New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-10-10
THE SPECIFICATIONS.

can al"ays ~, u foow that the second way Is better
than the first until the experiment has oeeh '''''
THE SPECIFICATIONS
MANY reasons are cited to show that the s'a.e
has benefited by the specifications that were au'p'
ed Each criticism Is considered In deta'i anu o.
explanation given. The state Engineer
that. while the specifications are based ia'eeH %
wears of precedent in canal matters. they are ~
on, Of date. and that the great bulk OF the puo"e
work in this country Is beng done on sinhai rp
6c,t,ons-,hat is a price Is fixed for each unit VI
work and payment Ia made for the actuaI aio'"''
of each kind OF work done at the spec'ne" ~
This he says is the most equi'apie pla" 'o' :,
the State and the contractors. as neither party
Obliged 10 insure against contingencies that canno,
be foreseen. but which are met as 'hey o'0"' "''
maid for AT fair stipulated rates.
The statement alleges that the Commission du-
mits that the work that has been done Is oe''ei
than any similar work heretofore done on ''V
canals and that the prices arc reasonaole an" %
low as could be expected, and says: witness '"e
paradox-poor specifications produce good WORK a'
low prices"
ALLEGED MEASUREMENTS.
Attention is called to numerous alleged errors IN
the Commissions report which form the ou'S "a
adverse criticisms OF the canal officials. one OF
these errors IL declared to be deliberate miss'a'e
ment OF the provisions OF the Improvement '
regarding lock-engthening. The CorainisS''" s"s
that the law did not contemplate the itnpro'e
of the Lockport and Cohoes locks. ana charges t'i
State Engineer with the improper expenditure "a
s4e SgI 20 on this account. The law. according 10
Mr. Adams was absolutely mandatory cohcerhi"s
the Improvement OF these and all other iochs VIC"
were heightened on the Erie and osweBo odn''S
The State Engineer further says that 'hls VIM,
matter was carefully discussed by 'he Oahli No'."
when the Acknowledgement, the Cohuo'e'' -"
Superintendent Of Public Works and hlmseA were
nresont and TINT their approval vas obtained ne
fore this expenditure was made.
Another alleged error is in the report WIZ" ''o
Commission published concerning the cost VI .'
classification Of eartny materials as rocN' !"
Il was said that the cost or such worn WI ~
western division was s29l.277. leaving 1t to De Ia
ferrod that about equal amount han Oe1"
allowed on both the eastern and middle dN.siohs'
The statement attempts to show how uniair "s
was by stating that this amount shouId nav -
given as the total cost of casslilcauoh oi' az va.
divisions and all three canals, ana 'he iu
statement is made that only one Of the hsules
which make up the total amount In the Coni.hN
sions table Is correct. and that. even thouSn " -
than, had heen correct, there was mistake oi
aeon In the addition of the column. IhlS 'o''
cost of classified materials represents "ih' VIC
Commission terms the proper as wen AS .he i"i
proper classification. II is not admitted 'n"' any
NJ II was improperly classified. and each case ""eio
,mnroner classification was alleged is mnutey oe-
ecrited and IL is charged that the cases nave ioI
heen fully or fairly stated By the Commission
An Instance of this is found on eastern dN'9o'
Contract No. T. where the Commission says 'i'' 10
ATTEMPT to plough the material was mace anu '''
I, was improperly classified as rock because "
Gould no and vas excavated with steam sho'eh
The facts are asserted TO be that the resNe''' Va
gineer testified under cath that he auei',p'.u ~
n,ouqb I, with eight horses and was unanie 10 w
en- and that no steam shovel was ever useu vi 'i''
or either OF the adjoining contracts
THE QUESTION OF REPAIRS.
Tho State Engineer believes that there was 700
evident desire in the reports to ma iauit hiu'
,,,ra,alv and IN this connection. concerning the
norgn q, rho improper expenditure Of sl.5"oe"' ne
rofors N mage No. AS Of the Commissions report
which says: - -. .
While we have criticised the expenditure, , OF ,h,t
psar 81 bav v been taken care OF by the ordinary
and extraordinary repair funds we Wo hs "a mon
,ortion 70 The fact that the objection Is naseu upon
/ the legality of such expenditure and n3t o of work
proprety The State gets the fm r,orovements
and practically It makes no difference from "ra'
| fund IL is paid for 80. .,,. ,ba
| partisan press has not reao the ''0'
| graph. He continues: ..o
The Attorney General. who IS menoSsa W con- on
Canal Board and the state officers. WIZ ani,e az
stanty to deal with these matters are qul,c AZ
able TO decide about the Legality OF InosvnsNion or
were the members ei ' and there can be
W. ~ QUESTION about the work that has been done
Being part Of and absolutely essentIai 10 or al,
rom5Ieton Of the Improvement work the canais
cannot deepened without rem1Eins a assume thu
q would be proper to leave aqueducls, cuisJtio1
weirs ard other ~ the canals simply
| because their Improvement or repuluIus " va, In
specifically mentioned in the would
InT. "" he nullied by failing to do such Work
when is found to be be q b2 hH eommission that its
objection 10 these expenditures is not pased on on
their nro9rSy Is lhat has been done was abso
imtov necessary and their further staement az W
VIVA. mp1H fIrthor serves 10 cnch this point
This being the case, why shYuI1 vu - tha real
underving reason for their making the sIaiei G t
that any money had been Improperly eTpen nTpoS
whatever except to besmrch the pSic mine
the canal officials and to poison me me p un
aga inns # further bs da apPF9p''''' ~
OF ba any frtber cfarge that another 100000 has beer
properIv expended as a result of poor speeitca
tions bad precedents. loose methods or lmpr ,b
ihe f5cts or the testimony The Commssoner
were careful not to give many detas io orpe e
Statement II is believed that this statement WI
show wherein the facts c0mter rs oite dYoren
than would appear from the reports ana ma '
SnarEv Few Isolated cases where oversight or IN
competency have had the usual result &c no
attainabe in work of this magnitude Yet IL Is % %
lieved that the total amounts mproperIy sper n, 10
w, ,,,',os,igatinn After 4 most searching an
: Mossed inquiry with the testimony brought ont .
i | o,a sda only and no cross-eXam limitations, an W
y nor9os that can be mace affecting this Depart
y mont rest on no better foundation than q rnlS"f
= | hnrstandinr OF facts and laws and dlfnfencts,
= | oninon which may or may not De 'horo"s'''
q honest.
z MORE CRITICISMS ANSWERED.
: The State Engineer discusses every criticism 'n'
IL affects his Department. and shows what ne COZ
g sidcrs the erroneous views and faulty premises
|
d u,ohor Somo OF the Commissions criticisms RI
5. - - A.-..rr .hnt nro alInond have been see