The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1900-10-16

vision Containing Carriers Dis
trict-wouId Not Answer Erwin's
Questions as 90 DetaIIs-Had Taken
Carriers Word for the Amount Of
Work AccompIiShcd--Spect onS
Were Very Vague.
New York. Oct is.-Gen. william
Price Craighill. L. $. A.. retired. was the
first witness placed on the stand to-day
az the continuation OF the proceedings for
the removal OF J. r.. J. II. and W. T..
Gaynor and d. b. Greene to the jurisdlc-
ton OF the United States Court in Geor-
eia.
lie was a witness for the defense. and
his line OF testimony was In reference TO
his inspection OF the work at Savannah.
under Capt. oberlin NJ. Carter. Witness
sad that his work was substantially OF a
routine nature. ard that he simply saw
that certain specified work was being done
without going into details as 20 the cost
OF the work OF the contracts.
Gen. CraighiI said he had charge as di-
vision engineer OF the river and harbor
Improvements In his district form 1883 10
1896. and the division included the Sa-
vannah district where Capt. Garter was
In charge in 1891. The line OF defense was
10 show that the responsibility OF Capt
Carter ceased when the contracts were
confirmed by his superior officers. The
defense also holds that the contracts were
properly made and thut there was no
conspiracy at any time to defraud.
work Very Successful.
Tho witness said that in his opinion the
work done under Carter was the most sue
cessful he had ever known. To United
States District Attorney Erwin OF Georgia
he said he based his conclusions on i'm
pressions he had received from residents
Of Savannah. together with his own OBJ
servations. He said that for the work pre-
sumed 70 have been accomplished less
than 100000 was reasonable amount
Of expenditure. on cross examination. wit
ness said that on account Of che work be-
ing under water largely. Il was impossi-
BILE for him 20 determine how much work
had been done without geological sur
vsy. which he did not make and coase-
quentiy had 70 accept Capt. Carriers word
IN the matter. He said he never made
any inspection OF che mattresses. He said
this was not his business. but that Of an
/ assistant engineer.
After recess District Attorney Erw n
endeavored 10 learn from witness, after
showing him Illustrations of a nmber Of
mattresses. his (witucss) idea Of the cost
of the same. The witness pcrsistentiy re-
fused TO state. on the ground that he was
not posted On such matters and would not
answer off-hand."
Mr. Erwin called witness attention 20
the fact that he had said that less than
&aO0oo was not an ovcrcharge for the
work done In Cumberland Sound by Capt
Carter and that he should be qualified TO
tell the cost OF certain material IN con-
formity with the specification. The wit
ness avoided the question by saying that
conditions altered prices. and he could not
answer the question.
Counsel brought out that the specifca-
tions were so vague that contractors were
not In "A position 90 make an estimate. and
witness admitted that under the specific
condition he would not know how TO bid
on certain clauses OF the specification in
point.
work Very Vague.
Mai c. Med. Townsend OF the United
! states Corps OF Engineers. stationed at
Rock Island. Ill. the nexs witness, was
questioned upon the internal construction
OF fascine mattresses. on eross-exami-
nation he said he placed Ia his speciflca-
tions that mattress brush should be
well trimmed" or with brush" but Il
was specified which was TO be used 50
that contractors would know which OF the
two kinds 20 make. This was so vague
in the specification formulated by Capt
Carter thas contractors did not know
which OF the two 10 make The witness
said ne testified IN behalf OF Capt. Carter
al his court-martial.
After this testimony an adjournment
was taken until tomorrow.