Barre evening telegram. (Barre, Vt.) 1898-19??, 1899-07-20
HEPORT0N THE CANALS
Commission Says Testimony Does Not
Warrant Prosecutions.
NOTHING TO BASE CHARGES.
Pith of the Reports of the Special
Counsel, Which Have just Been
Made Public-AIdridge Par
ticularly Exempted.

ticulHrly Exempted.
Albany, July 20.-The report of Austin
G. Fox and Wallace MacFarlane, the
two Democratic lawyers assigned by
Governor Roosevelt to investigate the
alleged frauds under the $9,00O,000 canal
improvement finds that neither State En-
gineer Adams nor Superintendent of Pub
nc Works Aldlidge can be held GRIM
inally responsible for the failure to COM
plete the work and that while there were
some evasions of the act under which the
work was done by the engineer depart
ment such evasions, by which extra work
was done. were covered by the law Gre
ating the department. Mr.. Aldridge is
particularly exempted, the report hold
ing that nearly all the responsibility was
with the engineering corps. Special At
torney Benjamin j. Shove of Syracuse,
Republican appointed to assist, &C.
quiesces in the report.
The report of the special counsel is of
great length and goes into each alleged
specification of fraud, giving exhaustive
data. The pith of this report is found
In these paragraphs:
Our decision to institute no criminal
prosecutions on this evidence does not
mean that in our opinion the officials
charged with carrying out the great work
of improving the canal have done their
duty. The discretionary powers vested
in the superintendent of public works
and the engineers by the contracts and
statutes pursuant to which the work was
done were unduly great and have been
abused The people of the state author
lied the work at the election of 1895.
1.-THE law under which the question
was submitted to popular vote was chap
ter 70 Of the laws of 1895. This was a
stringent, perhaps too stringent, stat
ute but it provided for bids on the grsoss
sum principle. and under 1t many of the
abuses which attended performance
could hardly nave arisen. In May, 1896,
an amendatory act was passed The es-
timated quantity system was substituted
for the gross sum plan of the original
act. By this change the discretionary
powers of the engineers were greatly In
creased. The acts which have been most
severely criticised will be found to be ex-
ercises Of these discretionary powers
Errors In bidding Sheets.
In reference to the errors in the bid
ding sheets the report says:
"The chief cause of the discrepancies
between the quantities of work stated in
the bidding sheets and the quantities per-
formed is found in the extreme solicitude
Of the state engineer to keep the es-
timated cost of the work down to the
lowest practicable figure in order to
avoid exceeding the authorized expendi-
ture. This may have been prompted by
fear that if 1t were known that $4,000
600 would hardly be sufficient to do half
the work necessary to complete the i'm
provement the legislature would aban-
don the whole enterprise. But it may
have been due also to conviction that
the reduced quantities would suffice.
1--WE have not found sufficient evidence
to justify charge of conspiracy between
the state engineer or his subordinatcs or
the superintendent Of public works or
his subordinates and the contractors or
evidence upon which could justly be
formulated any charge of bad faith, col
fusion or corrupt motives in this pre-
liminary work.
I'm some of the contracts let in the
fall of fS0G and early in 1897 a prima
facie case of willful neglect or 'omis-
sion to take the steps necessary to as
certain with all practical accuracy the
quantities of work to be done might have
been made out, but the statute of limita
tons has prevented us from prosecuting
anybody for 'willful neglect or 'omis-
sion of that duty in respect to those
contracts"
The special counsel in conclusion calls
attention to the fact that very nearly
the whole report refers to the conduct of
the state engineer and says that the SUI
perintendent of public works was forced
to depend upon the engineer corps us to
the character of the work to be done.
What Mr.. Shove Says.
Mr.. Shove in his report says:
ut seemed to me impossible to deter
mine from this testimony what specific
crime or crimes had been committed or
what proof there was of the same until
such testimony had been carefully ana
lyzed and collected, contract by contract.
l substantially completed this work of
Analysing and gathering together this tes-
timony about the middle of March, 1899,
and furnished the governors special coun-
sci with transcripts of the same.
so far as the report of the special |
counsel relates to the determination that |
there should be no persecution | concur.
There is little that deem necessary to
add thereto. ! discovered no eXtrinsic
evidence of fraud dishonesty or collision
with contractors. BY 'eXtrinsic' | mean
evidence of fraud outside of the infer
ences that perhaps could be drawn from
the criticised act or acts. There were
several cases Of alleged fraud reported
to me which We're investigated by the
special counsel and myself carefully and
as fully as possible. In none of these
cases did | find any evidence whatever
Of fraudulent dealings and dishonesty.
in the contracts specially investigated
by the special counsel | discovered no ey.
ldence of fraud or dishonesty on the part
Of the engineers in charge of the con-
struction in their return of quantities Of
work performed.
eve found no evidence of criminal con. !
spiracy to defraud the state which, in
The opinion of the special counsel and
myself, would justify us in instituting Il
prosecution therefor. | dscov-
ared no evidence that Mr.. Aldridge had
any knowledge before the contracts were
ct that the quantities in any bidding
sheet had not been stated therein with
Ill practicable accuracy. There is no
'ule of law known to me that holds
principal criminally responsible for the
lets of omissions of his subordinates,
without any further evidence than that
le is the principal.
,enal code, which defines who are par