The Water Works Difficulty

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

THE WATER WORKS DIFFICULTY.

If there was one branch of their public affairs in the conduct and success of which the citizens of Brooklyn felt confidence, it was the construction of the works for supplying the city with water. The length of time during which the subject has been under discussion; the almost unanimous approval of the present plans of the citizens' committee and the Common Council; the confident tone adopted in regard to its practicability by every engineer whose opinion had been taken; the professional eminence of the engineers now having the matter in charge; the high character of the gentlemen comprising the Commission; and the energetic way in which the contractors have hitherto urged on the work;—all these things had inspired the public with a confidence on the result which they do not habitually feel in that of operations undertaken at the public expense. It was fondly hoped, even by the most inveterate grumblers, that for once at least that often cheated institution "the public," was safe to get its money's worth for its money; that this part of its business, at least, was to be done in the time, for the sum, and according to the terms, which had been formally agreed upon.

But this notion was "too good to be true." The time has not yet arrived when work for the public can be executed on the same common sense principles as work for a private individual. If we contract with a builder to erect us a house in a given spot, of prescribed dimensions and materials; and he subsequently discovers in excavating for the foundations that the ground is harder and will cost more for digging out than he anticipated when he fixed his price; are we therefore to allow him to augment his charge indefinitely? No, we should require him to abide by his contract; and if he failed to do so, we should look to his securities for indemnification. This is exactly what any one of the seven Water Commissioners would do, in his own private capacity. But the Commissioner, voting with his colleagues in Board, feels very differently from the lynx-eyed man of business in his private office. Where his own pocket only suffers indirectly and in common with that of every one else, he is able to pity the mistake of the contractors in estimating too low a sum for the canal.

We are willing to admit that cases of contract may arise, where difficulties are purely unforeseen, in which a spirit of justice no less than of generosity would sanction the relaxation of the terms which bind the contractors to the public. But this of the Long Island canal is not one of them. No greater difficulty has been experienced, no different condition of soil has been met with, than every one conversant with the locality expected. Among those who had given the slightest attention to the subject it was perfectly understood that these subsoil springs would be met with along the line of the canal. So patent was this fact that it was enlarged on by public speakers again and again. Ex-Judge Dikeman, before the people's meeting, and Alderman Fowler in the Common Council, referred to these springs, which we are now told are an impediment to the work, as the great source of confidence in the sufficiency of the supply. It was conceded on all hands, that if the ponds did not afford enough water, the springs along the line of canal could be tapped to supply the deficiency. We cannot perceive, therefore, with what show of plausibility the contractors can refer to the force of these springs as an unforeseen obstacle, or claim extra pay in consequence of alterations rendered necessary by encountering them. In these days of engineering triumphs it is folly to talk of the contract line as "impracticable." Mr. Kirkwood¹ is not the man the Commissioners took him for, if he cannot devise the laying down of a structure that shall bring a stream of water through a sandy soil abounding with springs.

We do not see how the Common Council or the Commissioners can safely allow any deviation from the contract. No agreement that Messrs. Welles & Co.² may make to construct another line of canal, can be more binding than that which they have already made to execute this line, which they now decline to complete. Especial care should be taken in a work of such magnitude, involving millions of money, not to vitiate the entire contract by winking at deviations here and there. If the present contract cannot avail to procure the city the canal it bargained for, we do not see how any fresh agreement can secure us the completion of a different line.

---