The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-08-16
ILLEGAL CANAL PAYMENTS.
COMP THRILLER MORGAN REJECTS NC
DONALD q SATRFS BILL.

Their Contract Proposal Was a1ts,94s
and the Final Estimate $500, 287-The
Difference WAS Made Up of Illegal
Allowances, the Comptroller Declares.
ALBANY. Aug. 15.-State Comptroller Morgan
to-day notified State Superintendent OF Public
Works Partridge that he had decided to refuse
to audit the claim Of Mcdonald 4 Sayre. canal
contractors. for $30.S19. This is the second
claim growing out Of the nine million dollar
canal improvement work to be brought before
the Comptroller recently. There are anumber
OF others pending.
Mcdonald h Sayre had contract No. on the
middle division ofthe Erie Canal. covering the
improvement between locks 40 and so. dis
lance OF five miles The amount OF their con-
tract proposal was S14S.94S. and the amount
OF the Anal estimate on the contract was $780,
2S7. The Comptroer's reasons for refusing
further payments upon this contract are set
forth In long memorandum In which he de-
clares at the outset that in his judg m ent the
illegal and improper payments already made
are in excess Of the money on hand to the APP
parent credit OF tho contract.
In the matter OF embankment." Ssys the
Comptroller. "A large sum OF money hos been
improperly allowed. The amount OF embnnk-
ment estimated for In the quantity sheet was
100 cubic yards The amount allowed on the
final estimate Ia 1O59lS yards an increase OF
more than thousand fold The fact that the
price, 38 cents q yard. was a good one. may
have some influence in producing this result.
very large proportion OF this enor-
nous increase is due to the contractors
being allowed embankment price for
material which was excavated. claimed to have
been hauled 1000 feet or more and wasted.
At the time the testimony was taken before the
Canal Investigation Committee. the total
amount OF embankment allowed was 95.500
81. 1875 yards OF this amount was for material
which never was placed In the embankment
but which was claimed to have been hauled
over 1000 feet and wasted. After the evil
dence was taken 10000 yards more were al
lowed.
From my examination OF the contract and
specifications am unable to find any author
ity for embankment allowance for material
excavated and wasted In spoil bank. Embark
ment was to be paid for only when the material
excavated was necessarily unloaded from
scows or necessarily hauled more than 1000
feet or necessarily handled twice in connection
with the excavation and back filling around
masonry structures and foundations. All the
contractor had to do was to dig out the bottom
two feet and get rid OF the excavated material
For this he was to receive "a cents per cubic
yard.
Il But early in the progress Of the work the term
a carefully and skilfully built ridge OF earth.
seems to have become confused with spoil
bank. which means simply dumping ground
for refuse material. and an arrangement was
made between the canal officials and the con-
tractors whereby the latter were to receive for
this material 3S cents per cubic yard as en-
bankment in addition to the "a cents yard
received for excavation. for the alleged reason
that the m aterial was hauled 900 feet.
81 hnA Al.-Al
cause these canal officials agreed to this ar
ranGement a claim was necessarily created
against the State. The fact that these canal Of
ficials had no legal authority to agree that
the State should pay the embankment
price OF 30 cents yard for this
wasted material in addition to the "a
cents paid for excavation makes their act MI Il
and void and ,of no binding effect upon the
State. The claim is rendered ridiculous be-
cause largo part Of the material had to be
taken by devious ways. up and down two sides
OF triangle. in order to make the haul 1000
feet LONG so as to bring It within the provisions
OF the agreement. There is absolutely no au-
thority in the law or the contract as l read
them. for an allowance OF 80 cents yard upon
this 1O5.9lS yards OF wasted material. 1t was
simply gratuity to the contractor OF $4O.2l0.
There are several other items In the final
estimate Of this contract which in my judg-
ment are also Illegal and should not be allowed.
They are: Improper allowance on &c. 1871 cubic
yards Of material classified as rock. at 81. 20 a
yard. or $3S.217: improper allowance for I'M
authorized construction OF wells. S42. SOB; i'm
proper allowance for ditch. 1890: improper
allowance for refining and excavating tow path
S5O5u Those make a total disalowane of
including the embankment item Of $133 1877
1t is also very doubtful question as to whether
the $23SlO paid for the Geddes site for the
proposed State shop Is a legal charge against
the improvement fund. Converting the Cieddes
basin into a State shop site had nothing to do
with improving the canal for navigation pur-
poses. for which the $9.O00.OO0 were appro-
rriated.
And 1t is OF interest to note in this connec-
ton that these illegal allowances. including
that for the Geddes State site. very nearly
represent the difference between the amount
bid on this contract. Sl4S.94SS9 and the
amount OF this final estimate. $500. 2S7. show
Ing that IL legal allowances only had been
made. the contract price would have covered
the work. But inasm UGH as the Illegal allow
ance OF S40,2SO for embankment more than
wipes out the apparent balance due on this
contract. Ii does not seem necessary to &c into
details as to the other illegal and questionable
allowances at this time"
Death OF Lieut.. Morse.