New-York tribune., 1904-10-11


-. sbsttering the Democratic campaign
SoiNp0-'s ,ao,,,re Mr.. Cunneen in an unenviable
position 80. The Eurnaceviue
'4'' <,--,or,, had received S1S,6lS for eXca-
.,..,no rock in the Improvement oI 'ie III i'e
l-.,o1 when there was no rock III suppe-
,o.r,arv statement replying to the
-. the s1S6l was paid in lieu OF piOsPe0NNe
-, 11't ,os+ bx the company through the states
s.o,,,ng work on the companys COM M
spOpp-s ga ,bst the State had already paid
- Ss4 600 10 the Furnaceville iron company
g. ,rospective profits lost MI C"iiiiee" ue
.,ored that the claim Of the FurhaeeNie .4O4.
company for S1s61S for eNcava'iiis , - no.
-,-h,cb Justice Miller was MEMBER ms 'ii' &C
ststinct assertions are proved untrue.
1-na facts are as the minGtes OF the Canal
Board show; .,.a ,,,a
That the previous Ooaiu i 49,
claim for S1S6lS.
THAT the S34, 600 which Mr.. Cunneen said was
,o,5 Cor prospective profits lost had been
1oN nv a previous board for eXcavatinS
sqbsrdnan' This was classified as rock (oe-
ing more difacult)to excavate than rocKD oy
,ho engineers of the State five years before. and
had been measured and paid for accordingly
That the claim which Mr.. Cunneen said was
a.. ,l, excavation was really % for money
deposited with the State with the bid' % 1or
10 per cent Of the monthly estimates wlthhelo
nv the State as a guarantee OF the proper per
Torrance Of the contract, and CD a claim lot
irrespective profits lost The courts had de-
eiaed that canal contractors were entitled to re-
,,bursenent for such lost profits. Mr.. Miller
explains simply how these profits were COM
puted. Mr.. Cunneen voted in favor Of allowing
each OF these three claims.
BOARD CONSIDERED RECLAssIFIcATIoN.
The board took up the reclassifcation Of part
pf the excavation as hard pan or rock Tor
which $4,000 had been previously allowed
The work was considered in sections justice
Miller thinks five. Mr.. Cunneen voted with the
rest Of the board that there was no evidence
20 impeach the reclassifcation IN four OF these
i've sections With respect to one section, Mr..
Cunneen brought before the board his now
celebrated witnesses, twelve laborers, who, five
years before had worked on that section Of the
canal Most Of them admitted that they did
not know what hard pan was. The rest were
tn doubt how much hard pan existed. Mr.. Gun
neen pinned his faith on his laborers. The other
members OF the canal board thought the evil
heaoe Of the States expert engineers more trust
Egorthy. The mobey involved being for a fifth
pf the contract was, presumably about fifth
d the S34 900 paid the Furnaceyille Iron Com
pany five years before on the recIassiaca-
tion If the majority Of the board had agreed
with Mr.. Cunneen in his estimate OF laborers
Is experts about fifth Of $4,000 would have
been deducted from the Sls.61S paid TO the
Furnaceviile Iron Company on an entirely differ
snt claim from that which Mr.. Cunneen. trust
ing TO his untrustworthy memory. said il was
That is the case in q nutshell.
JUSTICE MILLERs STATEMENT
As a man whose character will not be ques-
toned. and whose connection with the Furnace
Vile Company case enables him to present the
facts from personal knowledge, Justice Miller
was requested 10 make a statement for pubh-
cation He furnished the following:
have read the statement Of Attorney Cen
erai Cunneen, in which he cites the audit of a
claim Of the Furnaceville Iron Company by the
Canal Board. as an instance Of ''perversion Of
public funds morally reprehensible" This
statement, conspicuously published, plainly i'm
ports improper il not corrupt motives to his
soeiates- will not undertake to engage in any
partisan controversy, but the public has a right
10 KNOW as to the conduct Of chosen officials
am gao 20 make a statement which in fairness
o 20 lle puohc and justice 10 my former associ-
ates and 10 myself should be made.
MI Cunneen says that he alone voted against
.,1 rae allowance OF an item claimed by the Fur
EHaceElIle Iron Company for excavating land for
Sd60Io on contract for canal work under the
Deeh auoited by the board and this item disal-
lowed: that the claim was for the excavation of
s sa.eIlas oIlglnally classified earth and sub
seeNelly Ieclassihed as rock: that twelve wit
nesses testified that no rock was excavated;
that an OF his Republican associates voted TO al
loE the item and that he voted against it.
ne tact is, such item was contained in the
cam OF the Furnacevills Iron Company, no
sueh ITEM was rejected by the board, and
suen ITEM was allowed by the succeeding board.
entertaining the favorable opinion of Mr.. Cum
neen which have had, I cannot believe that he
nas deliberately falsified, but prefer TO believe
s's he has mace mistake as result Of
ous naste, ano that in attempt 70 meet a
supposed immediate necessity OF suppIyina a
spscinec charge to support a general one par
800 100 zeaI mas caused him TO rely on memory.
records y '"0 "''N"'
Inc facts are as follows: When the work
soes lhe Ss'gvO'OOO appropriation was aban-
Lsonea oy the State I'm 1888 because OF the ex-
..ausuon OF the appropriation. the various con-
Idcs mad been only partially performed 'The
,ss,'tactoTs had been required TO deposit with
-, oSdle per cent Of their bids; the State
SSsislg ~ the progress OF the work had also with
ssr-. ~ per cent OF the monthly estimate as a
~ lseI s guarantee; when the work was stopped
~ ~ Suaie held these two sums Of money which
sss-esuonably belonged 10 the contractors and
fir 1oiI'faciors had also claims for the prospee-
vart,e.l. OF une3rned pronts on the uncompleted
- sus nc OF tneir contract. The Court of Claims
L sutlsdictlon 10 determine these claims but
s...-S lhought that money could be saved thA
an y empowering the Canal Board 10 mass
syeis;,. ; ao3udge and hQuidate them. thereby
eo,s--ts the necessity of litigation An act
,l-efflng such Jurisdiction was accordi,e-1,,
ths 10y py tne legislatures OF 1898: the riqht Of
sett,sS hefaetors 70 their unearned profits was
stsfs sne case Of Baker against the
vshieh View York, II App Div 52g.
susL n decided that they were entitled -
tbe co,i,rp p,roperty, unless the aggregates OF
est,roe.nl act @ upon its face as shown by the
0O0no0 Se ane DDS was IN excess OF the So
fhe 81 sSeh e aggregate proved TO be less than
titled ~ u SO that the contractors were en-
depos,tea ser ,..n trom the State first the money
sueb s,,.. nSa.Sh was held by the State ana third
have bea5 es I tney could show their profits would
contrscts b5 - - uIcoInpieted portions OF their
corarIaspos them the amount rernatntye mn.
- LIleleo being a mere rnaffar - manning - u ~