National Republican., 1874-06-01


-glneer. for examination and report
. CHAs S. JOHNSON,
Assistant Secretary.
On August 60 1871, submitted the following
proposal, viz: To put down the chemical concrete
pavement six inches thick, without seams or
jointA and 10 be kept In good repair and conol.
tIon for at least three years, at the expense OF
.the contracting parties, Evans Concrete Oom-
pany,D at S2.T6 per yard surface, meas uIe :.
-lHers follow the names of the various streets for
which they propose their pavement.l AT the
close Of their proposal they state: As your honor-
able board have net as yet sdoPtea piAns lof tne
not possible for this company to Determine the
amount OF grading to be done, We propose to
grade such streets as rOadWays or parts thereof,
Ss YOU NAV direct for an additional charge Of
thirty cents per cubic yard.
To place their proposal on the same footing
with other proposals. which included two feet OF
grading an addition was made to their proposal
OF g. rs per yard surfaee-measurement, OF twenty
cents for the two feet Of grading, an amount ex-
grading. This made S2.o5 per yard, surface
measurement. do not see how, under these cir
cumstanees, the price can be raised from S2.s5 to
O. 90 at least for the streets named by them viz:
Pennsylyania avenue, New York avenue, X
street, FOur-and-a-half street. E street. q street,
Twelfth, Eleventh, Third, 4, II, Fifteenth and
II the price is to be raised 1t can only consist
emily be raised on streets done by them other
Very respectfully, B. oERTLT,
Deputy Engineer.
This report was communicated 70 the contractor,
who made the following answer: (See testimony
p 4A:) g..
WASHINGTON, D. c., December %, iTe;
,, Respectfully returned TO the Board Of Public
Works Thereport Of the deputy enSneer aSi h Is cor
we put in proposition to pave PennsJ ania ave
nue.. New York avenue, Four-and -s,hah street z,
g. twelfth Eleventh, Third, T, H, X, Fitteenth
and Ninth streets at s2.T5 per yard, surface, not
Including grading. That IS 10 say, Se proposed
to lay some 100000 yards OF pavement at price
8FaF tn rlfRRO 1N1 Eo-
The board gave us part Of Fifteenth, G and F
streets less than 10000 yards. We would also
respectfully call your attention to the fact that
the board practically adopted sfterWard price
for concrete pavements, s3.2O per yard, and we
respectfully submit We should have same price
paid Others. y. Z. EVANS,
The matter was then referred to the engineer
member Of the board, who reported as follows:
(See testimony, p. 42i:)
C. f. Evans has done some Of our best work;
he asks increase of per cent. on his work.
Taking all circumstances in account, 1 think,
though the report Of the deputy engineer IS cor
rect, that the board should accede to the request
OF Evans on the ground that his proposition must
be considered in whole, and not in the detailed
mode in which the board adopted 1t.
DECEMBER p, 1872.
But, not satisfied with presentation of the
justice of such allowance, the board sought
the advice of the law-officer of the District as
to its legality, and received from that quarter
the following counsel: (See testimony, PIP. 424
and 425.)
WASHINGTON, September %, 1873;
. SIR: The Endorsement the letter OF Z, L.
Evans presents substantially the same question
that is presented in the papers Of Samuel Strong,
-sDd the opinion furnished in that is pplicable to
the clam Of Mr.. Evans. As stated in that opin-
ion. the organic SGT does not prohibit the Board
of Public Works from modifying contracts, or in
creaslng prices for work done, and whether, in
any case. there should be a modification, is a
question solely for the judiciOus determination Of
the board.
Mr Cluss recommends an increase of per CEN
tum on his work. l think that manner of Increase
is not the most ludicous. and l respectfully sug-
gest that it will be much wiser to increase the
may deem Just. so as 10 amount to . fair compen-
satiOn to Mr.. Evans, rather than add per Gen.
tum, rs is proposed. And the modification requis-
ite for this purpose can be made by memorandum
on his contract, signed by the board and by Mr.
Evans. In this mode the Recommendation OF Mr..
Cluss can he carried out so as TO do justice to all
parties. Allow me to add that IL would certainly
be better to make notifications of contracts the
work under them progresses, but sometimes It
may be difficult 10 do SO.
Respectfully, WM. A. Cook,
Attorney District OF Columbia.
