JOHN NEWTON, GEORGE S. GREENE and Q. A. GILLUORE ON THB CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST THB CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE AQUEDUCT COMMISSION. THE AMERICAN GRAPHIC CO. ( N.Y. 0^-A USfcl 1 lit./ Nuiik. REPORT OF JOHN NEITON, GEORGE S. GREENE and Q. A. GILLMORE ON THE CHARGES PREFERRED AGAINST THE CHIEF ENGINEER OF THE AQUEDUCT COMMISSION. Aqueduct Commissioners’ Office, Stewart Building, 280 Broadway, New York. At the Stated Meeting of the Aqueduct Commissioners, held at their office, 209 Stewart BuildiDg, on Wednesday, August 4, 1886, at two o’clock p, m., Com- missioner Ridgway offered the following preamble and resolution : “ Whereas , The Committee of Examining Engineers, consisting of Generals Greene, Newton and Gillmore, that investigated the charges made against the Chief Engineer by Mr. Craven, the late Construction Engineer, reported to this Commission, under date of July 14, exonerating the Chief Engineer ; and “ Whereas, It is desirable that such report should reach the public ; there- fore “ Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to cause twenty-five hundred copies of the said report, exclusive of the testimony, to be printed for distribu- tion at an expense not to exceed three hundred dollars.” On motion of Commissioner Ridgway the preamble and resolution were unanimously adopted. John C. Sheehan, Secretary. 2 To the Aqueduct commissioners of the City of New York : Gentlemen— In compliance with your resolutions of the 17th of March, in these words, namely : “ Resolved , That Messrs John Newton, George S. Greene and Q. A. Gillmore, Civil Engineers, are hereby appointed to investigate the charges made against the efficiency of the Chief Engineer of the Commission, and of imperfect wort in the construction of the New Aqueduct ; with full power to send for persons and papers, and to make their examination thorough and complete so far as the same relates to the engineering and construction of the work in question ; and report to the Aqueduct Commissioners.” “ Resolved . That the Board of Engineers be requested when the charges have been submitted to hear all necessary statements and make all necessary exam- inations of the work in person, at the earliest time practicable, leaving to them all the details of the manner of conducting the said examination.” The undersigned have, we believe, made a thorough examination of the subjects of all the charges presented ; of the work under construction, and of the engineering management ; and we herewith submit, first, our conclusions on each of the charges presented to us, viz. : Charges numbered 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, reported on pages 1 to 6 inclusive of our minutes, and additional charges 1 to 6, of which No. 2 is a repetition of the 3d original charge. Secondly. In our inspection, all of the tunnels on the north side of the Harlem River were visited, except at Shaft 23, where they were blasting at the time, in all the work the ventilation varies with the state of the atmosphere, but there are likewise considerable variations arising from the different systems adopted, and from the more or less perfection with which these are carried out. The inferior method of ventilation by a wooden box into which the exhaust steam from the engine is conducted but poorly accomplishes the object, while the more perfect system of positive power, by blowers m con- nection with smooth iron pipes, often fails from want of capacity or bad joints, insufficient power or other imperfections in the machinery and appliances. As the length of the tunnels increase, all imperfections snd especially want of power enhance the difficulty of efficient ventilation ; generally the means for ventilation appear to be insufficient, and this will be particularly felt when the invert and side walls of the lining have to be laid. In the headings when the drills are at work the air is better than in the rest of the tunnel extending to the shaft. In this space the aqueduct engi- neers have often to work where it is difficult to remain continuously with- out suffering a temporary indisposition from the bad air. The use of torches and lamps with kerosene and benzine would oppose any system of ventilation in consequence of the large amount of smoke and gases thrown out. Electric lights with candles would constitute a much better system. Masonry was examined (only on its external surface) in tunnels near shafts and openings Nos. 9, 12 a, 12 B, 14, 17, 18 and 19. The rubble masonry was of good stone as far as seen externally and of good mortar, which was well set ; the workmanship was rough, but in every respect suitable for the purpose of a back supporting wall. An exception to the general quality was