New-York tribune., 1904-10-13

The Furnaceville Iron Company ba" con
tract with the State for excavathG SUI 'di ="
In the widening Of certain sections oi NV III -
Canal II tine process of excavation ~ ''H'
pany struck ''hardpan." for the eXciFa'nis u
which the c0mpany's contract did n"t 'hi- II
continued IFS work. ana The engineer o. VI"
state kept record Of how much L'ICp"'
was oycavated. The company made ne" 'ou-
tract with the State i'm which additional com
pensation was allowed for removing hard
pan which j 10 al irtanis and purposes
rock. The STATE paid the company Tor nara
pan" excavated previous 10 the new contract
ri tho rate agreed upon in the new 'oh'f"''.
The State subsequently stopped all work on tne
canal All Of this happened in the admln'stra
ton Of Governor BlacS.
The FUIracevilie Iron Company preferred n
claim against the State FOR certain moneys owed
n II by the state. namely It's deposit with the
state when the contract was awarded 10 H.
ana sums Withheld by the State from monthly
ravnnents "a the company. Besides the "em-
nanv asked the State 70 pay the profits the
company might reasonably have expected 70
cain through the fuflment of its coptract,
broken by the State lis logal right to S1ch
profits is rot in dispute.
These claims had not been settled iD 1902, and
The Canal Board Of that year took them Up. Inc
board which was entirely Republican, OF IT'S
own motion raised the question whether these
claims were not in all or in part Offset by over
payment of the FuTnaceville company Tor eN-
cayaffnc 'hardpan" Evidence was heard, and
the board let the matter 30 over undecided TO
the new board of 1903. which had 4 Demo
cratic member-Attorney General Cunneen. II
the board was corrupt. does any one suppose II
would have LET Mr.. Cunneen have a nand IN
settling the Furnaceville claim.
The 1903 board heard further testimony re-
gardinc the Offset or counter claim against
the Furnaceville company. The evidence that
the excavated matter in dispute was hard
pan consisted OF reports Of engineers, their
maps, drawings, measurements. and so forth,
fled in the Office of the division engineer of
the canal. The contrary evidence consisted of
the testimony of twelve witnesses cited by At
torney General Cunneen. They were iaborerS
who had worked on the contract Some admit
ted they did not know what ''hardpan" was.
The Others did not now how much "hardpan"
there was The Canal Board acted on the evi-
dence The expert testimony outweighed the in
expert testimony OF Mr.. Cunneens hazy mind
ed laborers 1t may safely be expected TO DO
so with the jury of voters this year.
Mr.. Cunneen voted with his Republican as
sociates that the Furnaceville company was en-
titled TO the money owed by the State and the
prospective profits lost. The Republican mem
bers who. and not Mr. Cunneen. had raised
the question Of the reclassifcation and contend
ed that the State had counter claim against
the contractor for money paid for excavating
rock where there was no rock. regarded their
own contention as unsuStained Mr.. Cunneen
thought it was sustained regarding a portion
of the work by the haZy testimony of his la
borers He wanted $1S61S deducted from
the sum awarded because, on the principle
that every mans pig is the whitest, he thought
his own witnesses should have convinced the
board
That is the whole Of this wondrous tale Of
graft! Mr.. Cunneen's twelve muddle headed
labOrers are magnifed into State issue!