National Republican., 1874-05-16


That kind, and from what information could
u get from some gentlemen who were with me,
determined the quantity as well as / could.
There has been no excavation done south oi
Indiana avenue. The pavement across Indiana
Avenue remaineItfs old pavement; IL Is not
disturbed; and below that, south Of IL, Ills al
fAed;so that have examined simply the cut:
ting from Indiana avenue north TO II street. ]
make the quantity 9, 106 yards. There was al;
lowed to the contractor ~ ,sS3 yards; over
allowance, II am correct, 1927 yards, or an
oyerpayment to the contractor; be was paid
As cents yard-4Q cents for excavation and .
cents for haul-of SO, ,s52 .12.
i @. Who was the contractor thereaI A., Fol-
lansbee-i This Il an thai l have looked at aud
brought to final conclusion. have looked at
someothsr places; but in the first place found
my time very much occupied, ana in the next
place could not always find notes or data of a
4 character Sufficient TO enable me to get at any
i thing that seemed satisfactory, and did not
j pursue them. i will Just say this in regard to
Second street, that ] should have said perhaps,
while was upon the subject. There is an al
u lowance to the contractor of q, ,3S3 yards. II
you will take the entire length of Second
i street, from Indiana ayenue to the north side
of h street, and the entire breadth from build
ing line to building line, including the whole
limits within which this work was done, it
would have to be excavated for the entire
length and the entire breadth, 8 feet inches,
in order to make this quantity OF yards that is
allowed TO the contractor. l think there is
abundant evidence, at least, to show that 1t is
i impossible that it could have been excaVated
to that depth --rr. -- rms
By the Chairman. 0. Who was the engi-
7 neerf IA don't knoF under whose direction
! the work was done, bu. the certificate TO Mr..
Il Follansbee is signed, ] believe, by Mr.. For
syth. have 1t here somewhere, (producing
the eertifcate.) find 1t is signed by Mr.. For
syth, assistant engineer, and h. c. Phillips,
engineer of the Board Of Public Works, in
charge.
By Mr. Stewart: Q. Have you the certificate
of the engineer doing the work that you had
been overl Whose work was New Hampshire
svenuel Who was the engineer on New Hamp-
shire avenuef A. WIN have to refer to it.
think they were partly-indeed don't recol-
lect, but partly certified to by Mr.. Forsyth and
partly by Mr.. Phillips. think the Hulse
work was-indeed remember now the work
for Hulse was certified to by Mr.. Forsyth,
and the work for Murrey by Mr.. Barney.
! Q. How was It on Virginia avenue3 A. That
is by Mr.. Barney, and on street the same, 1
believe. go .sF e..
By Mr.. Stanton: Q. Who gave you informa-
tion respecting the original contour of the
ground on Second street, A. Mr.. Henry 8.
Davis.
Mr.. Mattingly. On Second street. Your
statement as to the quantity; is that merely in
excavation A. That is all.
Q. 1t does not include apy embankment or
filling? A. No, sir.
Q. 1t is between Indiana avenue and N
street, A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you examine Second street, between
PENNSYLVANIA avenue and Indiana aveuuei A.
walked over it., didn't give It as close ex-
animation as the other part.
Q. Did you notice their hauling dirt there?
You have not included that in your statement
A. No, sir. .-s... .. Ea.-
Q. This statement of Mr. Forsyth is from
Pennsylvania avenue TO II street, A. sup
pose IL is. ...a o. ... ---.
Q. / want to get at what you did. A. 1 un-
derstood, however, that they paid for excava-
ton and haul simply, and that certificate so
says. 1t does not say excavation; it says grad
ing and hauling, believe.
The Chairman, Ito Mr.. Mattingly.) You
asked question IN regard to Virginia avenve,
whether the witness took into account any old
work. a
Mr.. Mattingiy. Maryland avenue, there is
difference of 81, 900 yards.
The Chairman. should like to understand.
Is it claimed that the act of Congress making
appropriation provides for the payment of old
work when that old work Is replaced by new
| work.
Mr.. Mattingly. Not replaced, it is additional
work.
The Chairman. Was R the intention of the
act of Congress to pay for any old work done
unless that old work remains. Do you get my
idea. Here the old government had graded a
street and paved it. Now the new government
take that pavement up and they use the grade
and lay new pavement; is 1t your understand
ing that the act of Congress intended TO pay
for part of the expense of the old grading
and the old pavement which was taken up7
| Mr. haktinOly That is mot onDlirahla 70
this case of Maryland avenue. In Maryland
svene, as understand It, there had been fill
ing there done by the old corporation.
Mr.. Stanton. That excavation was done by
the old corporation.
Mr.. Thurman. The benefit remains under
| the new improvement
Mr.. Stanton. It was increased.
Mr.. Thurman. / only wanted to know what
was your Interpretation of the law.
| Mr.. Mattingly. The law was to reimburse
the old corporation. Our understanding of
the act was that it was to reimburse the board
for work done by the old corporation.
| Mr.. Thurman. Whether that work contrib
uted to the existing work or notl
Mr.. Mattingly. think so. The work that
was done was regarded as beneficial at the
| time.
Mr.. Stanton In this particular case the
United States got the benefit of what was
done, and retains the benefit of what was done
by the old corporation.
! Mr.. Thurman. Let me put q case by way
| of illustration. Suppose that street had been
paved on the natural ground without any ex-
cavation at all, or any material excavation,
had been graded and paved and needed no
grading of any consequence, and, under the
new system Of Improvements It was necessary
to exeavate that three feet, and 1t is excavated
three feet, and the old pavement torn up, and
| o new pavement laid, is 1t your understanding
that the act of Congress was intended to pay
for the old pavement which was entirely
thrown away7
Mr.. Stanton. am not aware that any such
case has occurred. have not examined the
act TO ascertain what would be the proper con-
struction Of it.
Mr.. Mattingly. Colonel Samo informs me
that the construction put upon it in q case of
that sort was that it was only the labor OF TAX
| ing 1t up.
Mr.. Thurman. That would be part of the
new work-the labor of taking it up-it would
be part of the improvement as much as any
other excavation. But understand It is only
claimed that where the old work was subsid-
iary to the existing work there, the Govern
ment would Lot pay for it.
Mr.. Stanton. That was the case with refer
ence to Maryland avenue.
| BY Mr.. Wilson: Q. Did you see any eyi-
dences of rock excavation at any place where
you have examined A. None except bowl
would occur--appear TO be present.
O. Is that what you call rock excavation
A. do not know what constitutes the items
of rock excavation as find them. in here, but
if you were to address the question to me,
would say that everything that is too large to
hhsa re9oyed With reasonable ease without being
blasted or broken up, is considered rock.
Q. Did you see any evidence of anything of
that kind in the places where you werei A. /
did. - . .-..- .---.-..-y
O. Where? A. Isaw bowlders of that kind
deposited in the work beyond P-street circle on
New Hampshire avenue. If recollect Alright,
believe that is the place. -ET
@. Is that one Of the places where rock ex-
vations is charged fort A. There is rock ex-
cavation charged for in New Hampshire ave-
nue-in part of it. E1
Q. In any place else A. There was rock
excavation charged in Maryland avenue.
| @. Did you see any evidence Of rock excava-
ton there? A. saw no pieces of rock nor
anything of the kind; yet It Is not unlikely.
The character of material may be such that
occasionally you will and such bowlder in it,
although there was not much gravel appearing
in Maryland avenue anywhere, and you only
find those In diluvial formation OF that kind.
| q hid Won And anv differences In the matter