a small piece of rubble and brick ordered by the Chief Engineer to be taken down. The brick masonry was made of good hard brick and strong mortar ; there was one exception in tunnel south of portal No. 9. There was some end joints of the brickwork not filled with mortar ; this would not be dis- covered until the centres were withdrawn, and could have been known only to the inspector on the work ; the extent of this detect can ODly be determined by taking down part of the work. Bricks were delivered on the work, many of Which were not suitable for the masonry required, but many were well burn® 3 and of good form. The culling should be done when such materials are de- livered on the work and the imperfect brick immediately removed, as required by the specifications. Our inspection revealed the fact of the general good and sufficient quality of the masonry, but owing to the deficiency of light some defective parts, small in extent, may have escaped our notice. A fully satisfac- tory inspection of masonry can be made only during the process of con- struction. On some of the brickwork laid in wet positions there is an efflorescence of salts on the face of the wall. This is common in hydraulic masonry (it is usually from magnesia or potash in the cement), and is not injurious to the work. The extent of the timbering used shows the treacherous character of the rock in the roofs of the tunnels and the necessity for carefully supporting them. The finding on the several charges marked A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K and L are hereunto annexed. Briefs of testimony and charges 2, 3 and 4 are herewith presented, as are also the minutes of our proceeedings. The Examining Engineers inquired into the methods of the Chief Engi- neer’s office for the conduct of the work under his supervision. A well- arranged system exists for furnishing drawings and instructions to the Di- vision Engineers and for receiving from them returns and other incidents con- cerning the work. The condition of the ventilation, the quantities of water raised from the tunnels and other occurrences of interest are recorded. Detailed estimates of work of every kind are furnished monthly. The system works well and by it the Chief Engineer is enabled to have before him at all times a history of the progress and condition of the work. The excavation of the tunnel and the masonry which has been constructed indicate the general efficiency and competency of the engineering force. The management under this system appears to be efficiently carried on. Our thanks are due to your Secretary, Mr. James W. MeCulloh, for the prompt and efficient aid which he rendered to our labors in many ways, besides furnishing official records and assisting in making up our minutes and re- ports. His knowledge of the records and of the management of the business of the Department gave to his co-operation a particular value. Respectfully sub- mitted, (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE. (Signed) JOHN NEWTON. (Signed) Q. A. GILLMORE. CHARGE SECOND (PAGE ONE OF THE MINUTES). That masonry condemned by the Engineer of Construction, two Assistant Engineers and three Inspectors was accepted by the Chief Engineer. SPECIFICATION. The masonry referred to is the rubble stone masonry at the Saw Mill River Crossing of the New Aqueduct, between Shafts 12 A and 12 B on Section 6. For that class of masonry the requirements of the Contract Specifications ^clause 44, page 20 of Contract) are as follows : “44. Rubble stone masonry shall be made of sound, clean stone of suita- ble size, quality and shape for the work in hand, and presenting good beds for materials of that class. Care must be taken to have the beds and joints full of mortar, and no grouting or filling of joi its after the stones are in place will be allowed. The work must be thoroughly bonded. “ Rubble stone masonry is to be used for the side walls and 'foundations of the Aqueduct when it is built in open trenches, and in any part of the tun- nel or other part of the work where it may be ordered. 4 “ in the tunnel, especially, the size and shape of the stone used must be adapted to the spaces to be filled, in order to secure absolutely compact work. “ Stone from the tunnel or other excavation may be used when suitable.’’ The testimony in reference to this charge is very voluminous. The witnesses in support of the charge were Mr. H S, Craven, the late Con- struction Engineer, Assistant Engineers A. A. Eorne and Robert H Moore and Inspectors George R. Buroank, J. H. Maloney and Joan Kelly. Mr Horne, who is a conspicuous witness on that side, rests his jaigmeac entirely upon the appearance ot the outside of the wall on the face and ends Cor no part was taken down to verify his opinion), and assumes the aosence of headers and a deficiency of spawis in the joints from this superficial and inadequate exami- nation. In his testimony before the Examining Engineers Mr. Horne acknowl- edges not to have read the specifications in the coatract descrioing the quality of the rubble masonry to be constructed, although he had made a report in writ- ing to Mr. Craven condemning the wall, and that he did not test the mortar in the joints, though he thougnt it was good. Ocher defects alleged to exist in this masonry were described oy him as leakage through the wall in a tew places, the presence of one rotten stone, and he commented upon the want of strength and inaccuracy of level and shape of the skewback on top of the wall. Mr. Moore’s report to the Construction Engineer, he admits in his testi- mony, was made in blind reliance upon the opinion of Mr. Horne. The Inspectors Burbank, Maloney and Kelly, in their testimony, contradict that of Mr. Horne in essential matters, and upon their testimony alone, without counter evidence, the fitness ol the wall to the purposes required and the con- formity of its construction to the specifications of the contract mignt be made to rest. J. M. Wolbrecht, Engineer in charge of Third Division ; H. H. Bowley, Assistant Engineer ; Inspector Daly, Chief Engineer Church, Deputy Chief Engineer Fteley and Consulting Engineer J. P. Davis, unite in commendation of the strength and good character of the masonry and its conformity to the contract. The attempt to prove the bad and insufficient character of the masonry of this wall so entirely failed, without the necessity to urge anything in rebuttal, that the Examining Engineers find no difficulty in dismissing the implication in the charge, that Chief Engineer Church neglected his duty by accepting the wall. The wail, on the contrary, is shown by the testimony to have been built of strong and suitable materials, both as respects stone and mortar, and also to be in conformity to the specifications of the contract in materials and workman- ship, and that it was fully adapted to the requirements of the case. Those who reported unfavorably as to the character of the wall made but few, the most of them but one, inspection of the wall ; while of those who attest the good quality of the masonry, the most made frequent, some daily, inspec- tions of the work. It is a thing to be noted that the Construction Engineer never commuai- cated to his Chief, Mr. Church, the unfavorable reports of the twa. Assistant Engineers and of the three Inspectors, for his consideration and action, and the Chief was entirely uninformed on that pointjuntil the opening of this inquiry. The Construction Eagineer in his testimony gives the insufficient reason for call- ing upon certain Assistant Engineers and Inspectors to inspect and report upon the wall, that he did it for his own protection, which is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the Construction Engineer having already announced his un. favorable opinion of the wall ceased to be responsible and needed no machinery to protect himself. In Inspector Kelly’s testimony is also the important statement that, at Mr. H. 8. Craven’s instance, after handing in his report, he changed it by insertion and 5 addition of the words “ improper bedding of stone.” This action is the more significant, as the contract specially requires stone “ presenting good beds for materials of that class,” and the change in words would, therefore, be useful to prove a non-conformity to the contract. Annexed is a brief of the testimony on this second charge, extracted from the testimony in full, which is presented in the minutes of our proceedings. (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A. GILLMORE. CHARGE THE THIRD— (PAGE ONE OF THE MINUTES.) “ That Contractors O’Brien & Clajk have not withdrawn timbering from the roof of the tunnel, or filled in the space with stone, as required by the specifications ; but have filled in the space with logs and timber, thereby en- dangering the masonry of the Aqueduct.” SPECIFICATION. “ fhe work to which this charge refers is at or near Shaft 12 B, on Section 6, of the New Aqueduct.” The requirements of the contract (Section 6, clause 20, page 13), are the following ; “ 20. The spaces bet ween the top of the arch and the rock or other material “ of the excavation, or any other space which mav be designated by the engi- “ neer, are to be filled, at the expense of the contractor, with material exca- vated from the tunnel, of approved size and quality, and tree from all perish- “able matter. The hliiog to be carefully and thoroughly compacted, so as to “ bring an uniform pressure on the masonry “ The extrados of all portions of the arch, when in contact with the