62 172 In excess Of the contract
In the final account the contractor is credited for
The excavation OF 63l4 cubic yards of rock SO, 3l4
This allowance Is made for clearing out old dock
filled entiroy with earth mixed with loose stones and
thcrc bcing blasting required but the contract price
for earth excavation only thirty cubic yard
while Tor rock excavation Il was 81 Upon this single
item the contractor allowed 81 419 80 than he
entitled 10.
There also allowed in the final account Is, ,6l0
cubic yards OF cmbankmcnt All but 900 cubic yards
Of this embankment was made from earth paid for as
excavnton deposited within 200 fect and therefore by
tho terms of the contract not entitled to be paid for
\ second tmo For tho Is 6lO cubic yards thus wrong
fully estimated the contractor was allowed So, 122
The final ontains allowance for 9 743 $40
fir VAR dc nj n ninn gi Vft anti NARY Nnr
The contract requires that when lining is made from
materials paid for rs excavation and used within 400
feet Of the place where oxcvatcd, the quantity thus
used shall be deducted from the excavation II appears
rom tho testimony Of Mr.. r. j. Hilton, the engineer in
charge that all thus lining fell within the foregoing
Brction, but that II was never deducted from the ex
cavation.
Tho estimate of earth excavation is consequently too
great by 743 5l0 cubic yards for which the contractor
1928 05
There is also an allowance of 90 655 pounds cast iron
nj twelve cents per pound.
Mr. Hilton tcstilcs that H. 26O pounds of this iron
wcro allowed for scrap and pig iron used as compen
eating weight In the swing bridge tho head of the
lock This bridge built in the spring of 1874 dur
ing the Commissioncrship of Barkay
Tho construction of this bridge unlawful, for it
was never let by contract nor did the contract under
which Johnson was working contemplate any such i'm
provcmcn The prices, therefore, for the work done
md materials furnished it, If paid for at ALL should
have been simply their market value. Tho market
value Of scrap and pig iron at this point did not exceed
two cents a pound Tho fact that cast csti-
mated in the contract at twelve cents pound made
pretext for charging the State 81 226 more Tor the iron
used than II worth, though put into work not
severed by this contract nor by any other.
TESTIMONY ENGINEER GREENE
The testimony of Mr.. Greene, The present Deputy
State Engineer, is very explicit upon this subject:
q What would be fair price Tor pig iron at that
point II necessary to load the bridge in that
WayY A. About two cents pound
q 1t done under any supervision of yours?
A. No SIR it was included in estimates made subsequent
10 the expiration of my term.
u DO you find it allowed in the final estimates
in favor OF this contractor! a. Yes, sir:
O. Have you any theory any explanation except
tho dishonesty negligence of the engineer in making
any such allowance, there being contract and tins
being where he is called to exercise his judgment?
A. No. sir
q You find that twelve cents n pound for 10000
pounds allowance of at least ten cents pound
than could bo procured for at its market value9
A. Yes sir.
@ Now, assuming that this bridge had been called
for under the contract and that the contract provided
for twelve cents pound for cast ron would that have
afforded any just reason in your opinion, for the allow
OF this pig iron at the price Of cast IRON? A. No.
SIR
Tho contract contemplated the construction of only
1fty cubic yards of vertical wall at s6 yard
In the final account the State is charged with 800 rs
cubic yards which find classified as follows
7649 cubic yards dimension masonry at so. ST. 649 90
fll.3 cubic yards ashlar curved retaining wall
A4 55 cubic yards coping at $40 ......... a,Ssl 90
Making total Of. SIC, 66o so
FOR work which, at the contract price Of SO the yard
would have amounted TO only S7,924 80, leaving the
State the loser by this false classification of IS, 49,
Mr.. r. j. Hilton, tho assistant engineer in charge of
this work. cstics that he m.do this classification Of
vertical wall as 'ock masonry" under the orders of
the division and resident engineers and the Canal Com
missioner. The curved ashlar classified by
direction of Mr. Babcock.
Mr. Greene, when asked to account for the allow
ance Of $40 yard for this wall, testified olows:
a. How do you account for allowance the final
estimate there OF 243 yards AZ $40 yardY A. That
Is retaining and curve wall built from the foot of the
lock around TO the waste we and the wall north Of the
lock across the basin.
@ Why it classified under vcrtca! wall laid in
hydraulic mortar at the rate OF Sc per cubic yardy A.
don't know.
q Give any reason that you can assign, as an en-
between S6 and $40 isn't erroneous A. Ny impress
sion is that Is different character OF masonry tho
stone is larger and better material
q How can you have stone larger than the condi-
lions specified IN this work. that they shall be less
ness and at least feet in bed A. Perhaps,
technically, IL would under the head Of vertical
wall but am giving you what / conceive to be the
reason.
q Under this contract can you. as an engineer con
eeve any valid reason Tor allowing more than 50 yard
Tor that walt a. No, sir
O. want to call your attention TO another branch of
IT, and that Is that quantity that is allowed therelll3
Of ashar curved retaining WALL at Sl5 per cubic yard.
A. That IS all the curve that speak Of
Q. You when you allowed that To the engineer you
was in error A. AS far as that item is concerned.
q. Have you any theory by which the contractor
ought to be allowed slj cubic yard for that work un
der thus contract A. Except that under the head Of
extra work the price might have been hxcd by the
Commissioner and engineer.
q That wouldn't be under the contract a. Not un-
Now turn that part that is allowed as l42 cubic
yards Of coping at $50 and tell me whether IL Is not
allowed at The same price, $40 per cubic yard that Is re-
quircd IN the for which the contractor is
quirc to furnish fine dressed stone for the locks and
whether that not far you are enabled to deter
mine an erroneous Allowance a. II is
You think IL WAS wrong done the state tn
allowing $50 for this copying? A. | do
For paving the triangular space enclosed by the
ock the river and the BASIN 2425 2l0 cubic yards OF
paving have been estimated and allowed In the accounts
n vertical wall a'd in cement, at the rate OF 80 per-
yard; IN the hna account this rccassicd pave
mcnt at 50 per yard; the allows this class
n work but So per yard the pavement estimated at
10 inches IN thickness; IL found from forty -Ono
measurements To be less than 10 inches IN thickness
estimated, therefore, SOS 4I0 cubic yards IN
OF the work DONE and at 50 700 so III excess OF
he contract price
CoSrlNUATIoS THE REPORT
We have stated that the swing bridge and waste weir
we're not let by contract built under authority
VI law and yet the masonry for the abumens OF the
ridge and for the appears in all the monthly