New-York tribune., 1899-07-20

state Of diapidation that could not be iuiiy ap
preciated until the excavation nad nsse Contracts
upon approximate quantities rendered consiueiaOie
But e chef csGse Of the between
the quantities Of work stated in the bddng sheets
Extreme me socitude q the State Engineer %
keep the estimated cost OF the Worh ordsr 20 20
avoid exceeding the authorized expenditure; This
may have been prompted 5y srdy rear be sucient
do half the work necessary 10 complete tne I'M
The @ sv TUT Ssva been dUe ase
to a conviction that the reduced quanuues "ouid
NO CONSPIRACY FOUND.
We have not found sufficient evidence to justify
a charge OF conspiracy between the state Engineer
lie Works his subordnates and the
or evidence upon which could !us,y % pe cogrupt mo-
lives in the preliminary work. ,.A
There are. however. penal statues ~iSh; snny 1li
to these transactions, and which wouIo ,I not re-
quire any proof OF fraudulent cousIo9n no nv ~
the engineers and the contractors, or OF any CTm-
The Penal Code makes IT a nisdemeanor for any
State cficer wfuy 10 neglect 10 perform a GUY
monf is elsewhere provided A similar section pro-
TO perform a duty enjolned by law when no otner
Similarly. another section OF the code makes it
misdemeanor to disobey statutory prohibitions
duty and endeavored to perform it, Intending not
TO neglect but 10 fulfil the statutory requirements
iected or omitted to perform this legal duty. even
IT, IN the light Of subsequent events. ne may appear
10 have committed errors Of Judgment or 20 nave
been guilty Of some degree OF haste and unskilfui-
There is Satisfactory evidence that the methods
adopted by the State Engineer and mis- DIVISION
I'm some important respects unskilful. and.
sdered in the light Of subsequent events not wen
adapted 10 producing the result aimed az Dy the
statute. II appears also that the State Engineer,
startled by the enormous cost Of the proposed lm-
suggested in the earlier estimates cut these esti-
mates much too radically. and greatly u~nderesti- ~
necessary but for such unsklfulness and errors OF
sponsible under the criminal law. 49,.
In some Of the contracts let in the fall Of 1sss
neglect or omission to take steps necessary TO
ascertain with all practicable accuracy the quan,
out but as We shall show presently the statute Of
limitations has prevented us from prosecuting % any any,
duty in respect to those contracts -, .,o soa
ciencies in the bidding sheets. but connected with
1t are other considerations which greatly influence
rsttuo1 of criminal t 5rnceedngs on this ground
our examination OF the evidence leads US 10 the
which in respect 10 the work Of the engineers pre-
liminary 70 the award Of the contracts. we can
curacies in the bidding sheets have not been pro-
ductive Of any damage to the State
LITTLE UNBALANCED BIDDING.
An examination of the seventy or more contracts
shows that unbalanced bidding was resorted to in
very few instances: The three most conspicuous
locality OF which was the city OF Utica; contract
no. .. on the western diVision near Rochester and
contract No. s. on the eastern division located near
Waterford.
So far as our functions are concerned under our
appointment. namely. 70 consider the criminal La
tracts and guided the execution Of them all the
work preliminary to the letting and awarding Of
these three contracts and Of ali others let during
is beyond our control by reason OF the statute OF
limitations. The statute OF limitations against mis-
years from the time the ' crime was Committed
The work Of the State Engineer. preliminary TO
above mentioned. completed early in the fan
OF lSe6 All the very heavy contracts and those
which have been subjected to the greatest sus-
picion and most severe criticism INCLUDING Nos
eastern division We're let in the fal Of 1896 O' con- e
JJ.an1uaIy so, and Nos IS and 10. OF the middle
actually shown 10 be necessary BY performance
greatly exceeded the estimated quantities the
have been terminated by the Superintendent Of
Public Works for that rea ~; and II has been sug
that the various items Of work performed under
these contracts were exceeding the preliminary
Inmates enormously. and that he Is chargeabe with
wilful neglect or omission 10 perform some duty
cause he Sd n@t Gp1n eTnas h II respect TO them be-
We are unable 10 agres with these propositions.
anced bid r. as above stated honestly obtained is
a valid contract although the actual quantities Of
estimated quantities The discrepancies may be
evidence. but are not nearly sufficient evidence of
fraud. And especially Is this so In contracts which
Ike those under consideration. expressly provide
that increased quantities NAV be ordered and shall
be performed by the contractors at contract prices
We 90 not think that the Superintendent OF Puo-
lie Works had power 10 terminate a contract for
such We Of opinion that the failure
Of the Superintendent OF Public Works to terminate
OF work done under them greatly exceeded the
estimated quantity. and the action of the engineers
IN making returns OF work done under such con-
tracts. assuming that such returns were false.
DO not present any ground for a charge against
these officials Of 'wilful neglect" omission" OF
duties enjoined by law.
But it Will be said that there were numerous con-
tracts awarded after January. 1897. and within two
years; II which the quantities Of work performed
the Work OF the engineers in preparing the prelim
mary estimates for such contracts is not barred by
the statute OF limitations This is true though we
unbalanced bidding.
MATERIAL FOR FMBANKMENT
The quantities OF excavation and emba nkment
estimated in the bidding sheets had been prepared
on the suppos;iol that large part OF the material
needed for enbankment purposes would be obtained
in the excavation from the prism. Materials 50 OBJ
tained were PAID Tor as excavation only Now the
engineers eng after the experience Of the seasons o.
bankments The engineers Of the fnvesrgatins COM
q5r % t ~ naa % no been 80
for embankment outside Of the prism much OF the
used for this purpose. and large amounts Of money
saved to the State.
The mere fact itself however. that this expensive
change was made after the contracts award
ed is wholly inadequate Gn view OF the explana-
tOns OF II given by the engineers in apparent good
faith and with much earnestness) make the basis
of a criminal charge of wilful negligence in pre-
parirg their preliminary estimates with less than
practicable accuracy.
CLASSIFICATION.
The great excess in the actual returns of rock
excavation over the estimated quantities is the
Commission so fully reported the result OF the pro-
vision OF the specifications that hard pan which,
in the opinion Of the resident engineer. could not
be ploughed should be classified rock. The penal
statutes which would apply 10 fraudulent cassi-
hcation under this provision are Chapter 3s OF the
OF 1854 section l2 section 65 Of the Penal Code
No Indictment could be sustained under these
statutes without evidence from which jury would