New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-06-09
BAD AQUEDUCT WORK.
ENGINEER CRAVEN CRITICIsEs IT.

legations of the new aqueduct's construction yes
terday morning, at the Supreme Court rooms,
after internssion Of several weeks. AS IL To
make up for lost time the committee held two
extremely long sessions, that of the afternoon
lasting until after o'clock. Only three witnesses
were examined, but one of them Henry S. Craven,
the former consulting engineer of the aqueducts
gave some highly interesting testimony in addi-
tion to repeating much that he offered at the time
Of his summary removal by the Aqueduct Com>
missiOners about two years ago.
His testimony was both personal and general
He was particularly severe Mr.. Church, the
present chief engineer OF the aJueduct, who, he
declared, entirely under the control Of tho
contractors In proof Of this he made the SUR
prising statement that Mr. Church interested
in outside enterprises with Maurice b. Flynn,
whose deft hand has played such important
part in the history of the great water tunnel.
Mr.. Church asked about this afterward. and
admitted that Mr.. Flynn did own or had owned
stock in company which was formed to push
an article patented by the chief engineer. But
the most important feature Of Mr.. Cravens
evidence was that which pertained to the modi~
fcation of the specifications by which the city
compelled to pay between one and two mill+
ions Of dollars for filling between the brick lining
and the rock that was contemplated in!
the original contracts
DE LANCEY NIcoLL CALLED IN.
All the members of the committee were presents
except Senator Pierce Mr. Pierce does most of
the objecting for the Democratic side. But
his absence yesterday was made up for by the
presence of DE Lancey Nicoll, who appeared as
one of the counsel of the whole committee, but,
really the legal representative of the Democrats
Pierce and McNaughton Nh. Ncoll called
in for the purpose of patching up some sort of AZ
defence for his party and addressed himself to tho
difficult task with his usual energy and ardor.
Senator Fassett presided. Senators Hendricks
and Van Cott were on hand early, looking as
though they were prepared to dig out aqueduct se4
crets all summer Eleven o'clock was the hour
for beginning, but it nearer noon when thu
proceedings were opened. There were many spect
tators including Aqueduct Commissioners Spen>
Ger, Ridgway, Fish and Baldwin, the Assistant
Corporation Counsel Mr. Scott whose chief. Mr.,
Beel1rnan, is absent in ST. Louis. and number OF
division engineers and contractors. General B. f.
Tracy examined the witnesses. assisted by A. II
Boardman, the other counsel Of the committee.
The first witness was George S. Rice the deputy
chief engineer of the aQueduct His testimony
would have been more interesting had it not been
so evident that he was trying to make a casd
against Brown, Howard &, Co.. who are building
the upper part of the aCueduct. According to re>
ports that are said to be well founded. this firm
was asked to contribute $40 900 to the Democratic
campaign fund last fall, but refused Thercupon
the alarming discovery was made that their work
was exceedingly bad. Division Engineer Gowan
and Mr.. Rice both reported to this effect. Tho
burden of Mr. Rice's evidence was to show that
Brown, Howard & Co. had not filled the space be-
| tween the brick and the stone work requested
| by the contract. Instead of finding solid ma
NJ T., in,
instances thirty feet long, above the roof of tho
arch. In these there no filling, except soma
lumber and empty barrels
When the Senate Investigating Committee was,
appointed, it occurred to the Commission that
O'Brien Il Clarks end of the line might need q
little examination. This was begun by the witt
ness in March, and he obliged to confess that
he had already found grevous violations of the
contract here also.
Mr. Rice explained that these cavities are now
being filed up by injecting cement through holes
cut in the brick lining, something that is for
hidden in the contract Over 1900 barrels OF
cement, sand and broken stone have thus beeG
used to I'LL up the gaps above the brick arch.
FLYNNs HOSTILITY TO CRAVEN.
James L. Secor, jr, a commission broker, was
| only on the stand few minutes He testified
that he had been asked by Maurice B. Flynn to
|
and ask him to call on Flynn. Mr. Secor said
that Flynn told him that Craven too strct
with the contractors and that if he did not
| change his methods Flynn would securel
| his recall to the navy from which Craven had
| leave Of absence. Flynn had said that Craven
was raising the deuce with the contractors. To-
| Mr. Nicoll the witness said that this talk was
| in March April, 1885.
| This testimony was supplemented by Mr.. Craven
| himself, who was the next witness called Mr.
Craven gave the details Of his talk with Flynn
1t occurred at the latter's office Flynn told
him that the contract obtained at low prces
and if the commission was too rigid the work
would entail a loss The witness said he told
| Flynn that the specifications must be complied
with: the city should have good work.
| FLYNN intmated that army and navy officers
were naturally TOO exacting lie spoke
| of cement quarry that he ha0
| invited Craven to go and inspect. The mvita<
ton was declined. Flynn stated that the cher
engineer MIR. Church, was interested with him In
other contracts and was acting in satisfactory
way toward him. Secor had told the witness that
the contractors owned Church. After the inter-
view with Flynn Commissioners Dowd and Spencer
wrote to the Secretary of the Navy asking than
| Mr. Craven be not recalled.
| tracts The attention of Chief Engineer Cnurcn
was called to the matter Mr. craven sad Mr.
| Church sent word in reply that these sub-con-
tractors should hot be recognized as such, but as
foremen or superintende4ts for the contractors.
| After the recess Mr. Craven took the stand again
and testified at length to the differences between
him and Mr.. Church as TO the Interpretation or
| the contracts. lie read some long letters thao
| be wrote to Mr. Church in regard to
the organization Of the division engineers
| His plans were not adopted; bad cement. that
| even the contractors condemned, was used despite
| his protests; timber was allowed TO remain in
| after the arches completed. extra allowances
| were made to the contractors that had no shadow
of justification; in fact, the most fragrant vio-
| lations If the contracts were permitted by the
| chief engineer and the commission.
| HOW THE CONTRACTS WERE BROKEN.
Ii i,n mt in, for 4