New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-06-10
SUPPLEMENT.
PAGES 9 20 1@.
MORE AQUEDUCT JOBS.
NsPEcroRs CHA ,GED WITH BRIBERY.
SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE rAssErT IN
rr~c CoMMfrTrr

SENSATIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE FAssErT M
vESn6ATISG COMMITTEE.
On Friday tie State Senate investigation
showed that the new Aqueduct was anything but
n creditable piece Of work. Yesterday the men,
bers undertook TO find out who was responsible
for all the wretched lining the poor masonry, the
vacant sraccs between the arch, and the rock
and the other imperfeotions that the Deputy
Chief Engineer himself and his assistants admit
10 exist TO an alarming extent. The Senators
exceeded in getting great deal of light on the
subject .
They demonstrated what every one familiar
with the undertaking has long believed, namely,
that the inspectors of the commission have al
lowed poor work to pass: that instances of this
have been reported to the commissioners. and that
thus far action has been taken by them ex-
cert in some TO remove the inspectors against
whom charges were nude. II was shown, for
example, that within fortnight an inspector,
one James Quin had received twenty-five dollars
from D. NJ. Cary & Co., sub-contractoIs of Clark
& O'Brien. The order for the money was laid
before President Spencer of the Aqueduct Com
mission, but nothing has yet been
done about it beyond ratifying
the dismissal Of Qun, who was promptly dis
charged by the division engineer, Albert Craven.
Cary & Co.'S superintendent, Gouverneur Morris,
shown by other evidence that this has Tong been
a common practice, at least on Clark & O'Brin's
portion Of the work.
SOME OF THE PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM
The investigation was held as usual in the
rooms Of the Supreme Court. The Senators, with
the exception Of MT. Pierce, who did not arrive
until after noon, were on hand at / o'clock but
De Lancey Nicoll, who represents the Democratic
members OF the committee, was behind time.
Senator Coggeshall dropped in for while and
listened to part of the proceedings. There was
the usual crowd Of spectators of whom the most
interested were John O'Brien, his tall partner.
Heman Clark Mr.. Bean. the contractor Chief
Engineer Church and a number Of sub contractors,
supcrintendcnts and Aqueduct officials
Henry S Craven, the former consulting engineer
of the Aqueduct. again the witness Mr..
Lovett, John O'Briens counsel, began to cross
examine him as to the authority of the engineers,
endeavoring to show that the contracts gave
almost unlimited discretion in regard to allowing
for extra excavations. In reply to Mr.. Lovett
the witness said that he had been in the Navy since
1866 lie began as an assistant engineer, but was
afterTard promoted TO the position of civil engi-
neer He had never heard Of Akron cement being
used in the Navy, and did not think any naval
officer would deem it proper to employ any cement
below the standard of Ravendae. Yet cement Of
O quality inferior to even Akron is used on the
Aqueduct. Mr. Lovett tried TO find out if Mr.
Craven had not told John O Brien and Contractor
Bean, less than three months ago, that all the
extra excavations made by the contractors should
he paid for The witness denied this declaring
that his reference entirely to timbered sections
where extra allowances are always granted
Mr. Craven'S removal was taken up by Mcssrs.
Nicon and Lovett for the purpose of impeaching
the witness MIR. Craven denounced his trial by
the Board Of Engineers, Generals Newton. Green
and Gilmore, as unfair and grossly one sided. He
not permitted, he said, TO examine witnesses,
nor was the Corporation Counsel allowed to con-
duet the investigation, though he had declared his
willingness to do The report of tins trial was
offered in evidence by Mr.. NicoIl but the Com
mittee declined TO allow it to 60 in. General
Tracy offered in evidence letter sent by Aqueduct
Commissioner Dowd to Mr. Craven after Mr..
Crayens interview with Maurice B. Flynn, who
threatened to have Craven recalled to naval duty
if he did not let up on the contractors Here
. is the letter:
Dear Sir: think you had better (Elhu) Root
I told him your interview with Secor Root thinks the
natter OF recall TO duty better be fixed nowahead Of
those dis. DoWD.
The reading of this lively little letter created
ripple Of mirth Chairman Fassett asked MIR.
Craven great many questions about the work.
The existence of vacant spaces. Mr.. Craven said.
behind the lining OF the Aqueduct as described by
Deputy Chief Engineer Rice on Friday, would be
likely to cause the tunnel to burst when put into
use. An allowance Of four inches for extra tun-
mel excavation, he thought, was fair and reason
able
MORE DAMAGING TESTIMONY ENCOUNTERED.
Alfred Craven, a brother of the witness, was the
next man examined and his evidence proved eX-
ceedingly lively. lie has been an assistant, or
division, engineer on the Aqueduct since 1884
For some tirac past he has been exanining the
work done IN Sections and by Clark & O'Brlen.
He began this investigation On April %. just
twelve days after the committee was appointed.
At Shaft ) he found little mortar in the stone
filing and the brick work bad In another place
the mortar was so bad that he actually punched
hole through the brick work with the sounding
rod This defective brick work was right
at the key of the arch Other places
forty feet long were discovered, so bad
that the entire work would have to come down.
portion of the side wall on the arch further on was
bad for at least $50 feet. Loose stones, little
mortar large bales, poor packing and bad work
Were found at dozens Of other points In TACT the
examples of this wretched work were so numerous
as TO convey the impression that IT was the rule
rather than the exception.
General Tracy wanted 10 know how this bad
work would affect the arch. The witness thought
that 1t might stand up under the pressure Of the
water
Dry packing. stone without mortar, was found
at the south heading of this shaft, and in some
places the spaces large that as the witness
put u, you could crawl around in them. This
led General Tracy TO ask if this sort Of work could
be done without the knowledge OF the inspectors
Mr. Craven promptly replied that it could not.
Either the inspectors neglected their duty volun-
tarly or they had been bribed TO do so.
o-Have you found any inspectors guilty Of either
Of these oGencesl Al have found inspectors black
mailing have known Of one taking bribe
and removed him. and reported this 10 the commissioners
Q-whst was the amount OF the bribei A-Twenty
g-s dollars obtained the order for this money which
was given by the contractors to the inspector
Q-Where is this order3 Al gave 1t to the chair
ian Of the Aqueduct Commission, Judge Spencer