ENPages
p. 4
Ans. The annexed profile of rock in the lockpits was made by me about the 20th of August 1828 from minutes of levels and measurements in the Engineers office part of which were taken in November 1827 and the remainder which relate to the lower pit were taken at that time. 9th - Do you know that the lockpits are excavated below bottom, and do you not consider that Mr. Henry's acquiescence in their being so excavated at the time and compelling us to clear them out to bottom since makes it a fair subject of estimate? Ans. - The top of the mitre sill is even with the bottom of the pits, and therefore the depth of the sill must be excavated below bottom. This then is part of the original plan and is as fair a subject of estimate as any other part of the work. If the situation of the several strata of rock is such that it is difficult to excavate to bottom without going below, this extra depth which is necessarily excavated, ought to be paid for by the canal company and as far as my knowledge extends it is estimated by the Engineer on other canals. I know it was done at Lockport on the New York canal. 10th - State your recollection of the understanding respecting width of the lock pits; was it not admitted that the width was 66 feet? Ans. - I recollect of having heard that 66 feet was the width of the pits assumed & agreed upon by Carney Sayre & Co. & the Engineer. 11th - Was it intended in the original plan that the locks should be coped the entire width of the top or only on the front as designated on the plan drawn by you? Ans. - In the original specification given by Judge Bates from which my plans were made the coping was not mentioned. I therefore represented the coping as it is usually placed on locks on other canals and supposed that it would be so placed on these. The buttresses were to stop two feet below the top of the wall & therefore could not have been coped. 12th - What is the width of the coping? Ans. Four feet 13th - If the coping was ordered to be got out 4 feet wide and contract specifies that 162 1/2 cents shall be paid for every running foot of coping, would you not estimate every four feet in width a running foot? Ans. - Yes. 14th - Do you not consider that the coping should be estimated the whole width, as the contract nor plan does not call for the inside coping? Answer - Any alteration of the original plan which renders it more expensive to the contractor or any addition to it made by the canal company or their engineer, after the contract is entered into & the plans adopted is properly an extra work & should be estimated as such by the Engineer.
p. 5
4
15th: If the contract nor plan does not specify the back jointing of the casings and it is ordered to be done subsequently to the making of the contract is it not a fair charge? Answer: - This is answered in answer to question no. 14. 16th: If the contract nor plan does not specify the facing of the steps do you not consider it a fair charge? Answer: This is answered in my reply to question n. 14. 17th: Are the locks built upon the original plan? Ans. Not entirely. 18th: In what manner are they altered? Answer: By omitting the buttresses on the back side of the lift lock walls - By reducing the width of the walls. - By standing them in many places on a sloping instead of a level foundation. - By leaving birms or projections of the rock under the lower lift lock walls. - By omitting a print of one of the walls & perhaps in some other particulars. 19th: Was it not distinctly understood at the time of making these alterations in the plan that an allowance was to be made to Carney Sayre & co for the alterations and was not this agreement in consequence of their complaints about the change of plans & the injury sustained by them in consequence? Answer: I believed & Carney Sayres & Co. expected & it was admitted by the Engineer that an allowance would be made to them for some of their alterations. 20th: Was the allowance specified - Ans: Not to my knowledge. 21st: Do you not consider the profit Carney Sayre & Co. would have made on the work a fair allowance taking into consideration the facilities they had at the time to do the work which was abridged, and - considering the interruption caused to the work by leaving the breach in the lower walls and the expense of trimming the birms & the brest walls? Answer: I consider the profit which would have been made by Carney Sayres & Co. on the masonry omitted a sufficient allowance for the omission. 22d - Did Mr. Henry estmate the embankment at the locks by measurement? Answer: I do not recollect of his having measured it more than once or twice; He usually guessed at the quantity or assumed it from the number of men at work on it. 23d Was not Mr. Henry very careless in making his estimates? Ans - Estimates as they are usually made, and as they were originally intended on the S&P Canal are only an approximate statement of the quantity of work done within a certain period, made for the purpose of showing the commissioners or directors how much...
