New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-10-31
Mr.. ALDRIDGE'S DEFENCE.
A REPLY TO THE CANAL INvEsT1GAT-
ING COMMISSION.
DENIAL THAT MONEY HAS BEEN IN
PROPERLY SPENT OR THAT He is
RESPONSIBLE FOR ESTIMATES
RFING


BEING TOO Low.
Albany oct S0-George W Aldridge. SupeTn-
tendent Of Public Works to-day gave out state
Ynent relative to the report of the Canal lnvesgat-
Ing Commission. 1t no, Mr.. Aldridse's inten-
ton. II is understood. TO make public statement
until after the report OF Judge Ccuniryman and
the Attorney General to whom the Governor re-
ferred the Commissions report and testimony was
rendered The announcement that the report OF
Judge Countryman and the Attorney General would
not be ready for several weeks is said to nave
caused Mr. Aldrldge TO change his mind ana 10
have determined him TO make his statement puphc
al this time In his statement Mr.. Adrdge SAYS.
Notwithstanding he fact that the Commission
reports findings numerous things whlch. wiIn99ut
as he jnferer~o 10 challenge my honesty. capacity
and especially my motive would can atren 'don
to the fact that this Commission has been gracious
enough commend the character OF me WORK
done, both as whole and IN detail furtnvI,,
would call attention to the fact that the Commis,
sion reports thu. the contracts were regularly
awarded and were properly enforced Inc on oln
publicity was given in the matter Of calling for
pOh0sss SaI t&' ree1 The commsson fails
10 find any condition. any official act or any mt
proHted either directiy or indirectly through the
prosecution Of This work and ! am minded thst
had II found 20 the contrary " would not nave
been at all slow in reporting such finding. -.
While do not wish to cast aspersions upon the
Commission a whole. or upon any OF us mem,
Sound in justice G 10 myself and in justice the
pU6c to point out the fact that the investlg cation
was conducted not as Investigations usually are
Tho attorney who assisted the Commission APP
parenty conceived his duties TO be those OF prose &C.
cutting officer. and as matters haye eventuaateu i f
pP@reny conesye5 b s std,d tnf we're Grim
nals at the bar and that every sensational stOIH
in a newspaper every rumOr OF the gossip, every
guess Cue 90 Of b the areed empoye was
separate count in thu Indictment. WIN oaS cd al
sny mics 81 evidence as enforced by court OF
no
Of the prosecuting attorney has been reported as
one Of the chief functions Of the Commission, and
that phase OF the whole subject started runors re-
Of by the Commission both in Us conduct Of the
nqury and in The m M rs'er ~ T foT dong
the work directed 20 he done under the improve
public believe that that sum would ne sufliSlen ~
J had supposed that those VINO CUnuI I.t W, ~
Ieeislature and VINO were instrumental IN oolah-
rouad upon by the Commission TO explain the man,
which h2 ~ vas 5e G sse Engineer
haa been relecteG ana ked for and also as 10
en- on IN v ase 5afgay ana honestly expected by
.he, would he accomplished with the $4,000" !
o,bo coiii and would have given evidence on
This line Il was not thought wise oY the COM
GSh ~ M facts which would have been ascer-
tanned result q ne nqnry On ne ~ Assem-
Sy who inroducsd the Hill csling FOR the sp PRO.
ra'n Of 6 had IN s 9ii GSTf w Sn That
t excer, that II called FOR several million more
5osTf TIE The n a q the b was delayed
pAndlne 2 conference 81 gentlemen lnter.steu - III
ference took place, and that he main subject OF OF
the discussion was as 10 Wne,dneb e ssxed for II
v,oiilS have been asceTtaned that the me OF ne
dsGgsson diG Tn Win tie $4,000 instead q
re larger sum hut. rather which sum the people
were the moro likely to grant
-f.oe rpfc n
ci,earirr works whi,h have cost far more than
the original estimates 20 show that the case or
me CANA Improvement is not exceptional.
In replv Ia the suggestion OF the commission
tia, though be was not responsible for the plans
and estimates Of the engineers, it was within ms
rower 70 protect the State against fraud on the
mart Of tho contractors through overcharges' mas
much 40 he not compelled to pay IN acco'u-
apce with the engineers estimates without queS-
tion Superintendent Adrdge quotes the la" gov
.rrl,g his Department on this subject which d.
rec,s the Superintendent Of Public Works 10 pay
70 the contractors sum not 10 exceed ~ per cent
- the value Of the work performed upon the GER
tifcate 81 The Stare Engineer.
Ve declares that the law gives him no authority
20 interfere with the character of the plans fur
nIsbed with the character Of the specifications. or
with the preparation Of the original q'ahuS
sheets: nor does f. give him authority 10 interfere
with the character Of Tho plans during the progress
oe The work" For this reason he argues that he
"a not responsible for any wrongs which may nave
been committed by reason Of erroneous estimates
or wrong classhcations.
Superintendent Aldridge discusses the Complaint
N the report that 100000 from the Improvement
80 n,ss exnended for work which should have
heen naid for out Of the ordinary or extraordinary
renair fund and contends that the money was
nroperly expended. lie takes up each piece OF
work cited by the Commission and DEFENDS ms
action by pointing out that the cost OF the "oIA
dome in restoring the hundreds OF miles OF towpath
20 a passable condition was properly payable from
the Improvement fund in view Of the fact that the
,ou-na,h had been made impossible by reason OF
the improvement work.
He also defends his action IN eXpendins large
cum fo, Advertising the work to be done.
As 70 the criticism of the Commission that an ex-
cess,ve number Of inspectors was employed, super
,ntendent Aldrldge denies absolutely that an IN
necessarily large number was employed durlhg the