filling, “ is to be covered, at the expense of the contractor, with a coating of cement “ mortar, not less than one-half inch thick.” And Clause 27, page 15 : “27. All timber work is to be removed from the excavation, but if, in the ** opinion of the engineer, any timber work be so located in the tunnel or shaft “or trenches that its removal would endanger the safety of the masonry, it “ shall be left in, and ali cavities about it shall be filled with masonry or with “ such other material, ax he may order ; but no payment is to be made to the con- tractor for such timber.” The charge preferred by Mr. K. S. Craven, late Construction Engineer, is briefly— not attempting to withdraw timbering or lagging ; the space between lagging and rock roof of tunnel being filled with wood. It does not appear that Mr. Craven reported this alleged irregularity to the Chief Engineer prior to February 1, 1886. Nor, as he must have been aware of it if he performed the special duty of his office, that of outdoor inspector of the work, does it appear that in the progress of the wort at or near Shaft 12 B he gave any orders to the Engineers and others in superintendence to remove the timbeiing and wood packing he complains of. It is difficult to reconcile this omission with the opinion he now expresses relative to the injurious consequences of leaving in the timber and wood. Wolbrecht, Bowley and McCarthy testify that the timbering and wood was taken out as much as it was safe to do ; that such were their orders, and Wol- brecht also states that the Chief Engineer so instructed him. These witnesses also testify that Mr. Craven never instructed them to remove the timbering and wood. The witnesses, Horne, Chapin and Renshaw, who were called up by Mr. Craven, acknowledged their lack of experience in the art of tunnelling. The Examining Engineers hold that the timbering was not withdrawn nor G the lagging in this dangerous place, the Chief Engineer having decided in con- formity with clause 27, before quoted, that they should remain. To have removed these supports, whicn held up the rock •’oof, would have brought the weight of the loose rock upon the fresh masonry to its probable injury. The question, after all, was not of the possibility of removing the timbering but of the propriety of so doing— and it would have been very reprehensible under the circum- stances as found to exist to have taken away the timbering. It is not probable that the timber will decay owing to its exposure to constant wetness— but should decay take place, the masonry, before that period, will have acquired sufficient strength to support any weight which will come upon it. The timber on the sides of the tunnels below the water surface in the Aque- duct will always be wet and will not deca^. The Examining Engineers, therefore, acquit the Chief Engineer of the Com- mission of any fault which is alleged in this charge and specification. A brief of the testimony is herewith presented. (Signed) GEORGE 8. GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A. GILL MORE, CHARGE FOURTH. That on the Fifth Division of the New Aqueduct (shafts 17 and 18), timber once paid for under the charge for “ excavation,” is, by order of the Chief Engineer, and in violation of the specifications, again being measured and paid for as “ Rubble Stone Masonry.” SPECIFICATION. The timbering referred to is upon Sections 8 and 9 of the New Aqueduct and between shafts 17 and 18. The requirements of the contract boaring upon the matter of this charge are : First.— Clause 21, pages 13 and 14 : “ The price per cubic yard, stipulated herein for tunnel excavation is to cover all expense due to the presence of quicksand or other soft material, rot- ten rock, boulders, &c. ; the cost of pumping and bailing ; of all timbering and removal of the same ; of removing all excavated materials ; of all ventilation and all other work incident to the excavation of the tunnel. Any expense that may arise from loose and shaky rock, or from falls or cave-ins, or from unex- pected obstacles, shall be borne by the contractor.” Second.— Clause 27, page 15 : All timber work is to be removed from the excavation ; but If, in the opinion of the Engineer, any timber work be so located in the tunnel or shafts or trenches, that its removal would endanger the safety of the masonry, it shall be left in, and all cavities about it shall be filled with masonry or with such other material as he may order, but no payment is to be made to the contrac- tor for such timber.” The formation of a correct judgment on this charge is a simple matter. The phrase “ timber once paid for under the charge for excavation ” is a mere quibble. The amount paid for is the volume of the tunnel or other excavation, calculated according to the several clauses of the contract provided for that purpose. And no timber is mentioned or paid for in that settlement. The clause of the contract above quoted provides that the timber shall be removed. In the cases where the timbering is removed, would it be claimed that the sticks belong to the public or to the contractor, and would the contractor be de- barred a future use of the same sticks in other parts of the works ? A little consideration given to these points makes it even more clear that the timber is not paid for as excavation. 