The sun., 1903-10-31

so the promoters Of all large enterprises
oG a constructive character have erred,
honestly or otherwise, in estimating cost.
In the table printed herewith are many
Illustrations of the wide differences be-
tween estimates and actualties. canal
is comparatively simple as an engineering
problem. but its cost is not to be calculated
easily. For large part Of the way the new
canal is to depart from the channel OF the
old Erie Canal and find new route-one
which may offer new questions to be met;
and each new question means more money.
II is hardly necessary TO refer to the
wav in which the s9,Oo0,0OO voted by the
people in 1895 for canal improvement was
spent 1t was to settle the canal question
for half a century at least, the people were
told when their votes were sought Larger
locks and n nine foot canal were to he the
features Of it. When the fund was ex-
ha,lstcd some new locks had been built
and here and there along the canal nine
feet of water had been provided, but the
bulk of the money fattened the pockets OF
the canal contractors and the p0hticlahs
who controlled the expenditure.
No value oame to the State or TO its com
merce from that $4,000. 900, but the debt
contract still stands, S. 500, 900 of it to be
paid as the bonds mature.
All the scientific world is familiar with
the construction of the Manchester Shp
Canal which the engineers figured wo'lld
cost s26,OOo. 600 but the bill for which was
more than two and a half times that sum
The Chicago Drainage Canal was prolec'ed
lv Lyman T.. Cooley. an engineer OF prh-
lia,l parts who by the way, was later APP
pointed to investigate the $1,000 900 canal
iob in this State. That Mr. Cooley honestly
tried 10 figure the cost of the canal Is I'M
,l..,iof 9bl,. He put it at sl2,OOo,OOO
When $-7,3O3,2l6 had been expended the
engineer said that sio,35s, ,i26 more WOULD
hr required to compIct" il.
That engineering achievement, 'he
Hoo,ac Tunnel. the longest double track
tunnel in America, was to cost niue shor'
or S. 600, 800, vet when 1t was done II ma"
eos, more than S20,000oOO
As for the Tweed Court House, which
graces CITY Hall Park-tha' Is monument
Of corruption which has become pv"oiu.
When its construction was hr-t authoriZen
the Aldermen appropriated s250OVo' ihiS
H,nouut thry increased later to Aoo'o"'
Then an architect was put at work win
limit The building was very nearly
completed in 1857, lacking only plAsferihg
and plumbing, and the cost mp TO that tiihe
var s. 800 900 BY 1871. the time OF the
Tweed charter, the expenditure charged
On he books for the construction OF the
hmidinp was 81, ,73i,l44, and to furnishing
.narged TO the construction and furnishing
Of county hldines. courts and Offices,
g., 2Sp 2gg most OF which, as there were
fea such offices outside the Court House.
m,ls be- charged to that building, making
SD2WOUNO.
Original plans tor the Brooklyn Bridge,
pr"pared by John A, Roebling, fixed the
prouablr cost at 5000, 600 BY an act OF
the LEGISLATURE Of 1874 he cost OF the Bridge
vas limited to S., 900 900, of which New YORK
VA TO furnish one-third and Brooklyn
tWo-hlrds For various reasons the cost
war increased The Federal Government
insisted that the Bridge he made flye feet
higher than il had been planned. It's
HIifN was Increased from 10 To s5 feel
thr-r two items adding per cent TO the
"ool When the Bridge was opened for
iraiir. iu May, 1888, thirteen years after
II Wis begun, II had cost sl5,3s3, ~ %,
Mr kueUnuEs estimate of six or seven
years ip bulld il had grown to thirteen
yeirr and four months. The total given
hsIe Includes the cost Of lands taken The
cost of the Bridge Itself Is put at about
Sn6uOD