The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-10-11
,oeed,nss or ne canal Board on the 18th November

hsT2:-
Mr. Taylor presented communication from W. b, Cooper
divison engineer, recommending that alteration be
Fnade the Of constructing the enlargement Of
sSis between Ns 800 2s25 survey iirsi dissonJ
Resolved Tha he alteration IL the manner Of construct
Sing the enlargement q the Champlain Canal between
day recommended ~ vi Cooper division cneneer, be
adopted the expense Of the 10 exceed ~ 225
on calling tho yeas and nays the resolution was
adopted The result Of this proceeding the part OF
abe Canal Board vas 10 relieve tho contractor from his
obligation to construct 900 cubic yards Of slope wall
~ cost 70 the State or only 81 600 and replace ~
structure such ~ we have described ~ an ~
Stiles So WHAT Mr.. Coopers reasons were WHICH
3niuced the Board into this strange deviation from eno
provisions Of the statute cannot el they nave no'
The CanaIECommissioners seem also to have been
equally indifferent 70 their obligations After lessing
the contract 70 benson, they do not appear " aso
given u thought, except 70 issue W nli nb 80;
from month 10 month, prcdicatcu upon INC es.l
mate Of the engineer whereby he was enabled 10 ob-
tain the money from the state treasury ihey see W
have overlooked the fact that they are specially charged
@ro examine frequently and carefully lhto tho stao %
khe canals works committed TO their charge ana
IsTo superintcnd and cause 20 De made such eXtraor
binary repairs or improvements as may be ordered ="
III such frequent and careful examinations" anu
observation-disclosures had taken place how very soon the
fraud Of the would have been discovered and
timey correction made. We do not believe that 1t was
ever intended the responsibility Of the State Eng
Aeer should he had signed the plans and eS
aates subniteG by him 10 the Canal Board III opn
lon direct RESPONSE oihty rested upon him throughout
the prosecution Of the work and until he had examined
and passed upon ,hc FINAL account DIR. ex-stae Eng
variance with views that deem it best to include
At IN this report
The report here refers to the testimony OF ex-Sate
Engineer Taylor, which Is so much at variance with
The views OF the commission that extract from such
testimony is published. The report then continues
II only justice Mr. Taylor to state that this con
tract let in July 1871 and he did not assume Office
till January l. 1872 Nearly all the work under II, how
ever, prosecuted during his administration, the
contractor being unable TO commence operations ull
after the close OF navigation, in December 1871 lie
desnes that he disciplined MI. Babcock in the winter
of 1928 by Diminishing him from the service OF the
State for his connection with the original survey but
DE failed 10 bring the matter TO the attention OF the
Canal Board as required by the following section Of the
naw (see Chapman, section e57):-
When even the Engineer and Surveyor either OF
duct tho OF any engineer assistant in relation
20 public works. IL shall be his duty report tho
the Canal Board, who may employ SO many and
such and engineers they deem proper TO
Treasurer OF the Auditor for their compensation
and the expense the investigation II this had been
done in Mr. Babcoeks the fraud in the exhibit sheet
would have been brought the notice OF the Canal Board
before the final settlement with Denison was made.
OF Mr. Crocker's action relative to this contract we
form other opinion than that he knowingly and
wfuly falshcd his estimates thereby enailng great
foss state TO the corresponding profit OF the
contractor Denison.
JOHN BIGELow,
DANIEL MAGoNE, JR.,
A. Il. ORR
JOHN d. VAN BUREN, in.
ALBANY Oct. q, 1875,
sChap. 7SS, Laws Of 1870.
fChap. 7SS, Laws Of 1870