p. 6
5
...money they can advance to the contractor with security. It is therefore not important that they should be exact. Considering Mr. Henry's estimates in this light they are generally made with sufficient care. The "final estimate" is an exact statement of the whole of the work done by the contractors and is the basis of the final settlement between them and the directors. It is therefore important that this estimate should be made with care and accuracy. - Faking Mr. Henry's estimates in this light & considering that each weekly estimate was "final" of the work done in that week it may be said that he was too careless in making them. Frequently as in the case of the embankment at the locks he would only guess at the quantity of the work done - At other times he would get the number of men engaged and allowing a certain quantity for a days work would calculate it in that way. That portion of the work which he measured weekly was generally in such irregular & indeterminate shapes that it was almost impossible to measure them with accuracy. 24th - In making the estimates of the locks did not Mr. Henry make them by patching the estimate of one week to that of another being liable to mistake the point he measured to the preceeding week and keeping no regular minutes of the work to guide him could his estimates be correct? - Do you know that Benson & Henry had frequent disputes about his measurements of the locks - Benson complaining of his making omissions in the measurements? Answer: The weekly estimates which Mr. Henry made of the masonry were made by measuring the quantity laid each week and as there was no distinct mark or separation between the work done in one week and that done in another, he had to depend upon his recollection of the point, and was therefore constantly liable to err. These estimates were however taken with sufficient accuracy for the purpose for which they were originally intended - Benson did frequently complain of the measurements and estimates, particularly of the embankment. 25th Do you not know that the estimates of the locks were not considered by Mr. Henry when made as final, - and did you consider them as final. Was it not only when Mr. Henry found that he could not measure the locks that he determined to make his weekly estimate the final one? Ans. The weekly estimates when made were not considered as final - and when any complaint was made by the contractor for a want of accuracy in them I have frequently told them the final estimate would be correct and would include any work that might be omitted in the weekly measurements. I never heard of them being...
p. 7
6
...considered final until some time after the work was completed. The weekly estimates are not made with sufficient care to be considered final and it is probable that they are not entirely correct. 26th Is it not the practice of engineers to make correct plans and estimates of work to be done and if a variation is made in the plan is not such variation or change noted and the contractor notified thereof and is not the final estimate made from these notes and plans and never from the weekly estimates? Ans : When work is to be put under contract it is the practice of Engineers to make a correct plan and estimate of the work to be done. This plan and estimate is referred to in the contract, and the prices &c agreed upon between the parties are expressly upon the condition that the work is to be done agreeably to them. It usually happens that during the progress of the work alterations & deviations from this plan and estimate are found necessary. When this is done notes or plans or both are made of such alteration, and the final estimate is made from them, but if no alteration is made the final estimate is made from the original plan and estimate. 27th: Did not many circumstances occur during your residence with Mr. Henry to induce the belief that his correctness could not be relied upon and were not the proofs of his ignorance and want of experience too palpable to admit of a doubt on the subject? Answer: From the time he first came to the canal it was evident to me that he was not competant to fill the station in which he was placed. The proofs of his want of experience in the business were numerous. He is not able to draw a correct plan and was when he first came to the canal ignorant of many of the most common rules of measuration. In fact the ignorance and want of experience of Mr. Henry was my principal reason for leaving the canal before it was completed. 28th: Did not Mr. Henry make a mistake in laying out a curve above the guard lock by which mistake upwards of 3000 yards of earth were excavated unnecessarily & which he did not estimate to the contractors? Answer: After the excavation was nearly completed it became necessary to lay out the curve for the purpose of setting bank stakes. In doing this Mr. Henry layed it about 7 feet higher the north bank of the canal than it was originally laid by John Bates - The difference was owing to a mistake made...
p. 8
7
...by Mr. Henry. Agreeably to a calculation made by Judge Bates & myself there had been 3325 yards of earth excavated in consequence of this mistake more than would have been if the curve had been laid correctly - No estimate was made of it to the contractors. 29th Did you not measure the bridge across the canal and find that Mr. Henry had made gross errors in his measurement and did not betray a total ignorance of the mannier in which the calculation had been made? Ans. The errors which Mr. Henry committed at the bridge were not so much in the measurement as in the calculation. In February last I measured some portions of the bridge and (assuming Mr. Henry's measurement of the rest) made a calculation of the quantity of masonry and found in that part which is built on the new plan - 5026,86 spandries. Mr. Henry in his estimate of Dec 23d 1829 states it to contain 4873.46. Making a difference of - 153.40. This difference I attribute principally to the manner in which he estimated the spandries which was to guess at squares or parallelograms. AE in the diagram which he supposed would be just equal to them. The proper way would have been to calculate the contents of the arch & spandrils together on the whole figure ABCD which can be done exactly, and then deduct the contents of the arch which also can be calculated correctly - The remainder would be the quanity in the spandrils. But Mr. Henry was ignorant of the proper made of calculating the quantity contains in an arch and therefore he could not get the contents of the spandrils in no better way than by guessing at squares about equal to them. There was also a slight error in the measurement of the abutments which were laid upon the first plan which makes 16 perches less in the result than is stated in Mr. Henry's estimates. [illustration of bridge] 30th. State what you know respecting the change of the levels by Mr. Henry on Southerlands & Adams job at any other change he made? Answer. Levels were taken on the earth excavated by Southerland & Adams before they commenced but the exact quantity would not be calculated until it was removed and levels taken for the rock under it. When the work was completed and levels taken upon the rock it was found that these levels would show only about 30,000 yards of earth while he had returned by his weekly estimate upwards of 40,000 yards. Now to make his levels show as much earth as he had estimated he added 2 feet to each side level and 1 foot to each centre level, making the earth on an average 1 1/2 feet deeper than his first minutes showed.
