National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-03-20

had been provided for under tho old corpora
ton. They had been expended under the I'd
ministration of one or other Of the mayors Of
the city. And one thing which the District
government was called upon to do was to re
iin5ursa these funds and preserve the credit Of
the city. Then it placed only to this specific
trust fund, (this will !,c found in the Cover
-nors snswer, at pages I, Is, 10, 20, 81 and Isl
Ii will be found, also, in the sinking fund
commissioners report, ami l have mere
statement collatrl in principal part IRON
ready a1duced before the committee, OF the
disposition made OF these bonds unlef Ine acs
ror'Conyress, approved May s, 1Sis, wnicn
shows that in every respect, rs the act oi Nol'
gress provided, these bonds were sou ~ ~, ois-
count. of only 5 per cent, netting " per
CON; that they were reserved for these special
funds, and then that they were applied on the
claims ,uproyc,l by the aulitfng commisslon.
50 that every dollar of these bonds has been
applicI in accordance with the act Of Congress.
This act of Congress VIII then Dc considered a.
ou. oc .hc discussion as the settlement. made
between the sinking fund commissioners and
the District OF Columbia. 80 ct
Nov what is the history Of that settlement
There have been referred TO here several acts
of the Legislative Assembly: acts which were
necessary, as was explained, because the Dis
rtrict of Columbia was IN the receipt of no taxes
whatever, and for six months no taxes were
levied; and there was then alluded 10, among
Others, these trust fun is. and il was necessary
even for the credit OF the new government.
that these deficiencies should he supplied.
Representative Wilson. ! understand Won Ia
say that for six months no taxes were levied:
Mr.. Stanton. understand that to BE- the
case.
Representative Wilson. That statement was
made here before ] would like you, il you
Twill be kind enough to 90 so, to show us how
that is. have been looking at this thing with
ssome care, and / am not able to find that. II
that is the fact, / would like to know it.
Mr.. Mattingly. / can explain to the gentle
man how that occurred. 1t occurred in this
way: Under the former city government the
current fiscal year was from the 1st of January
to the 3lst of December. Under the new gov
eminent The current fiscal year was changed,
land began on the list OF July and ended on the
3Oth of June.
Representative Wilson. Is 1t not the fact that
the taxes were levied along just the same as
before,
Mr.. Mattingly. No, sir; six months from
January TO July, ISL.
Mr.. Stanton. If my explanation will not be
interrupted, will cnleavor TO explain here
after.
Representative Wilson. 1t is very apparent
that there is p very important matter to be
considered RICH. here, and for the purpose oil
getting the exact information in regard to it, !
nave Deen trying 10 NM just no" tnat Ihins
was.
Mr. Stanton It will be matter of record
and it will be submitted in writing.
Senator Thurman. / don't see how there
could I've a hiatus of six months. 1t seems 10
me it would be for whole year. merely
call attention TO thai.
Mr,Stanton. 1t will be cleared up. There
were acts of the Legislative Assembly, under
which the government was authorized to an
ticipate the revenue, because there was not in
the treasury money to meet the expenses oil
the government. For instance, to meet the
maturing obligations. The special funds had
been exhausted under the mayors. One
of these acts was the act of January
10, 1872, which authorized the gov
ernment to anticipate tie revenue for any
and all floating Indebtedness Of the city of
Washington. The revenue was anticipated in
this way. The money was borrowed by the
then government from the First National Bank
of New York. By different acts of the Legisla-
tive Assembly money was appropriated to GER
tain specific purposes; and in this way, under
the different appropriations, acts of the Legis-
lative Assembly, and out of the funds obtained
by borrowing from the First National Bank OF
New York, certain expenditures were made by
the District of Columbia, on account of the old
corporation of Washington-a large number Of
thena-and entirely outside of the audit COM
missioncrs' report, which went up only to GER
tain date. Among the expenditures thus made
were those which amounted to this sum in
round numbers, OF sells 600. The old corpora
tion was indebted TO the District school, out
side of the audit commissioner report, in q
large sum of money, including expenditures
made for school purposes; and the expenditures
were made by the District out of the money
borrowed from the First National Bank Of the
city of New York.
Representative Wilson. If you will lardon
me for asking YOU question there: were these
moneys expended for Indebtedness that had
been created by the old government, or were
they moneys that were expended on account of
contracts or materials furnished by the new
government
Mr.. Stanton. / will cite the act which refers
to il and which describes the Indebtedness eI-
actly-the act of June 60, 1872. They were
expenditures made upon contracts and obliga-
tions of the city of Washington, entered into
and created by or claims which might exist
against the late corporation OF Washington, and
not included In the auditing commission. They
were expenditures made after the new govern
ment came into effect, but maturing or becom-
ing due under obligations which had been en-
tered into by the old corporation Of Washing
ton.
I. Representative Wilson. Were they all of that
character?
: Mr. Stanton It is analysed in the sinking
fund commissioners report.
Representative Wilson. VIII that be found on
page A.
Mr.. Stanton. They all come within this re-
ports
, Representative Wilson. Commencing on page
4 of the Governors answer!
Mr.. Stanton. The sinking fund commits
q sioners' report shows that more especially and
better.
Representative Wilson. Then the commits
sioncrs of the sinking fund of Washington city
February 10, 1874, in the Governors answeri
Mr.. Stanton. It is here at page "a. Here is
an illustration: For instance, judgments were
obtained against the corporation of Washing
ton after the District OF Columbia came into
effect that was not a debt at the time of the
audit commissioner report. Judgments were
q. obtained afterwards, and they were obligations
Fhich the District Of Columbia had to provide
for; and so as to statements made upon con-
tracts for SCHOOL purposes, if you please
poration of Washington. The obligation was
the act of the old corporation of Washington,
bat the payment became due Afterwards. The
report of the sinking fund commissioners
/: shows these statements, and gives the detailed
items. This act of the Legislative Assembly
claims against the old corporation of Washing
ton, and among the claims thus settled was the
claim Of the District of Columbia. An account
I was stated, and it was found in what respect
2 or to what amount the corporation of WASH
i: ington was indebted to the District.
Il 1ue SuAum8u i 10 uOL oesiIc W luttrIupt
you, but I understand that act to apply to
claims that were not audited by the audit com
nissioners at all.
7 Mr.. Stanton. No, not at all.
, The Chairman. Have you . list Of those
;. claims?
Mr.. Stanton. They are in the sinking fund
commissioner reports.
Representative Wilson. Here they are on
page 12. Let me have voucher No. II, voucher
No. 20, and voucher No. 104.
1 Mr.. Stanton. They are in this package;
some of these belong to the sinking fund COM
Imissioners; these in the yellow bundle.
Y Senator Thurman. Before you proceed fur
ther, If 1t does not interrupt your state
,ment-
1 Mr.. Stanton. Not ut all.
Senator Thurman. There Is one thing that
has been puzzling me all through, which I
you'd like to be enlightened upon. Was there
anything in the organic act, or any act of Con-
gress, that empowered the District of Colum-
bis to assume the debts of either Of the old cor
porstiona
Mr.. Stanton. In the digest which had,
when submitted to the committee, there Is q
reference given to the section in the organic
- hitch vroecriho1 fha puo- o. -ls.Y AZ