New-York tribune., 1899-07-27
CANAL CONTRACT DISPUTE.
CONTROLLER MORGAN REFUSES TO PAY
r ]. DwYER & co.'s BILL.
.,,rcEp BALANCE OF sssO57 DIsALLowED-
FIRST OF TEN CASES AGGRE-
eating ss5oooo

FIRST OF TEN CASES AGGRE-
eating $4,000.
.,hsnv July 26-Controller William j. Nor
- has written 10 Superintendent OF Public
uo-ts Partridge refusing positively TO pay l.
Duver & Co. the sum Of $50 057 10. an alleged
,.Iance said 70 be due on a canal contract for
,ronroving the Erie Canal from the east line or
oneida County 10 Lock No 40
Briefly. he declines TO pay on the ground that
rsvtd Smell Of Palatine Bridge, was mem
her q, the firm 10 which the contract was let
"a q, the same time an employe OF the
r,,huc Works Department. violation OF the
Constitutions also. that the hnal price OF the
work exceeded the contract price by AZ per cent
and that the arrangement between the con
tractors and the State Engineer whereby an
.x,rs allowance Of $4,000 was made was en-
tirey illegal
This is a decision in the first Of ten cases TO
be decided by the Controller. amounting 10 over
s35OOOO The other cases will be taken up
later II is understood that Governor Roosevelt
has ordered a test 10 be made in each case
where the canal contractors final estimates e~-
ceed the amount of their original bid. David
Smell is a brother Of Jacob Smell former state
Republican committeeman. who supported Gov
ernor Blacks candidacy Controller Morgans
opinion says:
I, appears by the evidence adduced before Teo the
sann4' sssan Of Paiaiine Bridge n Y. was member
OF this arm Of T J Dwyer CO. sneM P,lt Was Works
smI33ne the period in which the bids were re-
ceived and the contract let Inc 1and' & IaM &arte ed
Sides. NO public officer or appontee coilII -
ni,b the care or management Of canals SHAH oe
Interested either directly or indirectly In any con-
Eminent legal counsel Of the opinion that un-
DER proposition Of the statute InS re can
he no money legally due under IT, In aodiuon 10 10
this there other reasons why t@hls @ Ii ~ ~ CON ~
frart No J. The work cost the state aDout [fO
SSontrsct was awarded The plans and speclhca-
t,ons call for 1000 cubic yards Of embankment me ne
smnnnt slTnS of embankment finally allowed was 5is
hn14ir iP The contractors bid 60 cents cubic
vsTd which was a very high hgure; IN fact. II
We, We % nn me entire line of the improvement work
but the quantity was so insghlncaht .tt ma t ~ he
price attracted little attention al Ihe IeI.g @ u now
Contract Soon after the work was begun; nov"
ever namely December lS Ioso ~ncn, W. w.
tust month after the CONTRACT Mas Sie 49, ON
ano,neers an1 the contractors entered lnto an
agreement whereby the material eHcaeatedd I'm ~
spoil bank For this the contractors were 10 re-
oeive embankment price-So cents dG,1ion ,6 The
less Of the distance hauled' IN ,bjs or
excavaton price Of 20 cents yard. Under thls ar
rangement the embankment was increased from rom
100 10 S54s1 yards This agreement was sa!o ~ De
In the nature OF compromise. and was 10 pe
anal determination Of the whole question OF en-
bankment prices for overhau ou S ~, :, v,ere
the agreement 10000 yards not covered Dy II were
eubS1Quenty allowed
Tbis arrangement which cost the State so osS o
:, nv Judgment was contrary 10 the provisions of
the speehca and o5 entpey ees The State engineer
himself in his testimony admitted that ne did not
iowsS as a Compromise The engineer. however,
has no power TO compromise claims against the
The original estimate for vertical VAL for upon SS
which the contract was oasee Pt4SloTo iOt Vas
Increased 10 9s27 wards an increase OF 0,2l yards
not authorized by the Canal Board This iilegal IN
rrvnf1
Other items Of expense were allowed without the
authorization approval OF the Canal Boato' "a as
lowing items should be deducted IN the settlement
OF this contract VIZ Overhaul SoSSs -; VerIIra d
s. 2G7 90. illegal allowance for removing stohe
In ADDITION TO these items Of nlegalty. OF which
there seems TO be doubt in the minds OF persons
who have carefully examined the su6Jeet are
rock excavation etc. which have not been In
doubt in my mind as whether not they are
really Illegal allowances A result OF an these
with this contraci is that. although T J. Dwyer &
Co.'S accepted bid Of A25@ was the lowest .s pro pro
tract sum nearly twice as great as the proposal
of the highest unsuccessful BIDDER
The Controller points out that Judge Country
man. the Canal Commission. Tracey c. Becker
and Controller Roberts have declared the con-
tract void.
The amount claimed by the contractors as
still due is 500 o57 -, but. shown above. they
have been illegally allowed it is alleged. for
items aggregating SS4 045 20. making an adverse
balance against them OF S44.9SS O6 II these
contractors have any equities due them under
this contract. they must seek relief elsewhere
than from the Controller. who can only pay
claims against the State which are created ac-
cording to the provisions Of law. 1t is under
stood that acting under the latest report, the
contractors will sue