New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-02
THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OPINION ON


CANAL CONTRACTS.
CONTRACTORS SHOULD BE PAID ONLY THE AMOUNT
OF THE ORIGINAL EsTIMATEs-CHANGE OF PLAN
sUOUIp NOT BE MADE WITHOUT READYERTIsE-
MENT AND RELETTING.
ALBANY, April AT a meeting of the Canal
Board recently, Secretary OF State Wers offered reSo
uons, which adopted that the Attorney-ueherai
examine and report FIRST what changes In tine lorn Vi
canal contracts rendered necessary by the amehu
ments 10 the State Constitution; second, whether'
under Section Of Article OF the Constitution any
greater amount than the aggregate declared a"arueu
to the lowest bidder can be paid 10 contractor by
reason of extra work; third, whether, under the
Seventh Article OF the Constitution. any change
IN plan or addition can be made IN any
work upon the State canals, after contract mas Oeen
entered into for specific work, without readVertisin9
and reetting such additional work to the lowest oue
under the direction OF the Canal Board and fourth
what CHANGES If any, in the rules Of the Canal Board
relative TO the hearing and determination OF appeals
from the awards OF the canal appraisers rendered
necessary OF the adoption OF the amendment
TO Section IA Article of the State Constitution
Attorney General Pratt's opinion In reply to these
inquiries has Just been published. and in effect COM
pletey destroys all future purposes the chief ea-
lures by which OF contractors secured their
plunder. Itisa rs follows:
STATE OF NEw-YORK.
OFFICE OF TIE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Z
ALBANY March 81, 1875 }
he HonorabIs Canal Bonrd The Attorney General,
10 whom referred sundry resolutions OF TINS boaru
requiring him report what changes II any should oe
made the form OF the CANAL contracts hetetoioIc
use by Canal Comm sOners IN consequ nee OF ne
late 10 the Constitution OF tue state WOMB
respectfully report mar, having examiner sad ahenu
mens and the form OF the contracts Low IN use Ne uoes
not md change sin the form OF such contracts
Is necessary or expedien except as mere lter s-auu
He is OF the opinion that Section B. Article or me
Constitution does uOi affect the question prop0unded by
the second resolution 0t the cana bOitu Al tAisuis
contracts contain provisions that the total amount TO be
paid by Canal Commissioners TO the contractor snail
not exceed IN The aggregate tnL estlmae9 al"uut o.
tle work including the expense OF enelneering but u
believed mat these PROVISIONS OF tue are
seldom ever, 'Orced The provision Is not required
AT lest by any express words OF the Constitution, but
In the opinion OF the Attorney General " Is Wlse pro
vision, winch, strcty en- o.ceu, miu nav ~
vented many Of the pxtravaghnt expenditures co when
the sta has been made subject III contractors pay
be discontinued a. soon as Le alous Va ~, al
estimate be reached whether the work De finished or
not, IL would become matter Of inquiry how IL nap
pened tndt ne engineer IN cIarge nau ae 30 via an
eamate Publc attention would thus De Drawn 10 the
matter. well as the attention ol tne Oleers having
As the praGtire has grown up the original estimate OF
the Ens1eer Department Il scarcely any criterion for
estimate Of the actual txpense oil the work con-
stitutes simply an entering wedge
The contractor goes ON Win the WORK until the appro
nratnn j. rl4used, aud Is pld without regard To the
estimated cost OF the work. That large expenditure
nas made winch viii prove prohtess to the state
# left unfinished IL the potent argument to the Legsla
ture to ii 10 make stil further appropriations
and thus State Is drawn into Undertakings the value
OF wnIcn when Completed does not equal the amount
expended upon Them.
ID
cessary that the aforesaid provision OF the contract be
srctly enforced Il be understood that In no case
can the receive more IN the aggregate from
the Canal Commissioner than the original estimate IN
GLIDING the expense OF engineering, ana the conse
ouence wuuli that the estimates OF the expense OF
proposed work would afford some criterion or the actual
e OF such Work
n regard The inquiry contained In the third resolu
ton OF your $50 ri submitted 70 him. the AttorneyGen
era Is OF tue opinion that change OF plan which
would materially. enhance or diminish the aggregate eG-
pense work under Contract or that would mate
rally change tue char icer or e1peuse OF te hdttrais
the spir design OF the 7h Article OF the COnstltu
lion require re4dyertised and Ielet Otherwise
provision sad article requiring all WORK ~ De let
10 the lowest bidder might be tvaded.
in the late message OF Gov. Iilden 10 the
Legislature striking examples set forth Ilustra
ing the effect OF change OF plan upon the cost VI
proposed WORK. ,.--
Canal Board snOuLi IN consent To q change OF
nan winch shOui materially add TO or diminish the
cost work already contracted except on CONDITION
thai the work be TeadYersed and relet 10 the lowest
bidder He would suggest alteration III the form
OF the by adding TO the clause restricting the
Canal Commissioners from paying 10 the contractor
more Ia the aggregate than the esmated amount OF the
WOIk, the NOfds except DJ INC consehI VI TIC Naha
Board" i,
The is OF opinion that no change in
the rcs OF the Board In regard 10 tue nearing ana
ais frOuI tue awards OF the Canal
Appralsers are rendered by reason of the
sdoDtiou o amendment TO Section "a OF Article
of the Constitution. Tbs provision OF tue Constitution
executes Itself and does not require any legislation 10
nltit In force II hearing SUCH appeal the canal
Board should nnd that the Appraisers had disregsrded
Inc provisions, that section, II would De It's duty 10
anu correct the error the same as II
law Dui the Attorney General Is not aware that it re-
aulres amendment to the ri as 10 reach such case
All whicn Is respectfully submitted
d. PRATT, Attorney General