The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-06-27
THE NEW 4OUEDUCE.
A Prominent Contractor Has His b
About 1t.

a Prominent Contractor Has His Say
About 1t.
To THE EDITOR OF THE SUN-Sir: In this
mornings Tribune in the article Tho New
Adueduct and an Overflow, is written; by
July 10 or 10 the expectation Is that the new
aQueduct will be in condition to fill all our res
orvoirs. That ACCOMPLISHED, ii triH De turned
back again TO The AQiedud Commission 10 make
al necessary repairs ,rhich hare been discovered
bv using H. They say that sir treeks ,ciil be SUI
dcient 10 do this but II rhdt I hare heard about
The discovery Of more bad ,rork be true, shall
not be surprised II the sir tceeks are considerably
lcngthpned out"
This statement to the public, without fur
Their explanation. Is very unjust and injurious
to those contractors who have made good oil
defects In their work: besides. II misleads the
public as to the facts. The reason6 that the
AQueduct Commissioners request that the
aqueduct be turned back to them TO make all
necessary repairs which have been discovered
by using it," are: That they accepted John
Brunton & Co.'S work without grouting 1t
throughout, as they did the other sections,
notwithstanding that 1t would take Grout as
freely as any Of the other sections. test was
lately made OF this work by trying o MI it with
water to the required height: It was found
that when the water reached point
upward OF forty feet below tho required
height 1t escaped out OF the aGueduct
built by John Brunton 90. as fast as
1t was put In. Then. instead OF grouting
the work, the Commissioners ordered a coat OF
cement whitewash nut OH inside Of tho brick
work. There Is doubt as to whether this
whitewash will be sufficient TO keen the water
from running out OF the aIueduct, hence they
hedge by requesting it to be returned back TO
them to make oil necessary repairs which
have been discovered by using II. -
1t will he remembered thar at the Washing
ton aqueduct investigation expert testimony
was given in eject that no matter. how well
the masonry was built the pressure would
force the water through the masonry aud
damage adjacent property. For this reason
tho Washington alueduct. although com
pletely eAeavated and three-t2urths lined with
would have had very little more pressure on
than Will the sections Of the now Ctoton
apueduct which wore built by John Brunton
The public would no doubt. like TO know
why 1t was that these sections were not put
through the ordeal II grouting tho same as
1t will be remembered that Whenever an Mt
CATION committee to show that Mayor Cruces
tecretary Il. J. Morrison. was partner IN the
urn urn o. Jon eatom wa. III, rat to 10 IN
defence OF the secretary.
Although section j OF the new Croton aque-
duct was completed and accepted by the en-
Rineer' months before John Brunton N Co.'s
work was completed, yet no action was
taken on IL Dy Tue Ailueuucl SOluUllSblOn until
John Bruntou & Co.'S work had heen ac-
copied and paid for SO that that firms money
should not be- tied w as the other contracting
firms money has been.
1t will be remembered that O'Brien & Clark
submitted u proposition to the Aqueduct Com
mission to test John Brunton Il Co.'S work
by Erouting. The proposition was, In eject.
that If these stations did not take rs much
grout per lineal foot as tho other sections Of the
Same sized bore they would give 1t al the
grout It would take for nothing: but II 1t
proved to take ~ much grout per lineHl loot
as the other sections Of the same sized tunnel
then TINT should decide he amount to DO paid
the contractors for & outing This fair prOpo-
sition was not accepted. I an II Do that fran
ci- VI. Scott's close utilization with the political
members OF the firm OF John Bruntrn 4 co.
had anything to do wi h accepting this work
without putting that firm to the expense Of
RroutinG it
1.-THE experts theory Mt tho Washington inves-
tigatiou Is correct then the pressure should
not Do put on this WORK until 1t has been as
thoroughly grou,ed az tho other sections have
been. Remember that tho AGuedurt Commits
sion assed a resolution appropriatiEE SjUIOto
RrOut u portion OF tails wOIk, II WAS used up in
a very small portion OF this work and dscon-
tinued because 1t would tie strong proof to
show that the contractors VINO grouleu other
portions OF good masonry were entitled 10 pay
ment for 1t. Are lot such proceedings fraud
il fraud used against the contract RS defended
by the PRESS Yours, ID. ID. MCLEAN.
NEW YORK. June rs.