7 The contract provides that under certain circumstances the timber work shall be left in, and all cavities about it shall be filled with masonry, or with such other material as he (i. e , the Chief Engineer) may order,” and the sole question to be adjudged is : When the timber is thus enveloped in masonry what measurement of that masonry is just, proper and usual ? In our judg- ment, the just as well as usual rule is to include the space occupied by the timbering in the estimate for masonry, and the spaces thus included and counted as masonry do not compensate the contractor tor the increased expense of working around these timbers, which thus left in position and under the conditions fulfil the duty of masonry. We think the Chief Engineer under clause B of the contract had full power to decide cases like this ; that bis decision was just towards all parties, con- formable to custom and entirely correct. (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A GILL MORE. CHARGE FIFTH. That attempts have been made to prevent his honest supervision of the work.” FIRST SPECIFICATION. “ By intimations, from outside parties, of his removal.” No testimony, except from Mr. Church, has been offered in relation to this specification; and Mr. Church, in his examination, states : “ I am absolutely ignorant of any intimation of outside parties of Mr.Craven’e removal, as alleged. If any such intimation was made it was without my knowledge or procurement.” SECOND SPECIFICATION. “ Bv an application of the Chief Engineer to the Commissioners, to have the office or Engineer of Construction abolished — which they declined.” The Chief Engineer, in his letter to the Aqueduct Commissioners, dated July 29, 1885, recommended that the office of the Engineer of Construction be abolished, which he was authorized to do by Section 3, Article V., of the By- laws. In this recommendation the Consulting Engineer of the Commissioners, Mr. Joseph P. Davis, a gentleman of great experience in the management of works of this Kind, concurred. We find nothing to condemn in this action of the Chief and Consulting Engineers, their action being pre-eminently a strict duty if they thought the management or discipline of the engineering force would be improved by the change. THIRD SPECIFICATION. A letter npon this subject which he understood was subsequently written by the Chief Engineer to the Chairman of the Committee on Construction, the date of which is unknown to Mr. H. 8. Craven. Mr. Church, Chief Engineer, testified that such a letter was not written. FOURTH SPECIFICATION. “ By the Chief Engineer withholding the information necessary to enable the Engineer of Construction to perform his duties— this in direct violation of the rules adopted by the Commissioners for the government of the Engineer- ing Corps.” Section 6, Article V. of the By-laws adopted May 20, 1885, in relation to the Construction Engineer, states : “ He receives from the Chief or Deputy Chief Engineer from time to time all plans, instructions and orders that are to be carried out and executed in the construction work, and is held responsible for their execution.” Mr. Church, the Chief Engineer, denies that the By-laws of May 20 were ever officially promulgated, which appears to be corroborated by a resolution 8 offered and adopted at the same meeting, in these words : “ Resolved, That the Chief Engineer is hereby requested to frame and report to the Aqueduct Com- missioners for their consideration and adoption suitable and necessary rules and regulations for the government of the Engineer Corps ; and for the care of the properly of the Commission.” The scope of this resolution evidently manifests the intention of the Com- missioners to revise the article for the government of the Engineer Corps, passed at that time from suggestions and recommendations required of the Chief Engineer—and hence as an inference— that the official promulgation of the By-laws before such report should have been received from the Chief Engi- neer would have been premature. The extract from the minutes of the stated meetiDg of the Aqueduct Commissioners, November 4, By-laws : Construction Engineer. * * * “All general plans, instructions and orders that