A. Yes; the way they make money is by changes of classification or material; I will show you what I consider fair prices for the work, and the prices it was declared off at; the items are the same in mine as in the other:

Q. Why do you suppose they took it at such low rates?

A. My idea is that they took it at such low rates with the intention of changing quantities or lines or something; making a different classification.

Q. Could that be done without the collusion or aid of the engineers?

A. No, sir.

Q. That could not be accomplished without the aid of the engineers ?

A. I think not; I do not think it could have been done if I had remained there.

Q. Could it have been done by the contractors having a large amount included of a kind of work that was at a low price and then having that changed so as to have a large amount of another kind [CON. No. 40.] 6

of work which was at a high price, as was done in some cases; changing embankment, for instance, for rock excavation, as was proposed particularly on the twenty-sixth section?

A. Yes; I have heard that the contractor's price for rock was a pretty high price and the price for embankment was low; have understood that for embankment the price was less than twenty cents a yard.

Q. So that if they should get.rock and do away with embankment, that would make a great difference in the expense?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. The change proposed on that twenty-sixth section would make it mostly rock and wall?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. For which the contractor has a large price?

A. Yes, sir; Mr. Hanks explains that one item of the increase in expense is the change from slope wall to rip-rap wall; he says [page 75, State Engineer and Surveyor's Report, for 1866], "while . there was abundance of material for loose stone protection and riprap, and while the price of the latter has generally been about the same as that of the slope and protection wall, and sometimes considerably less, yet the quantity generally exceeds considerably the amount that was estimated of slope and protection wall for the same locality."

Q. They could get rip-rap stone out of the rock cut?

A. Yes, sir; and it requires a greater thickness of rip-rap wall than slope wall, and so they could get a good deal of difference there in estimating; there is a question whether he has a right to make such a change.

Q. That would be virtually merely requiring the contractor as he excavated the rock to dump the stone outside, and that would form this rip-rap wall?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. He would have to dump the stone there any way, would he? A. Yes.

Q. Ordinarily he would receive no pay for that merely dumping the stone as it was excavated no additional pay?

A. No, sir; in my location of the line there would have been no stone there of any consequence.

Q. In the form in which the contracts are drawn is there any

clause requiring that stone taken out of excavations shall be allowed the State, if they are used in the work?

A. I believe not; I believe the contract allows the contractor to use all of the material he finds in his work, on his work, and to have pay for it.

Q. So that the effect of throwing this line into the bluff or hill would be to give the contractor rock excavation, for which he was paid at a high price, while at the same time the excavation supplied him with stone for which he was paid, and which he used to make the rip-rap wall?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Is there anything further that occurs to you of interest to this investigation?

A. Here is a remark Mr. Hanks makes about Section 23, [page 77, State Engineer's report for 1866.] "Section No. 23 is increased heavily by a change of the location of the highway, nearly the whole length of the section, by which means three or four bridges are dispensed with;" I do not see how dispensing with 'the bridges' should increase the expense heavily.

Q. Anything further?

A. I do not think of anything more.

Q. Do you know of any contractors who have complained because their bids were rejected?

A. I have heard that George A. Peck, of Syracuse, complained. Q. Do you know of any other contractor making complaints? A. I heard of some others at Binghamton.

Q. Give their names?

A. I can give the name of one, Mr. Hyrene; I do not know his first name.

Q. There is no other that you remember?

(No answer.)

Q. Give us the names and sections of the contractors and con

tracts on the Chenango extension?

A. The first letting was:

First Section to George H. Peck.

Second Section to H. D. Dennison of Syracuse.

Ninth Section W. T. Dennison, Syracuse.

Tenth Section L. M. Loss, Medina.

Lock No. 1 to Clinton Stevens, of Oneida, Madison Co.

2" John Davison, of Lyons.

"3"A. C. Belden, Syracuse.

The culverts and bridges were all taken by R. N. Gere, of Syra

cuse.

Q. Is he any relation to the engineer of that name?

A. Brother of the engineer.

Q. Is George D. Lord, who took sections 3, 4 and 8, an Assemblyman.

A. The Assemblyman's son.

Q. Now the second letting?

A. I do not know as I know the residence of those who took the second letting, but I can give the names and some of the residences.

Section 11 to Ecker & Eaton, of Syracuse.

Sections 13, 14 and 15 to Peck and Birdseye, Syracuse.

This Mr. Peck is George H. Peck, the same mentioned above. Sections 16 and 17 to Charles H. Raynor.

Section 18 to Emery Rosebrook.

"C 19 to Walker Matteson.

20 to Thomas Gale, of Syracuse.

Locks Nos. 4 and 5 to A. C. Palmer.

The aqueducts and culverts at the second letting were all let to A. C. Palmer.

These sections have been many of them transferred so that the parties whose names they stand in have nothing to do with them. Q. Who are the persons doing the work?

A. Of the first letting all the sections were carried on by the contractors except section 8; that section was let to George D. Lord, and has been worked by L. Loss; the first three locks have been worked by Thomas Gale; the second letting I do not know but little about; I know that section 18 was let to Emery Rosebrook, and has been worked by L. M. Loss.

The committee adjourned to meet on Monday, March 25, at 3 P. M.

MONDAY, March 25th, 1867.

The Committee met pursuant to adjournment.

Present-Messrs. STANFORD, BRISTOL and H. SMITH.

The following testimony was elicited :

John D. Spaulding, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
By Mr. SMITH:

Q. What is your age?

A. Twenty-five.

Q. Residence?

A. Port Byron.

Q. Occupation?

A. I am foreman on the canal; repair contractor.

Q. Where is section 9 on the Erie canal?

A. It commences at the foot of Lock 50, and runs to the east line of Wayne county, a distance of thirty-five miles, I think.

Q. Was there a time when the Canal Commissioner ordered a large number of men to be put on the work?

A. That I don't know definitely; it is only hearsay.

Q. When did you hear that?

A. Six years ago this spring when I went to work for J. J. Belden.

By Mr. STANFORD:

Q. Did you go to work for Belden after Root went off?

A. I did, six years ago.

Q. How many men did you put on?

A. I ran from Montezuma to this side of Peru, if I remember

rightly; we had sometimes 25 men, sometimes 50, sometimes 75, sometimes 250.

Q. How large a portion was that?

A. That was about one-half of it.

By Mr. SMITH:

Q. Who was the engineer?

A. Howard Thompson was engineer on the west end.

Q. Did he have an assistant?

A. Downs.

Q. Where is he?

A. I don't know.