"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.
[4] A striking illustration of this may be found in the first report of this commission to the Governor, on the Port Schuyler and lower Mohawk aqueduct contract.
"_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.
