The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-07-27

w,,,l.n ..................... 1850
Contract No. o. Eastern Division. Lauer h
w',,.m,r ......................... o.524
c,n,r,c, No. 4. Eastern Division. Gallo
80. Observation-Disclosures. $500
Contract No. 9, Eastern Division. Brummel-
ksmp Laue Sto..........'''....'.'' lo'olo
1oI Partridge said he understood that there
mn. nm unexpended balance Of the mprove-
nept appropriation sufficient to cover the
aboye mentioned amounts. He asked the
Comrtroller II he had knowledge OF any facts
which would lead him to refuse to honor his
drafts for them.
To this letter COMPTROLLER Morgan to-day re-
turned an answer IN which he said:
In reply TO your letter OF the oath inst re-
eard,ns the status OF the contracts reported to
have been finished but not settled for In full.
would say that | have taken up contract No. !.
Middle Division. the frst on your list, for ex
animation. and have given careful considera-
ton TO ali the evidence and facts bearing upon
the case including the testimony taken by the
Canal Investigating Commission. the report Of
the commission and also those OF tho enE-
n.ers and others who we're officially In vitsd to
submit opinions with reference to there con-
tracts, together with the contracts. vouchers
and npal estimates on file In this department.
My yleWs with reference to contract No. !.
Middle Division. T. J. Dwyer Co.. contrac-
tors, are contained in a memorandum here
with Inclosed. The other contracts named by
you will be taken UP IN turn"
The Comptroller's memorandum accom-
tanled a refusal to audit the claim OF Dwysr
/ Co, the contractors for $50. 057. the amount
llained to DO due them. and went at length
INTO the reasons actuating tho Comptroller.
The contract was for deepening the Erie Canal
O.. lima y N do
near lock 40. a distance OF three and a third
miles. The amount OF the contract proposal
was Sl25, 520 and tho amount Of the final esti-
mate for work done by the iirm was $SOl .155.
In hts memorandum omDtroller Morgan says:
1T appears by the evidence adduced before
vIII I. ss Smell Of Faiatino Bridge was member
Of the firm Of T. J. pTyer co. The contract
T Sass i A., b. + nTyeT 5S%ss DEyoS
Sha'er, and Oliver Hurst, 1t also appears 10y
the evidence that he ,snelll was In the employ
deebsr and nnd
This covers the period In which the bids were
received and the contract let.
The Canal law. chapter 33S OF the Laws Of
1874, section b, prov ides: No public officer
or appontee connected with the care or man:
either directly or indirectly. in any contract on
tho canals, as q contractor or otherwise. in his
"9 name Or the sSIs other 1r,on
shall, at any time. while holding such office or
appointment, lie or become so interested, or
derive any such benefit lie shall forfeit his
oitce, or appoint nent and he discharged
thsstetrom. and such contract shall ho void
4, Eminent legal counsel ore Of the opinion
above contract was void. and that conseIuent-
y there can be no money legally due under It.
II ADDITION TO this there are ether reasons
ThJ this irm has no proper claim against the
state on account OF contract No. /.
.r,r me =, improyement here consisted OF low.
tie banks remained as they were. and
inc excavation from the canal had. conse-
%o,R ~, to es wasted ip spoil bank The
Sess OF the amount Of the bid upon which the
contract vas awarded large item' going to
ipS Sss o Hp this increase Wns emhankment al;
fsDenclncaton; call for 1000 cubic Yards Of en-
s eanS msnt; the amount Of smbankment finally
tractors BID 10 cents q cubic yard, which was
a very nigh figure in fact. it was the highest
rrlee put one paid for embank ment on the on
uIe me OF the IMPROVEMENT. but the quantity
nat 30 hsgnllcant that the .high price attract
50 t!,us attention at he letting ofthe contract.
bS 10 s Was wien Hef" Was Mss onc
month after the contract was signed. the en-
ss Issrs ara the contractors entered into an
itnoni me prism Of the canal was TO be wasted
~ tpoil bank For this tho contractors were to
IsS eH ahe EN- hankment price, 90 cents yard.
t ~ Of the distance hauled IN addition
S 90 we excavation Price OF 27 cents yard I'm
cr re ,s Girrangement the emhankmsnt was In
ooenselneht was said to lie In tho nature OF
tttT nn and was to be a final determine.
Prices " o o nh ev Whole question Of ombankm
sgresment 10000 yards not covered by il
were sb ,tHlo.eGgenty:allowedat the cont rate
s5oiiRRvsS iHnrraMgement. which cost tie State
$780, IN my Judgment was contrary TO the
pprwDs' oi OF the specilcaton4 beyond the
AM q me Engineer to make and entirely H.
Smony, admitted that he did not believe this
comrrn n1Sa, cain but said 1t was allowed as
nEws rr1 ,n The Engineer however, has no
''"TTS b !" rJMpt0m Sc claims against the state.
rnnr ", ptislnhl estimate for vertical wall.
ior I NM wnmH, VI, ne contract WAS based, provided
amount was Increased to n,SG1 yards, an in
wsn % 'Ns' yards. This additional vertical
arr. .'hi ,.rh Involving change OF plan and
SnH'se increase III cost 10 the State, was not
""!HnF,fei lJ the Canal board.
tho statntss hhhter 1'1 Laws OF 1885, one OF
vics that rG E| ,t these contraots pro-
,nrS me eNlensr U'any such work or create
tEerr,9r,n, @EHlP-t the stats for damage arising
S ShSHssMent' setting forth the object OF the
~ ,h ana Tie expense thereof. is submitted
a. 'T an iinHid, and their assent thereto
p'csTsn,, !; obtained
aclaWHr'a 'h'1 it"rea1r OF vertical wall involved
whichLe Is manifest for the reason that a plan
r"mLp 'aed Tor 1000 wards OF vertical wall
ynrIs nm He ihe same uIan that required n.s27
, s q a"o "mt."P to- *5i ieE 6th N.
thGri,n%,,,"Ai rn-r were allowed without the au-
TO- | rnH Iy law, namely Tor extra work and
"rrrmnNlhS stone, ~ .4U9
Outr i,' ,he foregoing. therefore, am of tho
d,.n.4h that the following ite,rs should Lo la.
0Serhsn y! sge ;%st'rmgmt q mis- contract VIZ
lNI, uS;E,,,rrH vertical wall LeNcessl. S2.
niowsM",hu thoriIed extra work, S2.Sl7: Illegal
a totSI IT x9r removing stone. al IO1 nal: ing
which tHL"I',I"n, 70 these items Of IlegalItv. Of
Of nsntie seems 10 lie no doubt in the minds
Enh,sct o'as VINO have carefully examined the
claGsiNc,tTIte1 many others, such as imuroner
I6wsn"',,oh ~ rock excavation. improper al
inc nO .ni TRIPLE lap sheet ming ana Tor nj
cmd.Iu ~" 'r'e', Ne, which have not been in.
douH, IN NY me Tor the rras that there ia some
really II .my mind as TO whether or not they re
ALL. .t''rEhl nllnwRucrs. A result ~ ali those
lion S.,rn allowances and extras in c0nnec-
Dwyer tn,S "ohtrngt r. that although 4. j.
'hn 'Ht q o, 5 arr-utrd bid II Sl2I 500 was
l"waHp WsS' PROPOSAL SaO1 1873 have been aI.
AZ Sts. won ms c0ntrayt-a sum nearly twice
eesSfu bidder VI 'hs highest uhsue'
Coun,rS S1Mmmehting on this contract, Judge