The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-10
The S1s,stS CANAL STEAL.
MR.. CUNNEEN RIDDLES GOV.
ODEIL'S Defence.

He shows From the Omclal Records That
the Furnaceviilc Iron Company Was
Allowed $4,000 for prospective
Profits" in Addition to the SIS, 0ls for
Exesyating Rock where None Existed.
Albany. Oct. Ex-Governor Chairman
Odell's explanation OF the reason that led
his candidate for Governor, Frank Wayland
Higgins, and the other Republicans MEM
bers Of the State Canal Board to vote e1s, ois
N the Furnaoeville Iron Company for ex-
cavating rock which was really mud was
riddled tonight by Attorney General Cum
nsen in a supplemental statement
Edward H. Hartman, Governor-C Chair
man Odell's personal friend and financial
hacker, is president and treasurer OF the
Furnaceville Iron Company, and 1t will be
recalled that Governor Chairman Odell.
in his answer to Attorney General Cum
mems initial arraignment of the Odell
State administration in general and Odell-
ian, in particular, declared that while the
Republican members of the State Canal
Board we're not OF the belief that Attorney
General Cunneen was entirely wrong in
insisting that no rock had been excavated
~ the pO1Ilb III QucStioh' tfOy WV '''e<' VIZ
sssis rock item should be approved to
compensate the company In other drec-
tons. especially for prospective profits,
The minutes and findings Of the State
Canal Board relating to the claim Of the
Furnaceville Iron Company show that
the board allowed and paid the company
over $4,000 for prospective profits in
addition to the t1s.ois paid for excavating
rock where none existed. Acknowledgement
Cunneen's statement follows.
In q former statement showed that the
Republican members OF the Canal Board. in
Guiding the present Republican candidate for
Governor. had awarded to the Furnaceville
Iron Company SIS sis, for exoavating rock
where no rock existed. The correctness OF
nv statement has not been denied. In re-
ply by the Governor. he said: Mr.. Cunneen
objected to the award. but was the only one
OF the board who did so the others. as under
stand. vo,ins for tie payment. perhaps not
entirely under the belief that his contentious
were entirely erroneous. but that certain
money was due for losses which had occurred
by reason Of the failure Of the State to permit
the contractor to continue his work. This is
often done in business matters; it certainly
was not improper for the Canal Board to
view 1t from that standpoint II they deem ed
II wise to do So"
About the moral aspect Of the Governors
contention, that of1cers Of the State may.
upon mere preteIt. pay Its money upon
claim for work which has not been performed.
l shall express no opinion. The facts. how
ever, are not as the Governor says he UNDER
stands them.
The Furnaceville Iron Company's claim
included a distinct item for losses which
had occurred by reason OF the failure Of the
&C. e s a. ssss t. ssss as
which was allowed at So ,sss.4S.
The question on the item Of sis,0ie was
whether u was fair or fraudulent. IL had
been pa3d before the contract was cancelled
by the State, and the suggestion was that 1t
should b. char eed back to- the contractor
and taken out Of the sum allowed II for the
failure Of tho State TO allow the work TO con-
tinue because II was paid without any con-
sderation and was a gratuity to the con-
tractor,
Tho hearing In the Furnaceville Iron Com
pany's claim began before the Canal Board
OF 1909 on Dec. 10. II appeared on that hear
ing that contract No. Q between the State
and the claimant made no reference to rock
excavation: that IN the last days OF Septem-
ber 1897. work began under the contract and
excavation OF the prism OF the canal continued
until nearly the LIST OF May. 1898; that during
that time only steam shovel and picks and
ehov els had been used that the alleged rock
had been removed In the same manner. by
the same tools. by the same process and
from the came place as that which was con-
coded to be earth: that the matter excavated
had been uniformly classified as earth. and
that payment had been made from month to
month on the understanding that only earth
had been excavated: that then the State
Engineer and Surveyor and the Superintend-
snt of Public Works entered into . contract
with the Furnaceville Iron Company. which
was attached to the original contract No. O.
by which the State agreed to pay for dry
excavation OF rock per cubic yard. ST.
At the foot Of this agree ment there was a
memorandum in explanation OF the item as
follows: There was no prizes for dry ex-
cavation Of rock on this bidding sheet when
this contract was let. After the work on
this contract started, a great deal Of hard pan.
which would have to be CLASSIFIED as rock.
was excavated. Up to the list Of May abo ut
1900 cubic yards Of this material will have
been taken out. A near as can be calcu-
lated, there will be about 80. 600 cubic yards
Of this material on the entire contract. The
price Of 81 per cubic yard has been offered by
the contractor for excavatinR this material"
II will thus be seen that the parties to
the contract made a record Of the facts
as claimed them to exist Having ma de
this supplemental contract. the States en-
sinees reclassihed the e1cavated material.
and estimated that is.ssse yards OF IL was
rock.
brief reference to the testimony Of Mr..
Ford, the superin tendent Of the Furnace
vile Iron Company. intended TO show how
much profit the company would have made II
permitted to continue its contract TO COM
pletion. will be Of interest, rs 1t shows the
manner in which the separation Of rock and
earth was made. After having testified that
the cost Of using the steam shovel. including
the labor and the appliances connected with