The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-09-11
CANAL WORK UNPAID FOR.
COMP TROLLER MORGAN HOPES TO
SIVE THE STATE SI,0OO.OOO.


Not Authorized nv Observation-Disclosures
Changes of Plans That Resulted In
Enormous Increase of Cost to tho state.
ALBANY. Sept. 10.-State Comptroller William
j. Morgan hopes to save the State nearly
$1.000.000 In refusing to pay for canal work
already performed under the S9.O00.O00 canal
i'm provement law, which work had not been
authorized as provided by law. Mr.. Morgan
received letter in July last from Superin-
tendent ofPublic Works Partridge. asking II he
was In possession Of any facts or information
which would lead him to refuse to honor
drafts for the payment OF the final ac-
counts on nine OF the canal improvement
contracts named. TN which the work
was reported to have been completed
The Com ptroller has heretofore decided that
illegal and improper allowances were made on
contracts l and 2. Middle Division. Erie Canal.
amounting to S21S. POI: and his examination
OF contracts and Of the same division. just
completed. has resulted in his finding i'm
proper charges on these two canal contracts
amounting to SIGH He finds In the dispo-
sition OF these four contracts that no more
money 10 due to the contractors. because they
already have been paid more money than they
were legally entitled to by reason OF such i'm
proper extra allowances. These decisions OF
Comptroller Morgan are OF great public in
underlying all OF the unsettled canal con-
tracts.
Contracts Nos. 3 and 5 were held by john
Dunfee d Co.. and $59.235 remain unpaid
thereon, which the State Comptroller refuses
to pay. giving these reasons:
Tho Canal Improvement law specifically
declares that no change OF plan which results
In an increase Of cost shall be made until as
sented to by the State Canal Board. The CON-
tention Is raised on behalf OF the contractor.
however. that an increase Of the same class Of
work. such as slope wall. vertical wall. en-
bankment. &c.. in which the same kind OF
material Is used. 10 not a change OF plan hence
the question first to be considered is. Does an
increase Of quantity or an increase Of the Same
class Of work constitute a change OF plan2"
After detailing tho plans and specifications
which must be prepared for each niece OF work
before it 10 advertised for letting. and pointing
out that every change OF plan must be APP
proved by the Canal Board. tho Comptroller
says:
In the light OF these facts. will proceed to
consider the contractors contention. that an
increase Of quantity does not involve change
Of plan. The quantity sheet. which consti-
tutes part OF this contract. specifies that 49,
600 yards Of slope wall are called for by the
contract. and the plans show that 1t Is to be laid
at specified places. In addition. the detailed
drawings present picture OF the wall in place.
1t would be hard to plan and describe better
than this as to how and where piece OF work
was to be done But the final estimate shows
that 23.S145 cubic yards. instead Of 1900
were laid. To contend. therefore. that the
building OF an extra 10.S14.5 cubic yards OF
wall not called for In the quantity sheet. and
not provided for in the plans. was not a change
Of plan, borders on the absurd. As well might
a builder claim Increased pay for the construc-
ton OF a 200-f foot bowling alley when the plan
called for an alley 100 feet long. on the ground
that 1t was only an increase Of quantity and no
change Of plan.
An illustration will assist in clearing away
Dmuch Of the fog that envelopes this subject. A
contract is let to deepen mile OF canal two
feet. with incidental improvements. A vertical
wall extends along the whole strip. 100 lineal
feet Of which are in bad condition. and the
plans provide for rebuilding this imperfect
wall. THE price named per cubic yard 10 a
good one which was usually the case when
small quantities were named In the bidding
sheet) The 100 feet OF bad wall are pulled
down. and the contractor goes on with his
work OF excavstin< the two feet. In
doing so he goes below the founda-
tions Of the standing wall and leaves 1t
practically suspended in air. Instead OF
promptly underpinning II and thus saving the
good wall he consults his own convenience,
until finally the whole stretch tum bles into tho
canal. An agreement ia then entered into be-
tween the contractor and the canal officials for
the rebuilding Of the whole mile at the high
price named in the contract for the small guam
tity; result. an enormous increase Of cost to
the State. Can it reasonably be contended that
this was not a change OF plan Can 1t he claimed
that plan which calls for 100 lineal feet OF
alo IL tha alan xwhi oh 1lu fAr
5000 feet2
Tho preliminary estimate and plans did not
contsm plate any new slope wall on tho Cam
illus feeder. A bench was left at the toe OF the
wall by these plans, and tho wall allowed
to remain. The engineer in explaining
the excess OF excavation and slope wall.
says: 1t was deemed that this bench
would be sufficient protection for the walls.
After the excavation was finished this
decision was reconsidered. and the contractor
was ordered back to excavate this bench in
twenty-five feet sections for the pu rpose OF
placing a concrete toe in place OF same A
change OF plan is here admitted by the en-
ginesr. but the m after was not brought to the
attention OF the Canal Board. The result OF
this unauthorized change Of plan. which was
not essential to providing nine feet OF naviRa-
ton. was that tho whole length OF wall tum-
bled into the canal and had to DO rebuilt: and
that the entire bench wall excavation was paid
for as rock at 95 cents q yard upon the pretext
that 1t was frozen instead Of as earth at 26h
cents.
1T is not supposahle that the Legislature
ever intended that the canal officials alone
should have power to make extensive improve
mants In this way without regard to the cost,
or to the approval OF the Canal Board. the only
body having legal authority to institute canal
Improvement work. II the contractors conten-
tion 10 sound that an increase OF quantity, or.
In other words that an indefinite extension
OF the same class OF work does not
involve a change OF plan. there would
be no limiting the amount OF work to
be done under a contract. or power to restrict
the cost OF the same. The sudden and uneX-
pectod depletion OF the Sa.0O0.O0O improve
m ent fund was largely due to these enormous
and heavy extra. and. in many cases, un-
authorized and illegal allowances. about
which nobody seemed 10 know much Of any
thing until the bills were sent in for payment.
No halt was called on this Wholesale expend-