The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1890-07-15
THE AoUBDUCT QUESTION
The Contractors, slae stronsrz rrss.nt

| LuOEnluH paper tnbTo 10 III EORhEu
to the new aqueduct that:
Its constructors, Notwithstanding delays
caused By the bad faith Of contractors and the
inef1clency for couple Of years OF the COM
mission In charge OF II, has occupied but little
more time than that OF the old conduit"
The delays in construction wero not caused
by bad faith OF the contractors. 1t is
true that the Fassett Senate investiRa-
ton proceedings caused the public to be-
lieve that the contractors did their work
In bad faith, but you must remember that
the Fassett Committee did not put on
the witness stand n single witness to show the
contractors side OF the matter; that not q
single question was asked the contractors In
relation to the bad work on the aqueduct
| Whyp Was 1t not shown that even the Presi-
dent OF that committee had Availed himself Of
the patronage and had his man appointed q
| place on the aqueduct2
The bad faith was on the part OF the city.
| Did It not, previous to the letting OF the con-
tracts, advertise to the outside world that It
would keep the management OF tho construc-
ton OF the aqueduct out OF polticsl Did It do
SOP mol In its first Commission 1t had APP
pointed as Commissioner one Of the County
Democracy officials. Another one was at the
head OF the Republican city ticket at one time
Afterward 1t had this Commission reorRanized
and, as one OF it's members testified when on
| the witness stand, Ii was reorganiZed for the
| benefit Of the political parties. Because OF his
| indlscretion In announcing this fact the city
had the Commission again reorganlzed. Whom
| did II select for the third Commission2 Men
known for their knowledge OF such work? No!
1t took a lawyer who had been It's
| lobbyist before the Albany Legislature
and made Commissioner out OF him.
and appointed with him men whose effemin-
| otnn 10, thnp ,honr rin 60 10
lions. What was the object OF appointing this
lawyer Are we to Judge from his actons2 lie
| Immediately set about making up case for
| the city to beat the contractors out OF the pay
of ha the as s
| to the contractors. When this lawyer and his
assistants came out and publicly announced
the contractors did not Gen. John Newton. who
was one Of the former Comm ssionors, write
letter TO this reform Commission and denounce
| its action in this matter? Did not Mayor
Hewitt request Gen. Newton to withdraw this
Are not the contracts drawn ,purposely to
give the politicians the WELD Of the work. For
what other purpose were the following clauses
""Whenever t the word engineer is used In
these specifications. or In this contract. 1t re:
the AQueduct Commissioners. acting either di;
rectly orthrouRh any assistant having general
or any inspector having Immediate charge Of a
portion thereof limited by the particular duties
no Af to- RS
specitiSstlSns and give them due effect. will be
And the Aqueduct Commission. In order 10
assign the particular duties intrusted to the
should "sppeTintend the eopstrpletion Of ma:
Of the AGuedlet 6ommf ssion that any order
given to the contractors employees should be
considered as though given to the contractors,
md as ha ma
EMPLOYEES. i left the contractors entirely at
pressiy prohibited the contractors foreman
be done Superintendents were only allowed to
remain on the work on condition on, .hRt they
s66Fy 90 Th wof S
their Instructions direct. The engineers even
protested against The contractors knowing
he considered It favor to the contractors to
tractors responsible for the condition Of the
matter Of fact. the laspsctSss ,r Tho
work used better Judgment and more to the
S Sd s osdsd '4f hss M Rcess sd g A
masonry, because there ls no use OF mass OF
The holes might better have been teit Without
any masonry in them. LET the water Al the
sonny: But 70 Al them gave an Opportunity 10
TSos H. es Ss oF nSs Be S S ASs
testify that the rubble masonry behind The
brickwork was purposely built 30 that the
Es STs sSaa Sss hSs lat As
work must be thoroughly grouted before they
would accept It, can there be any doubt that
Gr0utluR? Did tho city discharge It's employees
who, immsdiate!y supervised this masonry
No. not OF them. 1t Kept thom TO do
,hS EEoV WdpE Wa BScP bn thsy
had been bee ~ drected from lime lime g and hsd
IL fs2 Sisf bo abs6 did 6S
power, discharge these men Was 1t because
the political power back Of these men was 50
tie lobbyist lawyer in making out a case Tor
Tor a large portion Of the work done by ihem}
Did not Chief Engineer Church testify that 1t
%6 thS aG ava
eSti0ns As mater Of iaGt, not section 81
ticable. No greater engineering laundering has
there been on any work IN this century thar
the present AGuednSt Commission accept John
built in ACCORDANCE With the. terms Of the CON:
tract, and afterwards. at the city's expense,
hawH Rsg,sPPs er0uod and the balance Of
The city In its aaueduct contracts agrees that:
ITO prevent all disputes and litigation It is |
further agreed by and between the parties to |
this contract that the engineer shall In all cases
determi ne tho amount or quantity OF the several
kinds Of work which arc TO be paid for under
this contract"
The engineer decided that the contractors
were entitled to payment for the unavoidable |
excavation" therefore the city ought TO pay for |
the unavoidable excavation. The excuse made |
that the CORPORATION Counsel's opinion differs |
from that OF the engineer 4 not sufficient rea-
son for the city to break Its obligation. conse-
queutly have the right to say tina, the city
has acted In bad faith with the acqueduct con-
tractors Further. Being that there, was
difference of opinion between the different |
Commissions appointed by the city as to what |
should be paid the contra tors, the proposition
made by the contractors, viz. to leave the mat
tho Judge OF the Supreme Court would APP
point. was fair propositions: and as the city
cannot be- sued in any court outside OF tho city
OF Now ork. and the press OF the city have by |
publishing untruthfpl articles WHICH tend 70
influence iurymen who may be on the case. |
Of further bad faith on the part OF the city.
1t 10 stated that the new aIusduct has cost
less than twice of what the old aqueduct cost,
The now aqueduct IL three times the size OF
the other; II is nearly all tunnel work: II Is
a a