Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1888-11-23
TUNNEL TESTIMONY.
Lieutenant Townsend Again Examined
After Recess To-Day.


investigating the aqueduct tunnel work.
Col. Craighill said that some of the inspectors
had testified that grout was used. He asked
Lieut.. Townsend If that was reported by them
TO him. The answer was in the negative. Il
should have been reported. added the
lieutenant. He then explained the plans
adopted for excavation in order to pre-
vent the contractors from digging too large
tunnel. They were to be paid for q
minimum amount OF excavation, and all work
done beyond this was gratuitous. Witness once
discovered careless excavation and took steps
to prevent its continuance.
MAJOR NYDECKKR's VISITS TO THE TUNNEL.
''Did you receive any written instructions
from Major Lydecker aside from the specifca-
tions?" asked Gen. Ruger.
mo, sir, all Of my instructions were verbal"
How many times did Major Lydecker visit
'.In 1887 he visited IL four or Eve times."
During the present year2'
He inspected the work once during this
The lieutenant added that he made il gen.
this could not be carried out exactly He
averaged about four out Of the six working
days. When he went down he would carefully
examine all parts Of the work. getting ON the
scadolding and also upon the side walls.
should like to make statement about this
notification the men were said to have a. 70 my
coming" said the lieutenant. II had to decide
many small matters about the work, such as to
settle about the number of rings in the arch
and frequently would notify Kirlin to meet me
had to visit.
GOING THROUGH THE TUNNEL.
II very rarely went through from shaft to
shaft Unless there was some point wanted
to see in the mucking would avoid the muck
piles by going back to the last shaft
and going around above. usually
found the work with horizontal layer of stone
and the men covering it over with mortar
They were generally. when approached, lay
mortar. was reporting verbally to Major
Lydecker every day."
THE suB-coSrRAcrs.
The lieutenant said that he knew that there
was some form of sub-contract, but thought that
it did not amount to anything. He knew that
the men were paid by the contractors, and
looked upon the sub contractors as
mere foremen. Kirlin told him
that they were receiving S5 q day each from
posed that there was regular written
contract between them. He was often
made aware Of the fact that the
contractors had a bad organization in
the tunnel. There did not seem to be foremen
enough. When he first went on the work it
were sufficient. During the year 1887
this impression continued. Toward the
close Of the year he thought that
there should be q larger force, but the
work was then about closing. At the begin
ming Of the work in 1888 he recommended an
increased number Of inspectors to Major
Lydecker, who gave him authority to employ
more men. The stories made public about the
New York aqueduct made him suspicious and
led to this action.
IF THE INSPECTORS DID THEIR DUTY.
He did not think that cavities Of considerable
size could be left if the inspectors did their
duties as they should, although small cavities
Of no especial importance could easily be left
The night work was factor that he tried to
reduce as much as possible and recommended
measures looking to that to Major Lydecker.
There were some headings SO long that il
was impossible to approach the work. and he
thought that the night work should be aban-
doned in those places.
oBRIEN's ANTRCEDENrs
''Did you know anything about the ante
cedents Of Mr.. OBrien2" asked Col Craighin.
II knew him only as working on the reser-
..Did You think that it was a good plan to
take man for government inspector who
had been employed by the contractor"
Il did not think that it was wise to take a
man as an inspector over the same contractor
VINO nau employed MIN.
=. O'Briens work, he said, was by far
the worst found in the tunnel He en-
ployed O'Brien upon Kirln's recommendation.
Witness explained that he did not know at the
time he hired o Brien that Peterson. who was
the reservoir contractor who employed o Brien,
was member OF the firm OF tunnel con-
tractors.
II gave no particular instructions to the in
spectors, unless I saw something out of the
way" remarked the lieutenant. Il sent
them to Kirlin for their instructions.
Universally I would find them at their
work whenever I went through the
tunnel. When bad work was found under
O'Brien the second time, about two months
after the first discovery and reprimand, he was
discharged.
you to duty placed you in immediate charge Of
the work?" asked Captain Chester. II did,
under the supervision of Mai. Lydecker."
In what way did Mr.. Coryell fail in giving
In the first place his habits were bad. and
did not feel that could trust him."
"At what time in 88 did you begin to grow
suspicious on account of the New York tunnel
frauds?"
early in the work 1 had frequent consulta-
lions with Major Lydecker about it, and had
the inspectors report the amount Of mortar
used in the work. 1 took these reports and
compared them carefully"
THE ARMY WAGON HOLE
''Under what inspector did the army wagon
hole occur?"
"O'Brien."
"Did you report tina! TO Major Lydecker2"
"Yes. and he directed me to write to the
contractors calling attention to the fault
The reply Of the contractors dated July 15
1888, was submitted. 1t was to the effect that
II any cavities were being left in the packing
1t was without their knowledge. They were
endeavoring to carry out the provisions of the
contract faithfully.
THE LUCAs-KIRLIN QUARREL"
"was the quarrel between Lucas and Kirlin
in connection with the work."
at was"
'We have heard that the packers employed
on the lining were not masons," said Gen.
Ruger. "How did that occur?"
In my opinion they were competent men
and could have done good work."
"What do you think was the motive for
doing the bad work."
my opinion, coming from what have heard
in the testimony, is that this is largely q case
OF bad work OF men and negligence of
one or two Inspectors. The men were
unwilling to work in these holes over the arch,
and the inspectors were willing to let them
loaf. I considered that the contractors had
very profitable contract"
He thought that with proper management
both contractors and sub-contractors should
have made money, but he could not see that
the contractors had made anything by sub
letting.