New-York tribune., 1879-10-28

to form the embanlmcnt, there being rs III this
case, no other necessary excavation from which ii
co ld be made Is justified bv the terms Of the con
tract. the same as in embankmeni made from mnte
rails taken from burrowmc-pit or spoil bank.
without reference to the iii -tanCe conveyed. In
tins construction Of the contract am sustained by
the Hon. Van II. Richmond, who was at that time
STATE isineer. and 10y the rulings Of the Engineer
Depart nent of the State for the last twenty
The assistant engineers took levels over the
ground eXcavated just before water was let into the
canal. ana hey reported ~ oonsders"ie amount OF
material lett above cana bottom, aud which Tie
contractor If cnuTse not allowed for cXcavat-
ing. had no reason for d strustng the measure
mets OF nv assistants. aud believe now they were
cOrTecI.
rne Commission charge that Kellcrs earth ex-
cavation was over-esiimated, b3slng their couclu-
sion ON the fact that four years after his contract
was closed, Horace Candee was credited bv an
other .stant engineer for having cXcavafed
several thousand yards over the same ground. Now
the Commission unfairly charge all the accumula-
tons OF sediment during these four years. which
Candec eXcavated, to an over-estinatc to Keller.
OF course the amount of original material deducted
from kelors account-lefJ IN bv hIm above canal
bottom-wOnld ne found IN Candee's excavation.
There is no evidence or certainty that the bottom
levels wer" used. or that the new engineers were
any more honest than the old ones; and until il can
be shown 10 the contrary, nu man has a right 10
say that Keller excavation was overestmated."
1T Is cnaTgcd that You favored improper allow
ances by your ASSISTANTS on the Keller work.
Yes such an lnsInuation IL made, without being
sufficiently specific for me 10 be able to answer It,
Will observe that the authors OF the statement
do not state that on two occasions / chal0ed the
reducing their estimates by nearly $4,000. The
contractor tKellerl was angry and dssai isied and
appealed 10 Canal Commissioners Wright and State
Engineer Richmond who examined the compliant
and sustained my action. If was permitting im-
proper allowances to be made, Is It reasonable to
suppose that / would have feared no exposure of
colluslon when made this reduction ia the con-
tractors estimator
did you testify before the b gelow Commission,
and II so. what was the substance of your state
mentf
NO. was not called, nor was my successor
Mr.. Goodsel), who made up Keller's final account.
was left to infer that the Commission did not con-
reasonable grounds upon winch to base these
charges Of wrong-doiug in this work 1t is only
necessary TO examine the Commissions report tue
Horace Candec contract and the subsequent action
of the Canal Board IN its final settlement, for there
Is no more ground for charging fraud ia one con-
tract than IN the either. Bcur In mind tnat two
members of the Commission. Messrs DIgelow and
Van Buren,, were members OF the Board when
Cand-e's account was settled.
This contract of CnDdee's was for removing wall
benches and substituting slope wall ON the BERNIE
side of the jordan level, adjoining the Keller work.
and on the opposite side OF the canal. IL was I'D
every respect similar III character. Ii had the same
quality OF rock excavation slope wall and vertical
wall except, as the evidence before the Commission
shows, that the lining all came from the common
excavations In the canal, while kellers came from
burrowing pits and was gravel The same charge
of over-estlmates and improper allowances is made
In both cases. BY examining the eleventh report of
the Bigelow Commission, made to Governor Iliden
III the Summer of 1875. you will ind what the
expert accompanying the Commission terms eIrO-
neOus estimates allowed under Candees contract.
The total amount is Sl7.507
Then If you Will examine state Engineer Van
BuTcn's special report, continued Nj. SOulc, land
the proceedings of The Canal Board IN March, 1877,
you viii see tnat the report OF the Commission
wiped out by the action Of The Board and the
former declaration Of 'Over-estimntcs Tetracted.
BY examining State Engineer Van Buren's special
report pending contracts. made 10 the Canal
Board In june 1870, on pages go TO 63 10 will be
seen tnat II was proposed 20 reduce the alleged
fraudulent oyer-charge of $l7,567 80 TO grand
total reduction recommended of $40, S22 5S.
by reference 10 the proceedings Of the Canal
Board In March. 1877 on pages 100 10 Ill, final
accounts of this work will be- found, In winch Is an
amended increase IN the thickness of the slope
wall OF two inches. In these also allowed IN
full all Of the other items charged the eleventh
report OF the Commission a. erroneous and iraudu-
lentl and instead of an over-estmate Of Sl7567 33,
as they charged. 10 appears that the grand total
reduction recommended OF $lOS22 5o has dISap-
peared, and that the State ls brought IN
debt TO the contractors, no more work
having been done. And the Canal Board by
resolution on page 16S Of the proceedings (McssTs.
BgeOw and Van BuIen voting III the atiirmatvel
uhOrZe and cause to be paid TO the contractor IN
fuil settlement of his contract, the additional sum
Of f9, 1873 %
Now admitting that this was fair and eQuit-
able settlement of tins contract. the report Of the
Commission all of this Jordan level work Is un-
worthy of belief"