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

ana that q fafRc VI "H"t =" w
sand mixed with it was clay and vegetable mold.
specimen of the sand used this Spring in the wall
near lock No. ~ aud in the wall near lock No. Is
lost 33Is per cent in weight by being washed, and
tie residium was far from being the "clcan sharp
sand required by the contract. MIR. Greene, the
Deputy State Engineer described the mortar used
Oh this work as in no respect superior To so much
mud and testified that dry wall, properly laid,
would have been decidedly better protection to
the canal
We ALSO found that more than 95 per cent Of the
expense Of this work thus far has been for the con-
strnction of vertical wall and work incidental 70 IT,
without single yard OF slope wall. OF the advan-
tage to the State of bounding the canal on both
sides for 20 long stretch exclusively by vertical
wall we shall have something to say presently. VI
its advantage to the contractor we had no doubt
when we aseeitaned that he was to get only 20
cents cubic yard for slope wall, while for ver'ica
walls laid dry be received 81.
No inconsidcrable amount Of vertical wall Is
proven to have been constructed against rock
face where OF course, it was worse than worthless
for involved an excavation Of the space occupied
by the wall 1t replaced the nlqre durable by far
less durable structure. >
TESTIMONY OF THE STATE ENGINEER.
The State Engineer, in his testimony upon this
point says:
O. Did YOU observe when this work. that large
amount wall had been built along the rock ace on inc
O. How ean you account for that on any principle OF
engineering applicable 10 such worAi A. Only as n maj
O Have you any reason, engineer, TO assign for
doing ibai work9 A. No, Sir; cannot ,..,
G. Was wOrb less. in your judgment as ah engineer
O. Mas II worthless in yonr Judgment as an engineer
WasteIul expenditure OF the public mOnt!si A. fcs
a. Are ro able TO advise this Commission who author
dpra u.n IL N uced
that YOU can answer the qneson-eiiher authorized or
counonanced9 A. was trying to think Of the Commits
ssonel--C omui ssiOnor Chapman ANA State Engineer
Bichmond, thnk.
For accepting sand and The stone of the character
we have described, the best excuse offered by the
several engineers il charge was that they were in
sructed by the resident aud division engineers TO
accept them, and tLeir excuse was that tiey were
the best to be found in the neighbOThood OF the
work.
The contract requires that lining of hard clear
gravel shall be used to be paid for al Che rate OF 80
cents per cubic yard 2CS30 yards have been estl-
mated and the contractor has been paid and
credited for it Sl1.s4S 30, while the evidence Is
conclusive that there has not been yard OF 'uch
lining use on the whole WORK.
Not ONLY have the enGineers. division and resi-
dent certified and sworn 10 incorrect measurements
of work and materials furnished uudol this cont ract
but they have repeatedly allowed ior work and Ger
tried it for payment twice. aud have haDltudily
allowed for certain classes of work aegIcratlng
al al.
OyEREsTi.iATEs AND RE-T,STIMATEs d. ENGINEER
BABCOCK.
An estimate made so rec antly as May last by S. l..
Babcock Resident Engineer Of the Eastern Division,
allows for @ GS7 cubic yards Of dry vertical wall i'll
excess of What engineers have been able to find.
of which 1921 cubic yards were estimated as laid
in cement the two representing an aggregate over
payment 10 the contractor OF Tis,56l 20.
"a, .,a. t,T Ar,,iln r,1 limo
1872 authenticated by affidavit, show that 49,
wards Of vertical wall estimated in March re-
estimated in April and that 1877 yards of wall
allowed in the May estimate were recsiimated ID
June. .
sisiant Engineer, estimated 81 cubic yards OF dry
vert iea wall above LOcS IS which had beon PIE
vioHslv estimated and credited 10 the contractor.
On tlie Isl OF june. 1872, Mr. Babcock estimated
G5l 26 cube wards of vertical wall in cement, and
IS iO2 Of dry vertical wall which also mad all been
estimated aud credited once beforcto the contractor
On the Ist OF ApyIi 1872, htbcock estimated 80
Cubic yaT,s Of emba kmen, OF the beIle sue 81 Inc
level between locks ana ., which had been allow n
by him he previous month IN excess OF thc t"'ai
amount that cOnld have been contained between The
wall and the constructive or imaginary excavation
slope of which We shall speak presently.
On tn 1st of Nay following. Babcock cstim9ted
and credited TO the contractor 2oGGe3 cubic wards
OF cInbGnlnent for the same part OF tins ioNei BE-
tween locks $ and .. and pIeylonsy oveIcs' mated
Oh his own theory Of constructive esiilnau0n
The same month, Babc0ck oyerestnnated The
bernie elghankIncnt between locks and 10. ] -
cubc yards, by sia!ing the enbaiknent 416 teet III
excess Of its true longth.
On tbe LIST Of Nav 1871, Babcock oycrcstmated
and credited the contractor WITH ~ yards OF NCIical
wall in cement between locks ~ and ..
Assistant lngneeT ". 5. Scot. testcs that be had
made in his Last estimate thc following allowance
Tor work not done or not payable:
100 cubic yards excavation Of earth, at 20 49, No.
90 Ell Yards ccay,iion Of rocI. Al 00
400 cubic Yards eEibanl1atni. al 70 cenis "G5i 60
sg1l fe 4 zinc docking, at $9O.........-... il- y"
~ j75 feet heHlook az SS.........:....:;- "4s 90
70 what extent this practice of rci;sti,naiing was
carried during the two yeSS OF which no recorded
detail, Of t work aye preserved, II l. now quite in-
possihl. TO SPEAK with confidence.
Assistant Engineer Scott also testified that t'r
docking timber used on this contract showed III q
cr0ss-section 100 instead OF the 100 sqaale inches
esibi sd the estimates. The tes. iony irt g.
tahliShes tie Tact that the OvcTcsbIndte OF docking
amounts 10 about one-siNfh of the whole estimate
OF say tj6 l03 ioct board measure.
We have not - yet been able 20 9et any hna
proof, in regard to the helnlOck used, but i would
be- hazardous to assume than that material was
measured more correctly.
fran comparing the crOsssactions sci out in these
detailed esiaaes It'll the official records from tie
hcld-notes Of the enlargement of the corresponding
sections "a the canal, tie former Indicate that rock
was ftitnated Dut woon orils 3 and j. and between
lochs aud 9, and between locks . and 10, while
the iield-notos q the enlargement show that very
considerable part OF the materials 50 estimated were
artificial ENHANCEMENT and natural earth III place.
The quantity thus cTTonconsly, II not frauduenily
estimated exceeds $500 cubic yards for which the
State was charged at the rate OF - cubic yaEd, or
III the aggre gate, 5000.
We regret 10 say that these errors Of measurement
and comqutatiu resulted I'D uniformly 10 the adj
vantage of the contractors that it would he rash 10
presume them t. have been accidental.
FRAUD IN TIKI EXCAVATIONS
The recorded cross-s sectional diagrams of the work
and the testimony of all the engineers establish the
fact that whenever vertical wall was laid il was
assumed that the contractor excavated the bank of
earth behind it at an angle of Az, or slope of l
length horizontal 10 vertical; and if rock. at
slo,e Of l., q length horizontal to / vertical. For