are to be executed by the Division Engineers iu the construction work shall be transmitted by the Chief Engineer in duplicate, one to the Construction Engineer and the other to the Division Engineer, and the Construction Engineer shall supervise their execution.” It is here seen that the By-laws were changed after receiving the report of the Chief Engineer. The difference between the extracts above quoted is conspicuous ; by the first “ All plans, instructions and orders ” are to be communicated to the Construction Engineer ; but by the latter only “ All general plans, instructions and orders,” thus materially limiting the number of communications to the Construction Engineer from the office of the Chief Engineer. Also at the same meeting of November 4, 1885, Commissioner Soencer moved the adoption of the rules and regulations proposed by the Chief Engi- neer for the government of the Engineer Corps, and amended by the Com- mittee on Construction to read as follows, viz. : EXTRACT. 12th.— “All general plans, instructions and orders by the Chief Engineer are to be carried out by the Construction and the Division Engineers, who will be responsible for their execution. Duplicates ot instructions and orders to Division Engineers, and their replies and communications, shall be forwarded to the Construction Engineer by the Chief Engineer,” 13th.— “Duplicates of all orders, directions and communications from the Construction Engineer to the Division Engineers, and of their replies thereto, shall be promptly sent to the Chief Engineer by the Construction Engineer. When a difference of opinion shall arise between the Construction and Division Engineer, each shall present his views to the Chief Engineer, who will give his orders in regard thereto, and the same shall be promptly obeyed.” Mr. Church, on page 631, testifies as follows in relation to these rules : “ When I drew up those rules and regulations the intention of that clause was to have all duplications made in my office or in the Construction Engineer’s office, and to relieve the Division Engineers from making the duplications ; and that part of the clause was intended to cover any duplications that were necessary or called for by the necessities of the work , but it was not intended that all those orders and answers should be duplicated and sent to the Con- struction Engineer, only such as were required. As I framed these laws myself, that was the intention of that clause.” It is oerfectly evident, apart from Mr. Church’s testimony, that the last portion of the 12th rule should be interpreted by the first portion and made to refer to “general plans, instructions and orders,” and not to all plans, instructions and orders, in order not to depart from, but to be in accord with, the By-laws of' the Commissioners. Besides, it would have been inconsistent 9 with Mr. Church's intention and acts, which were opposed to the delays and embarrassments caused by such multiplication of clerical work and useless correspondence. The testimony is quite lengthy on this third specification. Mr. Craven neglected to show wherein he had not received or had not been able to obtain all the information necessary for the proper performance of the duties of the Engineer of Construction— and he probably did not understand the extent of the information which he was entitled to receive from the office of the Chief Engineer— which it is quite clear, from the record, he did receive After maturely weighing the testimony the Examining Engineers find no fault to attach to the conduct of the Chief Engineer under the fifth charge. (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE. (Signed) JOHN NEWTON. (Signed) Q. A. GILLMORE. SIXTH CHARGE. That by reason of his, Mr. Craven’s, discovery and 'correction of the erro neous and excessive measurements of masonry on Division 3, he was thereupon ordered by the Chief Engineer to cease examining and approving the monthly estimates, except clerically. In consequence of a certain letter fron the Engineer of Construction re- flecting severely upon the Engineer of the Third Division in reference to a mis- take in estimate'! of masonry, and on account of some bearing, though not im- portant, upon the matter of the charge, the Examining Engineers considered it advisable to institute as thorough an inquiry as possible into the history of the interview of December 4, 1885, between the Engineer of Construction, Craven, and the Engineer of the Third Division, Wolbrecht. It appears that a short time previous, Mr. Royal Chapin, Assistant Engineer under Mr. Woibrecht, mentioned to Mr. Fitch, a rodmaD on duty in the office of the Engineer of Con- struction at Tarrytown, that the measurement on the west wall of the tunnel south of 12B were not made by