To The Roa. 4. r. Shepherd, Prestdsrst Board Of
Public WOrks.
The only criticism made by counsel ON the
soundness Of this opinion is, that, following
the idea indicated in the previous part of this
argument, he assumed for the board not only
coordinate but ampler powers than the Legis-
lature itself possessed"
To this criticism answer has already been
made. So far as the board has exercised CO.
ordinate powers, it has the authority of the
organic act and the sanction of the Supreme
Court of the District of Columbia, q court of
the United States, organized ten years ago, the
majority of whose members have been for that
period upon the bench. There is needed, there
fore, for the case OF the memorialists some
other retutation Of advice upon which the board
IN this case acted, in good faith after cautious
inquiry, es to both the justice and legality OF
its action.
The other case of increased compensation re-
ferred TO in the argument of counsel Is that of
Filbert. The action here was on the recon-
mendation of theengineernembero Of the board,
based upon the unusual difficulty of the con-
tractors work, emitting him to some increase
above the general schedule Of compensation for
grading. Thecase is sufficiently explained,
and the complaint sufficiently refuted, in the
following extract from page 222O Of the testi-
mony:
Extract from uinutsI Of the Board of Public
Works, Washington, D. c.. December %, 1878.
The board met at ! p; N. by appointment; pres
enL Messrs. Willard. Cluss, and Blake.
The vice president stated that he called the
meeting for The purpose OF considering the claims
Of Aessrs. Taylor Filbert for an increase in
price Of grading done by them on F street, be-
Of lowering the railroad track and the unusual
djfoultIes encountered in the prosecution Of the
work; also New Hampshire avenue, Tenth, Thir-
OF Mr.. Cluss, It was determined In the case of F
street to allow them hfty cents per yard for the
whole amount Of grading, not deducttng the GUS
for haul. Action on the other streets, viz New
Hampshire avenue, Tenth, Thirteenth, and l
streets, was deferred 10 some future time.
CERTAIN MINOR ABUSES"
The argument for the memorialists descends
n afT - In
operations oftbe Board Of Public Works, down
to the transactions Of the underlings in Office"
When were affairs Of similar magnitude ever
administered by any Municipality without
Snlinor sbuses7" What form of human coy-
ernment can be devised in which the charger
operations, ard the transactions of the under
Hngs IN Office" will not in some respect, or de-
tail, be Gmenable TO eriticisml What organiza=
ton, what genius, what energy, what integrity,
win syal to prevent every ''minor abuselo
Three individual cases, presumably the most
dagrant, in record Of more than two thousand
pages, have been sdduced by counsel, as sho "
ing opp ess!on Of citizens, with double charges
and oVercharges. The first case Is that of Bell,
Testimony, P. 663, ) who complains that his
assessment wes not reduced by imposing q cor
responding tax against q street-railroad COM
pany which had the right to lay tracks in front
OF his property, but had not exercised that
right when the street was paved and the as
sessment made. 1t was the well-considered
opinion OF the Law officer of the District that
the assessment could not be made against the
company. Mr.. Bell was further aggrieved BY
an alleged excessive charge for lowering a
Waterman. But he admits that he made no
complaint to the board, merely because he sup
posed he would have been obliged to state his
case in writing. His effort for redress is thus
stated:
q. Did you make complaints TO the Board of
Public Works Of that diferencef A. No, sir; sew
erGl times have gone-I thought would 20
down and ask questions Of the board and they
said must produce 1t in writing, and ali that
kind Of thing. and / did't think it was worth
while for me TO 90 there.
He is an educated man, acquainted with mu-
nicipal affairs. Therefore either his conduct
was unreasonsbly willful, or else his pretended
grievance was too trivial or too unfounded for
written statement.
The second case of alleged oppression is that
OF Evans, Testimony, p. 1131, jim respect to an
alleged excessive charge for water service on
one of his lots. From the page above stated
the following extract is taken:
q Who have you complained to Of the board
WITH reference to these matters7 A have spoken
to Mr.. Forsyth.
. q. He is the engineer A. Yes sir
O. Did lie give you any satisfaction?
Mr.. Merrick. He is the one who had charge of
making cut these assessments?
. The Witness. He told me he had nothing to do
With this that these were made by the engineers
outside.
Therefore, to him also Iaches is to be i'm