New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-10-14
VIZ crrrEEN,s REJoLNDER.

o1,s denial of non-eSseltials and careiul aNO'u-
ance of the essential point at ISSUE Mt Ouii-
neen drags his red herring all over the TdlI
10 keep the people from seeing thaI the Iea.
question which was decided by the Canal boaru
in the Furnaceville case was one OF the creol-
biIitv of evidence regarding the Redistribution
The intellectual dishonesty Of the Attorney ten
eraI is shown by his persistent reference 20 the
classified matter as rock, While the cohlract,
which he quotes, explicitly says harupah MS
object is obvious. Nobody can see now ques-
ton might arise whether matter eXcavateu were
soft earth or rock" A fool couIo see now
there might be such a question as 10 Whether II
were soft earth compacted earu-.n"t Is
.shardpan" called by engineers "rock MI
CTInnaon makes the most of this play on the
word rock"
He tells us even a geolOgist could not TELL
"anv difference in the character of the material
latter il was so deposited upon the bank by
using the word rock he suggests 10 the minus
Of his hearers and readers that it was pretended
that limestone or granite had been eXcavated'
II be had been less disingenuous ana useu lhe
word ''hardpan- which The New international
Encyclopedia" defines as the hard stratum OF
earth beneath the layer Of surface SOIL no one
would be surprised ut the difficulties of the geoI-
ogist Hardpan. after having been broken up
and exposed to the weather for four years, would
hardly differ from soft earth.
Caught in n similar act Of intellectual dlshon-
esty by Justice Miller Mr.. Cunneen omits IN
his speech all mention OF his famous witnesses
Before Justice Miller had exposed the charac-
ter Of those witnesses We heard a great deal
about them. Mr. Cunneen did not tell the pub
lie as he is reported 10 have told his associates
that their testimony was a disappointment 70
him He concealed from the public that they
were 81 - day laborers, who proved so mud
died and forgetful that their testimony was
. valueless. lie just spoke of his twelve wit
nesses, and let the public gather that the Canal
Board had rejected unimpeachable evidence that
no rock existed where the contractor charged
for excavating il.
A. for the facts Of the case. Mr.. Cunneen in
his latest utterance introduces none which we
did not have IN Justice MIller's statement The
FurnA ceville Iron Company had a contract with
the State for excavating soft earth 1t encoun-
tered hardpan. II demanded and received
new contract for excavating hardpan. Mr. Gun
neen is estoppcd from questioning the method
OF granting this new contract By his vote In
favor OF the companys receiving prospective
profits under IT. Tie company paid FOR
+ excayatinE hardpan under the new contract
When final settlement with the company was
considered in 1892 a Republican Canal Board
raised the question whether the company had
NOT been improperly paid for excavating hard
pan where none existed. Evidence was taken
regarding the existence OF hardpan. The sole
question was whether there was hardpan or not
II there was hardpau, the company was entitled
10 the money paid for excavating II. II not the
State was entitled TO the moneys return. Mr.
Cunneen and Justice Miller are agreed on these
essential facts.
In 1903, when Mr.. Cunneen became a member
Of the Canal Board the matter came under dis
cussiou Justice Miller says that the evidence
{ nj ha q of o L
gineer's drawing Of the prism OF the canal
showing the various strata Of materials Mr.
Cunneen challenges Justice Miller To produce
any such drawing. and we have no doubt that
his challenge will receive attention On the other
hand. there was not scintilla 81 evidence 10
show that the Canal Board OF 1898 had improp-
erly classified the material Mr.. Cunneen does
not deny that his twelve aborers proved dis
appointment" while he expressly admits that
the biologists employed by the State could not
tell whether the heaps OF material excavated
four years before contained hardpan or not
Mr.. Cunneen presents no reason for believing
that the Canal Board of 1908 did not weigh
the evidence properly and decide according 10
its preponderanca
There is an issue OF fact between Justice Nil
Ter and Mr. Cunneen regarding the action of
the Canal Board of 1902 in the Furnaceville
case Mr. Cunneen says II decided in favor Of
e q
amount paid for excavating hardpan Justice
Miller says II heard the evidence bur took M
action The meeting OF December 81 1882 was
an eXecutive-that is 10 say. secret session
no minutes OF the meeting were kept according
to Mr.. Cunneen himself Yet the Attorney Con-
eraI who was not present fatty gives the lie
10 Justice Miller. who was present He bases
his assertion on an alleged memorandum"
winch ne found. Why he should expect any
one TO believe IN this mysterious "borderean'' NJ
MS we DO not see. II there We're no minutes of
the meeting, how does Mr. Cunnepn know his
memorandum was adopted: How does he know
i IS authoritative: Who prepared it? Where
uiu VT. 'uhheen ma II: We suspect it is an
other hoax like his Witnesses and his "rocL =.
nut even II the board Of 1902 found against
me hardpan classification. which in the face ~
'uS'Ice Miller express denial. there is no req
son Tor believing. the action Of the board Of 1000
must sun stand Oh its own bottom If the later
board found against the evidence on the ,,,as
ton whether there was hardpan in controot ~
o. II did wrong. II IN accordance with tho or,
| dence, 1t did right This great "ar,gt, o..
resolves Itself into question of the. cra,libiIit
Of witnesses. and the public aIraady 80
about Mr.. Cunneen and his twelve muddIo-
heads 'uu'lAe-
But why did this 1902 board Of RennlItooa.
If il was grating" question the con+rao+-.
right to his pay for hardpan? Why dJdp't i -
over the matter with it's ewes sbut9 ra :, IasS
OF the Republican members of the board 80 1000
We're members of that Of 1902 IF tbo, -
grarung, why didn't they finish rbe tob -
December 81 1902 and not protract IL ,n+o .i ="
next year under hostile Democratic eve ''''
--