The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1898-12-01

Syracuse and at Buffalo.
The same carelessness and ipdineFenee Is
S SB91 bidSine f sSee RsePi IN those regions o. else.
where along the canals; The spe sma weps
the. opinion OF the resident, engineer q
s each ro a,ylsio rock yhs sonla or Par 'eoSId not '2 Be
plouRhed, and classified accordingly az rock or
$$ssg So 3 10. o T6is s gas re slsG IN r a clear and ddedipite
method OF ascertaining the several d9antltles
Ct 9oI ToF tx and 1aIo IatSpiEii rs e., es a IT aiiiSftHIsa s" the
same officer TO different contractors wlthln ms
division, and II proved to be one OF the greatess
s2q aS / wo OF embarrassment IN 'ne pf0'0'"''O"
Judge .Countryman reviews the many eases
small amount OF the excavation as rock, when
the contractors would appeal e, his snneriors.
w SaRinr w tSnt t 5ese AMOUNT Sp 9R Of 5pG rock SSEas eoxcaysationa;
be Increased. lie finds that those appeals were
usually granted, and ma IN so nnnid raPPnss
to swear to the excavation Of increased guanti-
ties 81 rock oHd b this3g t geTss STATE faS EnEiaecr re- resp S,no
IN filling a cnivert in Waterford, which was
RIS Sld sop a. do SmIpstt 70 The state, He adds:
1T Is a frequent and even common excuse IN
ths ,f9Istlmt2Sp syIr Of re epe tsSt Of Quantities q work
done under the contracts Of when nney nq ~
charge; that =; d tnsi Ins ssslaieses or %et sug Wesf
that they therefore regarded themsel nth
Quantities OF given material which. in
| their Judgment, were improper and eScessiSe;;
hiss sppeoiai duty to guard the interests and deal
literally with the CONTRACTORS IN AZ sucn maj
t tSrs o% wrtta9stt in force atthe time. The State En-
gipeer is mot relieved or excused from respnnslf
bility for allowing these excessive aMsnt an no. o.
count OF the Indefinite provisionsSo OF the con-
tracts. which existed owi1g no .n me- ~ wnnnttSine
more. Of his Official duties under the statute.
but the. State Engineer. by his afirmative
SSss e ed1sa i've eS GEstdIei with the superintendent
Of Public Works in approving the retarihaii
Snd his s s%S0r o4Isihai S CO Tsck IN IN s Risssa's,
and enormous quantities above the orig
inal es sInsstSsat,o as T Tessultin as in uh the pay l%-
sation to such contractor, and d. also nr,d n recon- com.
ttiioonSail work to that contained in their regular
sons5aIetts; nnsse and "c control Of this public
work. after coming 70 a mutual 1nd enTan ANA
as to their ror Gesp Pc have s snsrs toeeth pSTin in COM
plete accord. It Is a fair and reasonable infer,
ence from all the facts and cirHum stances ta eSn g1Ten
acts and proceedings, Of the state Engineers
suoordInates were. either directly or i9dlreet.y;
own methods and practices in violation Of the
statute were pprposely adopted and ionoTe q
TO 1CCOnDllSn In0 TtSUlIS W liz hiaNS "a
pernicious and detrimental to the public in
teIssfs: mo..,ar. ~ hesitation in reaching
the conclusion that the case as, proven against
the State Engineer is sufficient TO- warranf
proceedings BY y tm nppsh ! nronse tHT nj IN iS Sie 3 Of
the situation and the circumstances. is mex.
pedient,, il not impraetieable: as the time er y
extensive to prove effective either as punish
mennt to the officer or reparation to the state.
cution BY Indictment"
Judge ,oountryman thinks that such pro
ceeding Is perfectly proper Ipepy and legal pn.ni aaT eett
could be melted out by imprisonment Tor q
term not ss IS 66b 3r ily Sot SeaETSbi iSs or P py = sRs no 81
law is contained in the Penal Code and refers to
q public officer who is connected, with the pay
nther proyisions Of the Penal Code touching
similar cases affecting minor officials are also
In Concluding his considerations Of State En-
gineer Adams's official action on tb fne Ganal com tn-
proyement work he says: i .h tn ereeen foh 70
the Grand jury"
Judge Countryman then deyotes bis attsn-
tract was made Until the State e. Engineer
the quantity Of embankment. excavation. ma
sonry. the quantity and quality Of all ma
f%ca xE5e n 10 p Pops : perform tfhIs dsty i Tas
lance. to ascertain and determine to his own
satisfaction. as an honest and efficient public
officer. whether the state engineer En- IN prepar-
| his estimates. had complied with the provis-
ions of the statute. II there were detects in
| detected by proper attention and effort, he
should have refused TO advertise for bids. and
he should have cancelled the bids. or If not
disclosed until after th e t son r. + Gtf R were ID made nns
with their concurrence. suspended the con-
| tracts, which might have been done at any
time during the progress OF II th te, wo obfi,1 y ne
| and especially Il he aided or assisted. or even
aeIuiesced. in the continuanc ,er 81 any %Gf s fit I
| and void was revealed to him. he was not only
negligent but culpable and amenable to the law
o!aTRe responsibility Of the Superintendent Of
Public Works began when he practically
| OF the engineer by Advertising for bids. and
DSrtieSs sIhaSI}y T " The he s sntssed on an'G the sonF 5ssfs
ascertain, at least. whether the estimates and
make clear and definite contracts for the con-
templated work, so that the eqpislte quaint;
with reasonable certainty, He knew or ought
to have known. that the insertion r. the
bfars, sheets te be 81 ax msre do from cSo aaddeifS Z,
stretches, In many cases including several
miles OF the canal; Se;d not S GORE nS staiT e cents
| piiance with the statute. 1t follows that In
adopting such estimates IN connection, with in;
guilty with the State Engineer of a violation Of
Moreover. he was afrordlng opportunities to
the persons preparing proposals 10 MAKE IN
creased expenditure to the injury Of the State,
| and In fragrant violation OF the statute. Buth g
s soss, no. HsSsu Re a no G Sartfsals sns ese stPaf tbo ss
Which casrtaiiedth the patronage Of his own de-
pes.TTss = c,oorintandapt had exercisad tho