The sun., 1873-10-13

fT lfNflF Nn hcNtl uNfFtNHfEe ~ fIT1tf 10 inc
q rneqi FOR nye,' ytn. & 81 tse whos cot or e.
, we w,,y % igst 3 2 t r W " v.H g.r pr rs:
Of he nnd, Of the prlcgs gvdn{ thc Board o, ruhnc
ne iol Wing items al priccs, VA;
fS9ScR 9cR iIrail IranS cggTy PPS 81 la al cents
ir.rat sl,o, and 5nlanholcs Il ~ each $50 6,6
II grading IL feet Gc'p at ioc. YER cuuic
l"lIs.ss.''t. o.
ror iioms ana rcia'ss ','s report 40 7giEsdrss
n), '"S,,', ',,' W., W ps MArsr c,,n F. gscer
scr,,cr brns ay sworn doh depise ana .a, thSt tnc
,aencns % o. above article, to widen hc las ssned
-u',crincd and sworn by ard before me iis ! Jay
q ''ptcmbcr, 1873 AMOS nuSr. J.P.
As will be seen by the above statement 81 Mr..
De Maine the cost OF this sewer at the prices
nxed by the Board Of Public Works was only
Sells per ncal foot Including manholes and
traps. For this same service Gen. Babcock al
lows the United States to be charged $40 per
lncal foot, or twenty-thrce cents per linoal foot
more than double the price paid 10y the board.
CUNNING GEN. BABCoCK.
The conduct Of Gen. Dabcock in reducing the
fraudulent price claimed by the Board of Public
Works ESQ, aud then certifying as correct u
bill more than twice as large as 1t should have
hecn makes him appear all the more culpable,
FOR II proves that he had investigated the sub
ject. The Inference can be fairly drawn from
this that lie deliberately sought to disarm sus-
picion by reducing this overcharge and make
the public believe he was faithfully guarding
the interests Of the United States that while
aiding the Ring TO steal n half n million dollars
he would, by reducing one item $50, get the
credit OF being honest.
The proof of this fraud does not rest alone
on the statement ~ Engineer De Maine. The
Board ~ Public Works have furnished evidence
which not only curroboratcs the measurement
of Mr.. De Maine, but convicts themselves. as
well as Gen. Uabcock OF conspiring TO rOb the
nat tfpnal Treasury.
on page iS OF their statement OF liabilities
Which accompSned tneir am SnnHa! ,m fen"gt no the
Contract No. 20, Dec. n, is7l Lay l2.inch sever
Hoe, Hoc" cosf.c,or OSHsfo J ss 1' y" ''''' wis.,
This is the Identical sewer for the building Of
which the Board OF Public Works charged the
United States, in another part of this 'me re-
port, $l170. (Sec p. A., Annual Report OF the
| Board Of Public Works.
THB HEIGHT OF IMPUpEScE.
Such audaclous, impudent vialny Ia almost
Incredible. In one part Of report certifying
| the total cost Of a sewer to he 81 81. and In
| another part of the same report charging the
! United States s:L37O for nye-sixths Of the same
/ " there are any ncredulnus, let them refer to
! the document have cited.
| it may be asked what motives could have in
! nuenced the Hoard uf Public Works IN attemut-
,S Ga 1sS cnn1et tbs Of fuf Ssh"nssy2 Tbs men
! tive is obvious. In one place they were seeking
! 20 keep down their Illegal liabilities 10 the lowest
| possible amount, In order to make show Of
| economy to Congress. and To refute the charge
| that they had already expended more money than
! the Legislative Assembly authorized In the
! other they were deliberately planning To steal
from the United States. Their annual report Is a
| yoluminous documents and their state mcuts were
| purposcly mysiAed to confound and bewilder
| any one who might attempt TO master its CON
tents. They hoped In this way 10 render detcc-
, tion Improbable; but should It happen that their
frauds were discoyercd they knew they would
obeyed, and treated with contempt the laws of
| Congress and the Legislative Assembly; had in
! CURED vast obligations and Illegally spent mill
] lions dollars. and nothing hut teauprtuR
the rrc alter fraud. they were bound TO take the
chunces ut exposure by committing a lesser one
to cover the greater.
