New-York tribune., 1879-10-28
Mr.. SOULE'S RECORD.
Ills CONNECTION WITH The KELLER CON-
TRACI.

TRACT.
A TALK WITH MR. sOULE-HIs EXPLANATION OF
THE CoNTRAcT-rHE JUSTICE OF THE CANAL
COMMISSIONS CRITICISMS DENIED-MR. soULE
NEVER CALLED BEFORE THE CANAL COMMISSION.
A TRIBUNE reporter recently held the conversa-
ton which follows with Mr. Soule in this city.
The letter OF cx-Commissiouer Wright having dis
posed Of the Otsco Lake charges, the jordan Level
charges naturally came up for discussion The talk
was as follows:
81 see that The Nelc- York EreriNg Post. IN
meutng on ex-Caual Commissioner Wrights letter
recently published IN The 1riaJNE. exonerahng
You from amy wrong-doing in the construction of
the Olsco Lake Reservoir, states that in the
eleven report Of tine Bigel0w Canal Investigating
Commission. IN 1879, tney found erroneous est-
mates under the Keller contract for work on the
Jordan eyl OF the Erie Canal. Ii Is also stated
tiat ION were the resident engineer when a similar
contract was executed by which the State lost
Ss.s0l so, aud another by which the State also
los $G,GG7 OF. Have you any objection 20 stating
Won connection with the work under those con-
tracts for publication IN THE TRBUNEi"
Il had nothing whatever 20 do with the execu-
tion of tire last two contracts to which alluson
madr. and never certified to any work done under
them. l was resident engineer when the Keller
contract was made. but had nothing TO do with the
letting, though had general supervision of large
any ovrr-cstmates, of any lassifcat0ns
allowances that not justified by the terms OF the
contract"
Had You at that time charge Of any other
work ~
"Yes, had charge of a large amount Of work,
widely scattered over 32J miles of canal, and any
person can see that had to rely upon the measure
nents of the assistant engineers III charge of each
piece of work. 1t was the duty Of these engineers
L. la a audit als
measurements as it advanced, which, FROM the ma
ture Of the work. could only be done by the ens-
neer constantly on the ground"
"ln what form was 1t their duty to report TO your
Under oath and according to the forms provided
Messrs. Charles A. Sweet and John Y. Norton were
the assistant engineers In charge of the Keller work.
and they made all the measurements, computations
and estimates of slope wall and all other work, upon
Which The contractor paid. In rendering these
estiina es Co me- they made oath that they believed
tina. the amount of the estimates did not
exceed the actual quantities and value OF the
whole amount of materials delivered and labor per-
formed by the contractor. 1t is presumed that the
Canal Board composed wholly Of Democrats, and
including Nessrs Bigelow and Van Barren of the
Investigating Commission, had unlimited faith In
the mt gritty Of Mr.. Sweet. one Of my assistants as
he wls sequently retained by them n the posi-
tloa of division engineer during q term of two
years.
Inever gave instructions to allow. and never
sanctioned an allowance TO the contractor, of any
greater amount OF any work than was actually
DONE Ny directions invariably to allow such
thickness OF wallis such slopes in excavation behind
vertical walls and such measurement for all other
work as would cover the actual quantity done. and
no more.
81 did not leave the classification Of rock ex-
cavation to my assistants where it was possible
for me to make personal examination. Before
accepting the estimate OF rock excavation lvislted
the work with Assstant-E Engineer Sweet and
deducted / 700 cubic yards from his classification
but the remainder was a very hard rock to ex-
cavate and was just classification under the con-
tract.
As matter of fact, they were frequently in
structed bv Inc to hold the contractor TO the con-
struction of the walls TO the full thickness re-
Qured by the contract. On two occaslonS-onee
in the presence OF Canal Commissioners Wright-I
ordered a large amount OF wall to be taken
down and rebuilt, for the reason that the
stones used in laying it smaller than snch as
were required by the contract. AT the same time l
directed that the wall should be excluded from the
monthly estimates until reconstructed of stone OF
proper size Ny assistant afterward reported to me
that the wall had been rebuilt of larger stone.
"The lining behind the wall was gravel obtained
from burrowing pits long distance away from the
work. bought by the State for that purpose. The
material which was obtained from the PRISM
Of the canal and placed on the top Of the
towing PATH amounting 10 about six thOu-
sand cubic yards-which Mr. Sweet test.hes
was not deducted from the excavation, as the
terms of the contract required. although allowed
by him once as lning-I directed him TO
deduct from the lining quantities, because
1t was unsuitable material; and this was
done. My successor tMr. Goodsell, before
certifying to the final account, required the con-
tractor 20 boat gravel during the season oil Dayiga-
ton and cover the top OF the towing-patb over the
whole extent Of his work There was no improper
allowance of lining to my knowledge. My assist
ants stated to me that the lining behind the wall
all came from the burrowing pit, and never saw
any other used behind the wall"
The report, | see. charges that ernbankment
was improperly allowed
q" The embankment was allowed in the space be- |
hind vertical walls to actual slope of one to one
ss sAssistantEUgneer Norton testified 1t was taken
cut to. THIS allowance, when the material from |
~oe ~xcavation Is necessarily handled second time