New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-07-14
MR.. CHURCH EXPLAINS.
DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE RUBBLE WORK.

| LATER HE BELIEVES THAT DRY-PACK-
ING WAS INSUFFICIENT FOR THE
TUNNEL-A BLUNDEI THAT
| COST THE CITY MANY
THOUSANDS OF
| DOLLARS.
| BENJAMIN S. Church, chief engineer OF the new
Aqueduct, whose examination by the Senate
| Committee has been awaited with much interest,
appeared before the Senators yesterday and re-
mained on the stand all day His testimony
was interesting, though not as sensational as had
| been expected. lie took issue with the Commits
/ sioners in regard TO the substitution OF tho
| rubble work for dry packing, insisting that he
! did not advise the change, they claim. AZ
| one point in his testimony he declared that the
! Board ought to rcscnd its resolution ordering
! the rubble work. but afterward he seemed to
think that il was all right. During the after
noon he gave an explanation Of the 100000
| that was paid out for alleged extra work by the
| Controller 1t appears, from what he says, that
! while the money was really paid, it was for work
| inside the line for which the city is required
| to pay for excavation
/ At the beginning of his testimony, Mr.. Church
| said that he desired to make a statement but
| Mr.. Boardman said he preferred to question him
| in the usual way, and the committee sustained
! his objection. Mr.. Church permitted. how
/ ever, to make his statement before leaving the
/ stand In answer TO Mr. Boardman he said that
neither he nor any one connected with the en-
/ gnecring department of the Aqueduct had been
consulted as to the advisability of giving the
contracts to one firm in preference TO another.
lie did not recommend the territorial plan Of
I giving out the work as stated by the Commits
sioncrs, but he did think it desirable that the
plants, etc, Of the contractors should be con-
centrated as much as possible TO facilitate the
work. 1t was the original intention only TO put
! rubble work where the work was bad. This idea
was carried out until the appearance OF Mr..
! Churchs circular letter in November, ss6. At
that time about four miles of the Aqueduct was
! completed, with dry packing except where tho
| work was bad
WHY THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN.
The contractors had been in the habit OF putting
| in walls, or ribs to support the arches, but
as they neglected to fill IN behind them properly.
Mr. Church issued his letter to correct this mat
ter by authorizing the substitution of rubble
worl, for dry filling lie only intended, his
! letter showed, that the change should be made
where the ground was bad but O'Bren & Clark
construed it as n permit to rlbble work every
where at an expense to the city of S5 per cubic
! yard
Seeing their rivals doing this, Brown, Howard
| & Co. raised row and declared that they would
initiate the example. They did So but it was
five months afterward when the chief engineer
found out the Interpretation that had been put
upon his letter Mr.. Boardman asked:
Don't you think It strange that such elarlng
as this should not be discovered months
Mr. Churchill think It strange that my suoordi-
mates did not report It.
About 3, 900 or 900 yards of rubblc work were
put in during this period On discovering the
mistake" Mr.. Church issued another letter, for
bidding the use of anything but dry packing, en-
! in bad nm
and the other contractors They tried to show
him the absolute necessity of putting in rubbc
work all along the line Their arguments and
entreaties were in vain. The witness remained
firm Then the contractors went TO the Com
missioners about it. Here they were more sue
ccssful for the Construction Committee requested
! Mr. Church to rescnd his letter. declined to
do so.' said Mr. Church, q" because l considered
it highly important that the work should be done
properly"
PLACING THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE BOARD.
Mr. Church finally did make the change, put
ting the entire responsibility for it on the Com
missioners This in July, 1887. There was
no record of the meeting held for the purpose a
fact that surprised the witness exceedingly.
| Mcssrs Barnes and Ridgway were the Commis-
sioners who directed him to have rubble work
used all over the Aqueduct He added:
do not think / should have been oyerruled. II
they knew better about the work should have been
commissioner and they engineers certainly shonl
not have changed my order unless had been compelled
| to do
o-Don't you think the Aqueduct Board should meet
this afternoon rescind resolution overrung youi
Al do.
Mr. Mclean, of Brown, Howard & Co., asked
the witness several questions until Mr. Nicoli
interposed by protesting against the contractors
interfering" Mr.. Mclean. insisted, however.
that the surveyors were ignorant on technical
matters connected with the Aqueduct work.
Mr.. McBean-As matter Of fact Mr. Church have
you not indorsed rubblc masonry work as properi
Al glad that it was used The Rround Is 10
treacherous that it is best to have masonry
Mr. Boardman-Eyen when it costs $1,000 900 extra
| TO have iti A-oh, it did cost anything like that
amount / think $4,000 Will cover 1t all. No. l
can't say that regret that ruhblc work was put In,
even when it done under misunderstanding OF my
letter
! APPARENTLY TWO ANSWERS TO ONE QUESTION.
This encouraged Mr.. Lowell to ask If the wit
ness regretted the adoption Of the rubblc work
anywhere near the arch, and despite his previous
tstimony the witness replied in the negative Then
Mr.. Church made the statement that he tried to
offer before, beginning:
There IS so little solid work along the line Of the
aqueduct think now this rubble-work Is neces-
sary TO preserve the work IL was my privilege 70 DO
engaged for twenty years on the ola aeaueducr
When took charge Of II there little water In
f. that one could walk through It, L became familiar
with the OF the rock There were only two and
a half miles Of rock tunnel. and 1 without
crtlcsng the able engineers who conducted the work.
that through this thought that comparatively thin
line Of brick work would give sufficient resistance for all
support needed
But when it was only twenty years old found that
| (: was in places badly bucked' out OF shape. and
know the natural reasons for the change Therefore
felt that conception Of the natural forma-
ton OF the ground, and Of the necessity
for ample supports the arch In
this tunnel There arc few good places In II that
you might call It all bai ground and throughout i,s
twenty nine miles all Underground In places thero
are 400 aud 500 be supported and there
must not be crack I'm the supporting masonry
or IL will come down time probably when the squc-
duct is filled with and when repairs would be Inn