New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-10-16
ALMOST A MILLION SAVED.
A LONG EXPECTED LEGAL OPINION.
Mr.. BEEKMAN SAYS THE AoUEDUCT CoNTRAC'
TORS HAVE RECEIVED e7Ss.ss9 rs
JNpRoprRIy

Mr. BEEKMAN SAYS THE AoUEDUcT coNTRAC'
TORS HAVE RECEIVED s7ss.ss9 rs
IMPROPERLY.
Tho long -proinscd opinion of Corporation Counsel
Bcehman, on the question Of what Is due to the
Aoueduct contractors were sent to the commissioners
Yesterday Mr. Bcekrnsn advises them that
s73s, $3.50 rs has been allowed TO the contractors Inn
properly for extra excavation outside the line OF
MASONRY as fixed by the plan known as The Line
AAA" This is tho aggregate OF Soso,49s 30 PAID
on the recommendation of Chief Engineer Church
for extra excavation prior to May % 1887 ana
s15os9o 90 since that date. Mr.. Beekman answers
the Eve questions propouuded in the report Of the
COMMITTEES Of Finance and Audit adopted by the
Board on August 20.
He says that the outer line OF excavation Tor whch
the contractors claim pay from the city. unoer
the contract was to be fixed as the work advanced
and should not I've determined and applied to section
or sections completed. Tho contractors, he says
must build masonr- beyond the line adopted. as far
nc the Chief Engineer directs but the mere fact that
tbe masonry was built beyond such line did not
Give them a right to be paid for extra excavation
The allowances made for such extra work bciorc
May o. 1887. were therefore Illegal and must Or
recovered b. the city. These sums may be deducted
By the Controller from the money which the city has
withheld from the contractors since April last or
n may be deducted in detail from the monthly
estimates hereafter presented. II such deduction
would ebarrass the contractors and delay the WORK
the repavrcnt may be left for the final scttierenr
REGARDING the Chief Engineers authority to nx me
line OF excavation and allow the payment OF extra
excavation since May 81, 1887, amounting 70
500 co. he says that the Chief Engineer did not
er sucb line and that the right of payment was
assumed from Mr.. Churchs former action regarding
extra excavation. The city, Mr. Beekman says 0a"
recover this money paid under an improper as
sumption. .., ,o,,,
After reading Mr. Dcehman's opinion Contractor JONI
oBricn said with laugh: "Thaps all hon'o"s'
II will be all right after the election
Chief Engineer Church said yesterday that IL wouo
n. found that Mr. Ecekman IS in error as 10 MS con-
illusions regarding the Chief Engineers powers uher
the law and the Aqueduct contracts IRIS salu WI.
Church. is not question OF law, but question: vi
engineering Mr. Bceman in this opinion runs counter
In the written opinions on the subject OF his TWO III
mediate predecessors in the Corporation Counsers once
,ude, Lacombe and Judge O'Brien. Not only that
pur ne takes a exactly contrary to tnat gwen oy
,nree of tho abe contract lawyers In the City OF New
fork
Mr. Church added that a statement published IN
The Tribune on October IA, In relation TO the awarn
made by the Commissioners of land appraised ior inc
new Aoueduct I'm the cease of the New-York and New
England Railroad did him great injustice, saying
.Thc estimates which l sent in first were maze py
order Of the Aqueduct Commissioners and wore paseo
on the suppostion that the roadbed should be broad
enough for four tracks, with very large culvert ana
very thick stone baasng, which were the demands
of the railroad company. had the survey madc on
which tho estimates calculated on that oasis
These footed up about $4,000 as stated.
"The private agreement for an arrangement be-
tween the railroad directors and the Aqueduct Com
mssoners (Which preceded the estimates referred to
was never carried out understood that the Cor
poration Counsel Judge Lacombe disapproved any
private agreement. Aftcrward an enabling act was
passed BY the Legislature to appoint commissioner
of Appraisal. Then / was asked to have anotIer
estimate made for a single track roadbed with iar
more reasonable and less expensive methods OF con
struction. / then ordered the surveys and estimates
made on that basis, which reduced tho amount 10
about SCI. 500. i understand that the allowance
made by the Commissioners Of Appraisal to the rail-
road company Is $4,000, ST., 500 moro than my
estimate for tho same work never had anything
TO do with any negotiations for tho commits sion In
regard to the settlements whatever