New-York tribune., 1899-07-20
maui would be allowed. and that they bid on that
AGAINST THE STATE

serious consideration by bidders This specification
however, In the manner in which the State Engi-
ways II made highly desirable TO the contractors
10 nave spoil banks located so that there would be
great deal OF overhaul. and II directly tended to
prevent them from using materials excavated from
engineers contend. however that with the excep-
lon OF two or three contracts where the price for
worked well They C Contend fR that p i resulted in
We very low average price for earth excavation; that
on me whole with the exception OF the two or three
svnac's referred TO- II was not detrimental to the
With these questions we have little to do. except
N arriving at conclusion in respect TO the prob
The sas Enseef Fl Tas wlla charged BY
thoneib ie b bduty Of preparng the specncations ana
unskied persons to have been most extraordinary
me,nod OF paying for overhaul he committed no
ing this method h penal statute known 10 Us |" Aa0p'
oo We have not sufficient evidence o. conspiracy or
spect to the form OF the embankment specification
ing this %sod OF on ynst % G
very profitable TO the contractors, evidence that
shared In such profits
EXTRA WORK
An immense quantity Of work not provided for
In the contracts was done under special agree
ments. The Commission has reported fully on
facts found by them rhe legality Of these agree
pents Is hardly open to question 1t is quite clear
obtained to an agreement for extra work the va
they may have been. Is unimpeachable.
EXTRA COMPENSATION
Some OF these special agreements to which the
consent OF the Canal Board was obtained have been
criticised severely on the ground that they pre-
TO contractors which not even the Canal Board
had right 10 make. because the Constitution pro-
ample Of this class OF agreement is the triple lap
sheet ping." Our duty in respect 10 these piling
crminally illegal The State Engineer decided that
oy 6f Pe fa sP RRs s was on %
on no contract suggest anything Ike a triple zap
Of the contract The case therefore comes to this
| In some agreements lawfully made by the State
the contractors have received too liberal a price.
We have evidence that in the profits derived by
gineer or his subordinates the Superintendent OF
Public Works shared in any way, or that they al
fraudulent bargain with the contractor; These
Engineer in making them disregarded the Interests
of the State but they disclose no criminal features
FORCE ACCOUNT PAYMENTS
method Of paying for emergency work not In
cluded in the contracts which preyaled 10 a s uery
was by keeping an account Of the labor employed
by the contractor in doing the work, and allowing
h a the 95ed G95 YIN in II these pr obs eGd be
under contract items they were so returned, .h,s
method of payment was used for fraudulent Pur-
poses either in the cases which were Dnt 10
But unless justified as a change OF plan, we We
doubt the legality Of this method ,s9s 81 payment 'o
Some OF these special agreements for extra IRA
subject naye matter efeR wss not strictly peang within
the scope OF the work authorized by the acts ,sd
In other words that some Of these agreements did
not relate to the work OF deepening the canals
Obviously the subject matter OF such agreements as
these has a most Intimate relation 10 the main
improvement and L not actually necessary @ par ar
Of it, they involve'no radical departure from the
purpose Of the statutes authorizing the improve
ment We do not think that in any OF tne cases We
mitted a criminal offence in falling to draw With
greater precision the line between tne and
maintenance Of the canals. and the expenditures e
under the improvement acts Of 1885 and 1880.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
In the foregoing report It will probably be OBJ
served that we refer almost entlrey 10 ,e SOIuu % ~
little about the Superintendent Of Public Works:
BY the acts OF 1885 and 1895. authorizing the canal
Improvement the duty Of performing the work IS
imposed upon the Superintendent OF Public Works
a6tuay yfS done by the State Engineer and his
sistants This is necessary result OF the existing
y OF OF Yub fna and the
gineer and Surveyor. The state does hot pro'Iue
the Superintendent Of Public Works with an en-
cheering force The division. resident, first as
sstant and assistant engineers are all suoordnates
Of the State Engineer appointed by ana Responsible
The Superintendent of Public Works had an
important duty 70 perform In awarding tne con-
tracts. After that the principal responsibility fe
The superIntendent Of Public Works appears TO
have dealt with the engineers. and 10 have eXer-
cised certain supervision over the performance OF
general inspector" This functonary frequently
appears important occasions. disclosed in the
testimony and records OF the canal Improvement
but however active either he or the Superintendent
OF Public Works may have been tnrougnofut e me
displayed in a way which imposed little or no re-
sPowe tbS General Inspector seems to have de-
voted himself chiefly TO persuadng the engineers
to order the contractors to do great deal Of work
vvhf He'd improve
considering too carefully its relation 10 the work
In short after the contracts had once been
awarded the Superintendent Of Public Works was
in position throw almost all responsibility upon
the State Engineer and Surveyor
A LESSON FOR THE FUTURE
An important lesson to be learned from the un-
satisfactory results OF the attempts 10 improve the
canals under the acts OF 1895 and 1896. is that in
state EnGineer and Of the Superintendent Of Public
Works should be greatly restricted. We refer only
NOT an all TO the work done under the regular
annual APPROPRIATIONS %RiSh s must De
A statute authorizing work extensive as this
forbid The state Engineer or any State officer from
making allowances for items or work not included
in the contract and from authorizing work TO be
done on terms OF payment other than those per-
mitted by the contract except IN the case OF
the pernicous system Of force accounts. The order
ing OF extra work however. should also be strictly
Vision that neither the State nor any department
or officer thereof shall be precuded or estopped by
any return or certificate made or given by any
Engineer Inspector or officer or by any appointee
OF the State Engineer or the Superintendent OF
Public Works. from at any time showing the true
and correct quantity and character of the work
done and the materials furnished by the contractor
or from contesting the amount due
The form OF the contract in use should, OF course,
be made to conform 10 the statute and will bear
careful revision in many respects.
A conspicuous illustration OF the value OF such
statute is found in the result Of the litigation that
arose over the construction OF the Croton
Aoueduct in the city OF New-York under Chapter
4e6 Of the Laws OF 1885. Probably the statutory re-
strictons contained in certain sections OF that
and the strict provisions OF the contracts made in
accordance Herewith saved the city large amount
WALLACE fam BAN BAN bamb
NJ money which IL would otherwise have been COM