the Engineers but by an Inspector, and asked him, Fitch, to ventilate it ; that is, to report it to the superior authority, and Fitch reported it to the Engineer of Construction. This officious action is prob- ably what gave Mr. Craven the idea that the incorrect estimates for that portion of the work were the result of inaccurate meas- urements. This was a mistake, as it has been conclusively shown that the error arose from incorrect plotting of accurate measurements. The Engineer oi Construction in looking over the estimates for the month of November noticed an excess in the rubble masonry in the section to which the wall belonged. After the word brought to him by Mr. Fitch, it was natural to suppose that the error arose from incorrect measurements— and he sent Mr Renshaw to Mr. Wolbrecht to obtain all the data necessary to check the item of rubble masonry in question ; and also to request the Engineer or the Assistant who had plotted the cross-section to come to his office. From Mr. Wolorecht’s testimony Mr. Craven charged that the measurements were wrong, asking the former whether he considered it right to allow an Inspector to make measure- ments on nis work. After some discussion, following Mr. Wolbrecht’s testi- mony, he states: “I said I have gone over everything in the estimate ex- cepting the plotting of these sections ; I haven’t had an opportunity to examine them. You see they are pencilled me.ely ; my signature is not on them ; you have sent for them before they are ready, and there may be an error in the plotting : that is the only thing I have not checked.” Upon applying the scales to the sections an error was found in the plotting which gave a large excess to the rubble on the estimates. It will be seen that these estimates of the contractors’ work had not yet ad- vanced beyond the initial stage or reached the Chief Engineer, and that he is 10 absolutely not concerned in the difficulty and discussion between Mr. Craven and Mr. Wolbrecht. By the duties devolved upon the Chief Engineer he was to “supervise all construction work, monthly measurements and estimates, certify all estimates for payments on contract or other work, * * * and the error, if it had escaped the subordinate officers, had still to undergo the super- vision of the Chief Engineer’s office. For the further precautions taken against over payments Clauses T, U and V of the contract should be consulted. We have seen that it was the final duty, before payment, of the Chiet Engineer to examine the estimates, and by an inspection ot the By-laws adopted November 4. 1885, no duty ol examining the estimates is enjoined upon the Engineer of Construction; but “ his whole duty shall be in the field, that by constant personal examination he can know at all times and be able to keep the Chief Engineer constantly and fully informed in regard to the condition and progress of the work.” And again : “ Work of all other kinds than personal examination and supervision and reports on actual construction shall devolve upon others than the Construction Eugineer, in order that his whole time and attention may be devoted to the discharge of his field duties.” The Construction Engineer having no authority under the by laws to ex- amine the estimates of contract work, but the same being vested in the Chief Engineer, the latter had the right, and indeed was bound in duty, to take away from the Construction Engineer every occupation which could interpose with the outside duties presented in the By-laws. We find that the Chief Engineer, in confining the examination of estimates by the Construction Engineer to clerical work, was entirely justified by the By- laws and by the circumstances of "he case. (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE, (Signed; JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A. GILL MORE. FIRST ADDITIONAL CHARGE. “ Slopes have been estimated and paid for in direct violation of the specifi- cations.” This refers to the open cut in earth at South Yonkers. The width at bot- tom was what was required for the masonry and the timbering to support the earth during construction. The sides were vertical to the height of the cover- ing embankment oyer the arch, at which level the width of the cut was increased and the sides sloped to 1. This additional width was proper for ditchiog, and the slopes were necessary and were a proper arrangement for finishing the sides of the cut. The removal of the extra thickness of earth above the arch was intended to equalize the load thereupon. The engineer, in our opinion, has full authority under the contract to estab- lish the lines of the permanent surface of the cut, and we think the arrangement made was proper and necessary. The surplus earth was used properly for embankment