Letters and Literary Memorials of Samuel J. Tilden, v. 2

by Samuel J. Tilden

"It seems to have been the practice for years to let contracts upon conditions which exclude honest contractors and confine this business, at least as to what are termed 'extraordinary repairs,' almost exclusively to large capitalists. The large deposits required from contractors discouraged bidders with small means, while the encouragement offered to unbalanced bidding, by a neglect to enforce the faithful performance of the provisions of the contract, have a tendency to exclude all who bid fair prices, with the honest intention of giving the State fair work for them. Till since the commencement of this investigation we do not know of a single instance in which any forfeiture of his deposit had been enforced against any contractor; while we believe we do no one any injustice in saying that no contract has been let since 1868 the provisions of which have been properly complied with.

"There has been a corresponding disregard of all the provisions of law regulating the letting of the contracts. The law wisely required a preliminary survey, with maps, specifications, and estimates to be made by the division engineer, approved by the State Engineer and by the Canal Board, before a contract could be let. The purpose of these precautions was to ascertain the amount and probable cost of the work as a means of determining the relative merits of the respective bids, and to serve as a protection against false or erroneous estimates of engineers. These precautions have been almost universally neglected. The result has been that the amount of work and materials required in the actual construction varied so widely from the quantities let that in nearly every instance the person receiving the contract proved in the end to have been the highest instead of the lowest bidder;[4] and we cannot resist the conclusion that these precautions in many instances were neglected with the intent to afford greater facilities for defrauding the State. These evils have been greatly aggravated by the frequent changes of the engineers on the canals and the loss of knowledge as to work done, which the removed engineers carried away with them.

"Second, as to the mode of measuring and estimating work to the contractors:

"This responsible duty, involving, as it should, a perfect familiarity with the terms of the contract and with the character of the work in progress, has been devolved, not by law, but in practice, entirely upon assistants who are not sworn; who, but in few instances, have been found to possess a competent knowledge of engineering; and who, in most cases, appear to owe their positions, and therefore to have been in a greater or less degree dependent upon the political favor and influence of the contracting class. It will be hardly a matter of surprise, therefore, that in not more than a single instance that has come under our scrutiny have we found the work faithfully measured, or a single contract closed, under which the contractor has not received more than he was entitled to.

"Under these influences, operating in favor of the contractor and to the prejudice of the State, a system of fraudulent estimates and measurements has become so established that though in direct and flagrant violation of the very language of the contract, it is deliberately defended by those who profit by it, on the ground that it has been sanctioned by long usage. For example: it has been a practice of the engineers to allow the contractor for excavating behind vertical wall, on a slope of one to one, without regard to the necessity for such excavation, and whether the excavation was made or not.

"As nearly all vertical wall is constructed in the winter or early spring, and when the banks are frozen, the cut is usually vertical or nearly so, and any charge for such excavation is a fraud upon the State. The contracts also uniformly provide that the contractor shall be allowed nothing for the filling in of the place supposed to be excavated behind the walls, if such filling is from earth already paid for as excavation, unless he is obliged to draw his material more than 200 feet on the line of the canal. This provision has also come to be treated as obsolete, and the State seems to have been uniformly charged not only for excavation which had not been made, but for filling up the assumed excavation which, had it been made, the State was not bound to pay for. The profits derived in this indirect way through the fraudulent connivance of the agents of the State, has led to an enormous expenditure for works wholly unnecessary, and which to keep in repair must continue to subject the State to a very considerable yearly expense.

"One of the principal expenditures upon the canals since 1868 for extraordinary repairs has been made in the construction of vertical and slope walls which have been, as we think, very unwisely substituted for the old walls, the capacity of the canals before their removal having been ample for all their business.

"Between the 1st of January, 1868, and the 1st of July, 1875, there have been built forty-three and one-third miles, linear measure, of vertical wall, at a total cost, including the removal of bench walls which they displaced, of $1,589,885, the cost per linear foot averaging $6.95.

"These walls, besides costing four or five times as much as the slope walls, are less durable, much more expensive to keep in repair, and possess no substantial advantage except in large towns, the commerce of which requires special facilities for docking. But of the forty-three and one-third miles built since 1868, it cannot be pretended that so many as three were needed to meet such exigencies.

"Without stopping at present to inquire if the business of the canal justified the removal of the old bench walls at all, it is very certain that a good slope wall would have been preferable throughout nine-tenths, at least, of the entire extent upon which vertical wall has been constructed; and, at the rate paid for slope wall during this period, would have resulted in an economy to the State of not less than $1,300,000, or nearly $200,000 a year.