New-York tribune., 1907-12-26

.,r.-s,, character OF embankment, tue
ON OF his experience was as a cohsui'a''
n, the testimony Of Mr.. stearns tho report
says: -,.,a IN steam
Mr. stearns had bu little Hsrr ssIe used in
shovel work r Tnsy wiah nah which he had been eon
fne neetea did the e, eSss v OF ohar
steam shovel for naver ene keDi shogsg
He could not name the numeeT ,shokan 0 or the prob
xSsd % output Of cubic yards per rsnSe work
did know the s aeasis o loading S on board by
Ashokan s.shts but could not show how he A''''
Mr Ereemans contributions to the an, IN
cost were &c., for earthwof below cost "a on
at during bis ,essmSs Whiie at another
based on his general experience; ss ;asrnent Of the
Upirs Tor this work being eompos's ~, VI rica for
erai experience His judgnehhi,o ns,h,o naTd ''''
Mr from his s wo
Mr.. stearns and from enpion tsa, the only
guide. In estimating were costs o. oar,hwork costs
and who considered that All 'A
would serve as partial suioeS'
Continuing, the report said:
NJ trice and cost that contained in the testlnont
OF Mr. John Perce and his engineers Mas sg mat
strikng because of the prevailing inlprtssioa ass'
MIR Peirce believed bis bid 10 be al losing ns
Il & Mon Penos Pf ns stated that he had
vted meet the chief engineer ana .hG bsT Toa he
mSsi9neis' ,1as that he was low on embankment but
had good prices on the masGnry ma nIvs with COM
missioner Chadwick occurred some three Gas aays
and was influenced in thinking his prices were too
low partly by the other bids Party t,1 os oriY
hv IN. opinion OF the chief engineers and OF the
Commissioners. He did not remember ina. any one
nected TO come the entire contract or that
ne his na M 70 srse one deeare
that his bid. In his own Judgment. formed after
hre mis- of 10 per cent He that the figures
from his engineers showed q profit OF $1,000 70
81 the engineers agures showed him profit after
had gone gone SysE the as fhe etre bid but he
none on the embankment item viewed separately
he could not sa sa5 Se
opnons a. to that ssn a enous enc fog e
e1tending over so long time. and II the commits
sion was willing to pass his bid he was Wiling
'i1ae He had never abandoned contract or refused
to s 70 aa HI. sa i hs to
the letter OF his contract s s .s.oc,atsa u,,h Mr.
Percs in the company srganzsd, ,, 70 rc DO work ton on
the Panama Canal tn tnas heeome
and participate in the entire fGnsrac, s ss,asr, q,
~, witness Ins peIcs Company. furnished the names Of
those took part in the preparaton OF the he
Ernest c. Moore. an engineer in charge Of certain
Contract work of the peircs GO company That est
mitted to Engineer Reed OF John p MeDonsld's
tbis estimate using as guide Mr.. Gillette's book
on 'sF-arthwork and It's Cost
Thn only direct evidence upon the price of labor
.,,hmitted was that given by James o. Winston. Of
the winston company, and Bruno FEEDER. the labor
contractor Mr.. Winston stated that the Mae
Arthur company was paving 81 80 mp a day Of nine
bours Mr. FEEDER testified that he prepared
to make offer TO the successful contractor to
fnrnIsh labor up In the number OF one thousand
men, in a period OF two weeks at rate of $l35
q day Of eight hours
THE evidence submitted TO prove that delay In
varahIy results from price below cost was incon-
elusive and naeagre-
Charles A. Shaw. of the Board OF Water Sup
ply, said the members of the board We're pre-
pared to face and meet charges against them.
but would not discuss the letter of the Commits
sioa9rs of Accounts.