"Every appropriation for new work and extraordinary repairs on the canals for the six years from 1867 to 1873 contained a provision that no part or portion of the money therein appropriated 'for new work or work on change of plan' should be expended or paid, nor any contract involving such expenditure and payment be made on behalf of the States, until the maps, plans, and estimates of such new work had been submitted to and approved by the Canal Board. "There has been a law on the statute-books since 1850, yet more stringent, which provides that 'before any work shall be contracted for on any canals of the State the division engineer shall cause to be ascertained, with all practical accuracy, the quantity of embankment, excavation, and masonry, and the quality and quantity of all materials to be used, and all other items of work to be placed under contract, a statement of which, together with maps, plans, and specifications corresponding with those adopted by the Canal Board, and on file in the office of the State Engineer and Surveyor, shall be publicly exhibited to persons proposing for work to be let.' "These most explicit provisions of law have been very rarely observed. Contracts have not only been let without the preliminary surveys, maps, plans, and estimates, but one of the most familiar abuses on the canals of late years has been to change the plan of work after the contract is signed, by which the contractor gets relieved from the unprofitable portions of his work, and is furnished a pretext for establishing a new scale of prices, in connivance with the auditing officers. Illustrations of this method of defrauding the State may be found in several of the reports submitted to the Executive. The most costly one to the State is described in our first report. The contract for substituting slope and vertical wall for the bench wall between the Port Schuyler and the lower Mohawk aqueduct provided originally for 14,000 cubic yards of slope wall and only 9000 of vertical wall. As if distrustful of the influence of the contractor over its own agents, the Legislature, within six months after the time this work could have begun, in appropriating money to carry it on, absolutely prohibited the expenditure of more than five per cent. of the appropriation for vertical wall. Regardless, however, of this restriction, and regardless of the terms of the contract which provided for twice as much slope as vertical wall, nearly ninety-five per cent. of the cost of the work on that contract was incurred upon vertical wall and work incident to such construction, while not a single yard of slope wall was built; and as a consequence, an improvement which could have been readily and well done for the original appropriation of $84,645 has already cost the State about half a million for wretched work, and is still far from completion. No attention was ever paid to the provision of the act requiring the change of plan