Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-04-02
is MAJOR LYDECKER GUILTY?
tConti,s,sed from Ssond Pas.l
THE REAL WORK OF SUPERVISION DkyoLyHp G
THE SCB-INSPECTORs

'from this arrangement (of supervising ma
chinery) that the real work Of supervision de-
volved upon the sub-inspectors. They should
have been selected with the greatest care, ade-
quateiy paid, firmly and constantly sup
performance of their duties" They were
really appointed by Lieutenant Townsend.
with the majors approval, but no tests of fit
ness or capacity were applied to them. Some
OF the inspectors were bricklayers, but they
We're evidently chosen because they were be-
leved to be honest rather than they were be-
lieved to be bricklayers. II they were expert
brlcklayers, they were standing about to earn
s75 month when they could earn $50 at their
trade.
AN EXPLANATION OF THE FRAUDULENT WORK.
Here, said the judge-advocate, was an ex-
PLANTATION Of large part of the fraudulent
work. The few days instruction they received
could not have fitted them TO supervise their
superiors in intelligence and experence-expert
stone masons-by whom the work ought to have
been done, and less did il fit them to instruct
the common laborers who actually did the
work.
Without technical knowledge, in the absence
OF which character and integrity avail but little,
Is IT wonder they came into disrepute in their
several headings and fell an easy prey to the
time-keeper, or sub-contractor, with seductive
propositions OF rewarding them for keeping
the time?'
The evidence had showed the discipline in
the tunnel to have been very lax. Punctuality
was not enforced; the sub-inspectors were per-
mitted, and even required, to be absent from
their posts and checks to prevent absence were
not established. Il submit it to the intelli-
gence of the court whether in a work of this
KIND, where not only much, but everything,
depended upon the vigilance and independence
OF the sub-inspectors. ought it not to have been
cardinal principle Of supervision to Guilt
vate a feeling of keen suspicion of, if not ac-
tive hostility toward, the contractors and
their agents. Their reports should have
been scrupulously needed and they should have
been encouraged to make them. Tests should
have been explained to them, the application
OF which would have led to the discovery of
work rapidly and presumably badly done. But
this was not done. The result that they
were allowed to fall in or be led in to all sorts
OF compromising situations. They were OPP
posed and harried by bosses, and SO lost the
respect OF those whose labors they were ap-
pointed to direct and supervise"
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DONE.
Major Davis called attention to the fact that
the officers, including the accused, who have at
various times been connected with this work
were not amateurs. but experts. The peculiar
method of using a tunnel rather than surface
main was not required by statute, and SO must
have been chosen after due considers
ton. IL that system was intrinsicaIly
difficult, If the method of carrying it on by con-
tract added to the difficulty, if frauds were to
be expected, then in due proportion to the
perlls ard difficulties ought to have been the
precautions and checks to protect the interests
OF the United States. The literature of the
profession abounds In examples of similar
works, each of them, in the preparation
OF OF ,d this tunnel project, should
have been carefully studied and investigated,
contribute Ia
on which to base a practicable plan.
There was absolutely no limit to the strict
ness with which the contracts could have been
drawni they might have been SO hampered with
would have dared to bid on them.
Accepting Gen. Newton's testimony as to the
difficulty OF carrying on a tunnel work by con-
tract, he himself, acting in the interest Of the
government, should have hesitated long before
approving the project, if, indeed, in considera-
ton of the danger attending it's execution, he
ought not to have disapproved it altogether.
but THERE Is ANOTHER TEST
which the court can apply to the personal
supervision maintained by the accused" said
Major Davis, (which will demonstrate its utter
lack of efficiency. Whatever it was it contained
loopholes so large as to allow these facts to
escape. 1t does not appear from the testimony
that the accused knew that the contracts had
been sub-let-a thing positively forbidden
by the terms of the contract of October, 1888.
Neither does it appear that so obvious a fact as
that the rubble masonry work of packing was
being done by common laborers came to his
notice. The system of scrutiny that prevailed
also failed to develop another fact of vital i'm
portance, that the sub-inspectOrs were being
paid by the sub-contractors. None of these facts
were difficult of ascertainment, and that one of
such fundamental Importance as that the work
OF packing was being done by laborers must, /
contend, weigh powerfully against such super
vision as was maintained by the accused over a
part of the work upon which, it is not too much
to say the ultimate success Of the scheme de-
pended"
THE EXPERT TESTIMONY OF GEMS. NEWTON AND
DUANE.
The judge-advocate invited attention to the
testimony of the expert witnesses introduced
by the defense, Gems. Newton and Duane.
With all their regulations, their fine records,
what is, to say the least an embarrass-
ing position. The major quoted from
his calfskin-bound volumes to give
light on the matter of expert testimony.
He thought that the experts, in view of their
former connection with the project, were in
terested. and that their Interest should have
some weight with the court in determining the
value to be attached to their testimony.
ILLUSTRATING THE THEORY OF THE DEFENSE.
He introduced this illustration of the theory
of the defense: Suppose, in March, 1887, l were
to have gone to the Pennsylvania railway, to the
New York Central, to any corporation. indeed,
that pays dividends upon its stock, or to any
careful, prudeut, successful business man, and
said to him that could build him a tunnel that
would cost million dollars, but that for the
life of me 1 could not tell, after
it was completed and before the
water was turned on, whether it would
hold water or not. From the
standpoint of hard, plain, business sense, 1
ask how would my proposition have been re-
ceived2 And yet, gentlemen, this is the theory
OF the defense that deduce from the testimony
OF the expert witnesses"
RESPECT FOR THE ENGINEER CORPS.
He concluded with a glowing tribute
Of respect to the engineer corps of
the army, which, he said, was not
on trial here. The issue is between the United
States and Major Lydecker alone THAT issue
is limited and founded by the charges and the
specifications, this and this only did the ac-
cused. appointed to q task of great public re-
sponsibility, charged with the execution of
difficult and important work, involving the
expenditure of more than a million dollars ex-
ercise that degree of care and vigilance in
supervising its construction and in protecting
the interests of the government that that gov
eminent had a right to expect from an officer
occupying the position of major of engineers?
In other words, was he constantly guided
by the rule that an officer is bound
to use that care and diligence in the discharge
of his duties that q conscientious and prudent
man, acting under just sense Of his obliga-
- a,~a