VAIN ILLUSION.
In Gen. Babcock's case both he and they
probably thought that his vouchers were secure
from tie pryine eyes Of the SIS correspondent
in the Office u the Register OF the Treasury.
The charge made for this sewer 10y the Board
OF Public Works was as follows:
United states
To 50 OF COS, OF construct lng sewer on Che north
slds 81 ws!rSst Pe,Tesa PITY roITh 'nd ta9 t9
feet at q per
This item Gen. Babcock reduced by deducting
hfty-four feet IN the measurement and thirty
cents per lineal foot from the prce-thua re-
duclng the amount ~ have heretofore stated.
$3.50 Attention has been called to ovcrcharges
In the bill Of the Board Of Public Works for
work around this reservation, and It may be
that this had something to do win thls red uc-
tion. But that Hancock ~ net intend to .
honest is quite evident. The Hon, Robert B.
Roosevelt bad called attention 10 tho discrep-
| Ancics in the cost Ot tlis sewer set iNfth IN
two different places In the report OF the Hoard
of Public Works, and gen. Bahcock was well
aware Of fraudulent charges having been made
ia auutAcT yart of the bill IL was cleaGIy &C.,
duty tt maze a tsret., p6fsOnai examination of
all She work. and pass upon the correctness Of
the price as well ~ upon the amount OF work
the work for no other purpOsc. Had there been
no suspicion Of attempted fraud, there would
! have been no provision of this kind IN the law.
! But, Notwithstanding this patent fact, he al
lows Si,20 for hye-sixths OF the cost OF a sewer.
l..a.r ~
Congress, said IL cost only $I.57l. .s0-the same
work that they asked the United states to uay
Sane for. Then, again, Gen. BabcOck, gradu-
ate II West Point, an experienced engineer
oihcer, and having practical experience as Com
missioner OF Public Gromnds in laying ii'
pipe sewer could not cost $40 per foot. II WIS
Just ~ palpahle fraud as To charge $50 apicr (
THE RfSG CONVICT HANCOCK.
But thore Is still another way in which the
Board Of Public Works have unConsciousiy con-
Med bHGGGsk If G, fraud IA Inc SUP
"a comparative statement ~ assessments made
Pe[ an GG' ad K Sot G St RGaT1 Rn1@ ~ Py tG Ne
tbs statement they put the cost of sewer
without reference tD size AZ $40 per !ncal foot
or but traction more than one-fourth the pr,c,
allowed by Gen liahCuCk.
II viii bc seen by comparing the cost ~ tins
sewer, ~ stated by the board in their lldbilIte-
with the cost as stated 10y Engineer De Maine
that the dinercuce is but slight, VIZ:
Cost Of sewer a. stntos by Pc Mains f3 q
Nnhl "l h'Nil N h'"I'u ny lohlu luuN Nlhr htl n
Difference in favor Of Board Public Works. ass o
This ovcrchargc becomes an the more mex
cust1.e and is found more Infamous when IL Il
t HnoNn that the United States property
JaYEgEa Ja, Etaa iua[e 9E LH Ian h&s,eHa;oH
} | one foot Of it, II was placed on the north slul
Of q street that is along the side furthcst from
! the Government property and was only In
| tended Tor the hencht OF tile private property or
| that side uf The street. Indeed the BOARD o.
Public Works knew very well mat the cay lial
, | observation
WAS TUOROUGULY DRAlNTD
nYthc slx-fout hrirk sewer. which WIS coustrr ct
. | ed several wears ago under tue supervision q
! Hon. Edward Clark, Architect of the Cuuilul
> THIS sewer rims diagonnlly across tho suutr
q | from the southeast corner of ID and FOurtl
=, streets TO the northwest corner Of G and FIN
d | streets, and was paid for entirely by tho United
States, and IL amply sufficient Ia drain the entir
square. But In addition tO this, the Unitet
States years ago paid half the cost of three
foot barrel brick sewer In Fourth street IRON
d to G, bordering the entire east front OF Tia
q iarc.
2 Tho fact that the BOARD ~ Public Works lai