New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-10-14
REPLIES TO CUNNEEN.
T4KES ATTACK FUTILE.
Secretary of FurmacevilIe Iron Co
G;Ues Facts Without Distortion.

u-gFam II. Webb. secretary and counsel Of
-. Furnaceville Iron Company. met several
--.naDer men at No. 10 Broadway yesterday,
- made a statement in reply 10 the ATTACK
= Attorney General Cunneen on the settlement
- the conpany's accounts with the State for
-ork on canal contracts He furnished docu-
,nsnts 20 show that on contract No 3. the par
,,,,,lsr point OF Mr.. Cunneens attack, 1s61S
.,tie Yards OF hardpan had been excavated.
tad been certified 20 BY the canal engineers. and
Lss been paid for at 81 cubic yard on May %,
lsQg nearly three years before Governor Odelf
took Office Mr. Webb said that the whole trans
action with the State resulted in loss 10 the
FuruaoeviIle Iron Company: that the headquar-
+.rs Of the company were at Rochester. and that
g n. Hartman took no active part in the man
srement OF the company and had no personal
knowledge Of the transaction.
Mr. Webb's statement. after telling of the
eompany's contracts and saying that the State
mad baen holding S30.47O OF the company's cash.
u.bich was deposited Theu the contracts were
awarded. and S2S01O in addition as 10 per cent
Of The amounts earned by the company on its
contracts, and that the company had large
claims for prospective profits which were lost
BY the stopping OF the contracts continues in
part
In common with many other contractors. We fled
cur claims before the Canal Board. setting forth
fhe various items Of damages upon each contract.
srd on December 81. 1902. the matter was sub
T1frted 10 the Canal Board. That body, after
hrief consultation. announced that IL awarded this
Company SGD and charged back sS4O4S i'm
properly awarded for improper classification max
Ing the net award s6S 6e4. Immediately upon this
decision being made, ] protested that no evidence
whatever had been submitted 70 the board which
would justify the surcha7ge Of S4o4s. and that
such figures were utterly Unintenigible from any
evidenOe produced and such decision absO-
iutely without evidence 70 sustain IL.
II was also claimed that the Canal Board had
obviously overlooked q certain contract made be
tween the State OF NeWYcrk and this company.
dated April - 1895 and relating 70 rock excavation
On contract No g Il seemed 10 and my
ciate al the time that those objections were abso
Board. and after they we're made the board after
abort consultation. announced that II would not
IA ke any action but would let the matter go over
10 its Successors IN ONCE and EGch the result
January. 1903 The Controller presented a resolu-
ton that evidence be received upon the right Of the
state deduct offset Sss.045 from the sums cue
urder contracts which resolution vas passed.
the Attorney General alone voting IN the negative
Nj Webbs statement then goes into detail re-
garding the proofs which were presented 10 the
canal Board in January. 1903 regarding the
justice OF the oompanys claims. and says;
With that oral testimony before Il. with the con-
tract between this company and the State officials
The removal OF 1890 cubic yards OF harcpan. mel
gh+r the Canal Board any other tribunal could
ave reached any di1erent conclusion from that
reached IN this case There suggestion or
pan because We had mace very large losses in the
ieTt0rTlsnCe Of our contracts. and We got what
Cd only because the facts were overwhelming in
or favor.