at another point of the open cut, and this was an economical arrangement for the city, by which the expense of borrowed earth was saved. (Signed) GEORGE 8. GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A. GILLMORE. THIRD ADDITIONAL CHARGE. SUB-LETTING THE WORK IN VTOLATON ©F THE CONTRACT. Nothing was elicited from witnesses showing that there were any contracts for sub-letting the work : no such contracts were ever presented or known to the Chief Engineer or to his assistants as far as we could ascertain. No sub-contractors were ever acknowledged as such 11 on the work by the Chief Engineer. No persons having immediate charge of the work were recognized as actiDg in any other capacity than that of superin- tendents of the workiDg parties for the contractors who had contracted to do the work. Estimates were always made >o such con ractors, and to them ODly ; we did Dot examine into the manner in which the superintendents were paid, whether by salaries or by percentage, or by compensation for work done. We do not think the contract controls this matter of compensation between the contractors and their employes. (See testimony in the minutes of our proceedings, pages 234, 272, 275, 277, 280, 380, 383, 574. (Signed) GEORGE S GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q A. GILLMORE. FOURTH ADDITIONAL CH* RGE (Page 191 of the Minutes). ‘‘Giving special contracts to the contractors lor ditching and diverting streams through dumping grounds ; though the specifications provide that this work shall be done by the contractois at their own expense.'’ The clause of the contract referred to is Section 47, page 24 of the general form of contracts, as follows ; 47.— “At his own expense and under the direction of the engineers, the contractor is to clear the Aqueduct from all refuse and rubbish and to do about the shafts all grading that may be ordered ; to do all ditching and diverting ot streams, and to leave in neat condition the grounds by him.” The work here referred to was the building of culvert to carry natural streams across dumping grounds, so that the dumping would not be inter- rupted. This was not the ditching which the contractors were required to do at their expense. The object was to enlarge the dumping grounds by filling over the streams where the culverts were made, as there was not ground at the shafts in possession of the Aqueduct Commissioners on which to divert the streams. The work having been done under contracts made by the Aqueduct Com- missioners, it is not the subject for criticism by us, excepting in so far as it was recommended by the Chief Engineer. The testimony shows that the work was necessary and proper and outside of the requirements of the contract. (See testimony, pages 239, 378, 379, 595 of the minutes). (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE. (Signed) JOHN NEWTON. (Signed; Q A. GILLMORE. FIFTH ADDITIONAL CHARGE. (Page 191 of the Minutes). “ Ordering additional shafts were not necessary, and should not have been allowed, as they involve unnecessary expense to the city ” The contracts authorize additional shafts in the discretion of the Aqueduct Commissioners on Sections 2 to 9 inclusive, and on other sections within the limit of cost of five thousand dollars ; the shafts that were ordered were so ordered to facilitate the completion of the work where unexpected difficulties had occurred. We believe they were justly ordered, and that the Chief "Engi neer only fuldlled his duty in so acting. (See testimony pages 243, 244 259, 262,283, 288, 291, 293, 294, 376, 377, 378, 383, 388, 437, 577.) (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A. GILLMORE. 12 SIXTH ADDITIONAL CHARGE ‘ k Payment of tne employes of the contractors in stoie orders contrary to and in direct disobedience jf the terms of the contract.” The contract requires that the contractor “ mil punctually pay the work- men who shall be employed on the aforesaid work in cash current, and not in what is denominated store pay.” By this we understand that the men shall not be required to take their pay in goods or merchandise which is technically called “ store pay.” No evidence was obtained that such was done by the contractors. We do not think that selling goods on credit or for cash by the contractors, or by any persons serving under them, to the men is in violation of the contracts. No complaints have been made and the Chief Engineer does not know of any man being required to take their wages or compensation in “ store pay.” (Signed) GEORGE S. GREENE, (Signed) JOHN NEWTON, (Signed) Q. A. GILLMORE. Gaylord Bros. Makars Syracuse, ft y W-m. 21. m ' UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN A 628.1 N4811R C001 Report of examining engineer John Newton 3 0112 088634537