The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1904-10-11
MILLER REPLIES TO CUNNEEN,
DEFENDING CANAL BOARDS
AWARD TO FURNACEVILLE co.
Amount Cunneen Voted TO Deduct rs
Paid for "RecIassifed" Rock Less
Than &Is,8IS, Says the Justice-Ma'
jorlty Voted That II Had Not the Power

Marian IL hlheT, WIZ I'D totdVc So"PS.'
ler WAS a member of the local board IN
1902 and 9O3-in which latter year, as Attor-
ney.Gencral Cunneen says, the allowance
OF sis,8iS for rock excavation to tho Fur
naceville Iron Company was agreed to,
except for his vote-and who in November,
1909. was appointed by Gov Odell to be
Justice of the Supreme Court in the sixth
district TO fill vacancy and Ia a candidate
for the place, has made statement In
reference to Attorney General Cunneen.
He says IN part;
Mr.. Cnnneen says that "he alone voted
against the allowance OF an item claimed
By the Furnacevile Iron Company for exca-
waiting rock for slsels. on a contract for
canal work under the So. OOO. 900 appropriation;
that the claim had been audited by the pre-
that the claim was for the excayation
Of materiass originally classified a. earth An. and
twelve witnesses testified that no rock was
sScavatei .. that all OF his Republican
associates voted to allow the item. and he
The fact Is, no such item was contained In
the claim Of the Furnaceville Iron Com
cedins board and no such item was allowed
BY the succeeding board
Entertaining the favorable opinion Of Mr..
Cunneen which | have had ! cannot believe
that he has deliberately falshed. but prefer
10 believe that he has made a mistake as
aresult Of undue haste, and that, in an attempt
70 meet supposed immediate necessity
Of supplying a specific charge to support
general one nSrtsSan zeal has caused him
instead of the actual record
Tn" contractors were, entitled to. recover
with the bid second: the 10 per cent. with
held by the State and. third. such sums as
T OF
had they been permitted by the State to COM
The different contractors. including the
Furnacevlle Iron Company, filed , claims
FOR these three items, the Furnacevi lie Iron
5 G BY , RsP Sos1 hf af ssm nse up
suggested BY Mr.. Cunpeen; the only other
superiatendent Of Public Works had re.
1n d the p1syans to rate pay Of its s@p as
which claim was disaISiowed by the bosrd
The proofs on this claim were closed and
the then members of the. board expired;
that as The S %oT
in 1895 certain portions Of the work eScavated
had been Originally classified a ia, as earth and
Of rock prices over earth on such materials
50 racassihed amounted to something over
tor al the time. The reason for such reclassi;,
fc?ton or the data upon which it was based
did not appear. The board informed the at
ter Of recassidoaton could be satisf actorily
explained the board would deduct from the
heretofore paid the claimant as a result OF
such reclassifcation.
Proposed findings had been prepared,
which the attorneys were advised would be
adopted unless they desired an opportunity
70 satisfy the board on the point suggested
and 'v was granted and the minutes Of the
meeting Of Dec. 81, 1902. will show that in
stead q & ny item ba in ,se claim
without taking any action whatever,
MIR, Cgnneen has certainly forgotten what
board ;e!piained in detail Why the matter
had been left by the former board without
n.y. n eunmee eF ob}eeton that the e record
was entirely silent either as to the action OF
tas % 3. or what d
that the hearing be opened to receive evi,,
inf s0; s ." q: 20 f s S
of said Redistribution. upon which. as | re-
call it. Mr. Cunneen voted no.
appeared: The original contract, had pro
yided for earth excavation, which was de-
a 6ens made
6cult to exoavate than rock. Soon after the
hardpan and rocky formation called red
horse" There was no provision in the con
fed it IT, as earth. accurate measurements.
however. being taken at the time. with the
pYnderstapdins that it should be I'D adjusted TED
should be ploughed the undisputed evidence
being that portions were taken out BY blast
tons, by means OF a machine. specially con;
structed, called "wtndjammer. operated
S o Pus snS @ert sen vSa sl
seW aSnrsct Wh &c na which
approved by the, then Canal Board. BY which
be ploughed should be classified as rock. and
that, the contractor should receive 81 per
which n othss esa rex
msasuIements upon which he this was vas, based sed
.s su nee On A lie lie division spsnesfs
Of the CAM, canal and the actual dimensions OF
each kind OF material from which il APP
pssfed that the bv . was
General produced the twelve witnesses which
lad Seen e Sl SSs sG rns
parts Of the work. Their employment had
directed ther attention tic V to the question upon
which they undertook to testify. after the
npse OF I'VE years few 81 them p rGfendiea
they did not know what hardp,a a., vas others
and ' thnk SI few thought there here was none
others, and those who seemed to know the
most ABOUT II, admltted tnat tneTe was nara
pan all through that section of the country
Al the depth at which this was exca waited
The question was thus presented. not as
stated by Mr.. Cunneen as to whether the
BOARD should allow a claim for material
thus classified, but as to whether under
such evidence there not being scintilla
Of proof pointing to collusion OF fraud. the
present board had the power to repudiate
We acts of the duly constituted officers OF
The State. who had adjusted the matter after
PERSONAL investigation, and upon measure
ments made by the States engineers on the
ground, The gneston pds not Uhothcr the
board should niop this as an item Of The claim
pre'entrd. but nheiher il should arbitrarily
qtdud from The moncps rhich The State had
etn nni0rfuiip u1thholdin1 from the contractor
Ior hre wears. the sum paid him under a con
Ssdct Inu'uiY made bu the proper officers Of the
staf more than fire Uedrs before.
This question of Redistribution related
70 several contracts covering several con-
uenonS sections, as l recall II now, five In
plumber. u 1t was fraudulent In part 1t was
IN toto, If any Reconsideration was i'm
proper II was all improper. because 1t was
al one transaction. And instead OF deduct
meSN,"h, the amount used by Mr.. Cunneen
N NJ statement, twice that amount should
pave been deducted, The minutes OF the
9ooar1 will show that the beard first took up
tne question whether there was evidence to
olsnto'e or impeanh the classification and
contract made by the proper officers Of the
STATE more than FIVE years before, voting in
tMsSpect IN each section separately and that
nr. 'unncen voted with the other mem
ppts 10 tho effect that the board did not have