The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-13

ii Agencies In all the pnncpal cities IN the Woru
upon. The supplemental contract had the
practical effect Of increasing the compen-
sation for which the work Lad been done
to be excavated had proved to be o. dit
ferent character from what the parties to
the contract cont emplated. the contractor
should have asked to be released from his
tise the work and make q new CONTRACT
after competitive bids. The Furnaceviile
Iron Company made it's claim before the
Canal Board; first, for the moneys deposited
with their bid to secure fulfllment OF the
contract; second, the amount Of the monthly
estimates which had been retained as further
security for the contract; third the amount
OF damages which II claimed to have SUI
fered because II was not permitted TO COM
plete the work; in other words, prospec-
which it claimed to have been compened
to pay it's laborers because Of the action OF
the Superint endent Of Public Works.
HEARING BEFORE CANAL BOARD.
The case came on to be heard before the
Canal Board OF 1902. 1t became necessary
to pass upon The validity and correctness OF
every item of the claim. This involved
an inquiry as to how much had been paid
and as to how much the company had
earned. 1t was suggested that the CON-
PAW hadn't earned all 1t claimed because
on Contract No and the other contracts:
material, made by the engineers, and OF
excessive payments on account OF these
by the Superintendent Of Public Works.
In the course Of this inquiry the correct
ness OF the Redistribution under Contract
No. 0, OF that which had originally been
classified as earth as rock, was brought in
question, and the record shows. notwith-
standing Judge Miler's statement, that con-
siderable evidence was given and discussion
had upon that item bef9rethe Canal la boaLa
as rock and that which was classified as
earth came out OF precisely the same place
in the canal, was raised at the same time by
the steam shovel and deposited together,
and that even geologist could not tell any
difference in the character OF the material
after it was so deposited upon the bank.
After these facts had been established
before the board Of 1902, Judge Miller says
that the board informed the attorneys
for the claimant that unless the matter OF
planned. the board would deduct from the
amounts due such sums as had been there.
tofore paid the claimant as the result OF
such reclassifoations.
He continues: THE, proposed findings
were advised would be adopted unless they
on the points suggested de further
says: The query in the minds OF the board
being as to how, after the materials had
accurate measurements upon which to
base the reclassifcation could be made.
The Judge might have added: @Particu-
larly as the eXoavated material was all
OF the same character and quality, 1t would
naturally puzzle one to determine which
part OF it was earth and which part OF 1t
was rock.
.JupoR MILLER MOVED TO REOPEN CASE.
|,H3 At the conclusion OF the proofs on Dec. 81.
1902 the board went into executive session
There is no formal record OF what then
TRANSFERRED, but I believe that the facts
Miller. have in my possession the memo
randa OF findings to which he refers,
which Is explicit and definite and strikes
over $40 out OF the claim made by the
Furnaceville Iron Company on its five
in question 1t Is evident that Comptroller
Miller regarded the case as having been
closed and decided on Dec. 81, 1902, for at
the first meeting OF the Canal Board in 1908
and on Jan. 20, as the records OF the meet
be reopened as to the right Of the State to
deduct or Offset the sum OF So ,446.s a found
by the board to have been received by
the applicant as the result OF reclassifca-
ton Of material
If CASE WAS NOT CLOSED, WHY REoPBNRD1
II the case had not been definitely closed
and decided and the amount definitely
fixed, why was a motion to reopen neces-
sary? The case was either closed or it was
open, and the character Of the motion made
by Judge Miller at that time indicated
that he regarded 1t as having been closed
and decided. The brief filed by counsel
for the claimant after the case, was re-
opened in its second paragraph states:
-The evidence was taken, and on Dec. 81,
1902, the Canal Board made its award where
by it determined etc.. and again, THE
total OF this award, exclusive Of interest,
was stated by the chairman Of the board
to be at that time the sum Of, etc
Thus it distinctly appears by the testi-
mony Of mute witnesses, unaffected by any
feeling of gratitude for honors or favors
advancement in the future, that at the time
Of the transaction both Justice Miles and
the counsel for the claimant regarded the
case as decided by rejecting the amounts
allowed by Reconsideration, including the
item Of Sls,6ls, and motion to reopen 1t
What had happened after the slst
day Of December 1902 when "the Canal
Board made it's award and the total Of this
claim was stated by the chairman Of the
any motion to reopen the case, or any APP
plication to do 80 by counsel for the claim
ant, which induced Comptroller Miller,
soon afterward Judge Miller, on the 10Th
day Of January to move to reopen the case?
And what induced every one Of his Repub-
lican associates who sat in the board OF
1902 and participated in the decision OF
the claim then made to vote with him to
reopen the case on the goth OF january,
1908? And what induced these gentlemen
to afterward vote to allow the items that
they had previously voted TO reject. when
every fact Of which their first Judgment
depended remained established?
LET THE PEOPLE JUDGE.
am frequently asked II desire to i'm
pugn the integrity of these gentlemen.
simply answer that state the facts. ] am
not discussing their personal characters or
their personal qualities. | an. discussing
attention of the people the conduct Of these
gentlemen in the discharge Of public bust
ness, that the public may act understand
ingly in the exercise Of elective franchises
They may have honestly believed that