Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1874-03-20

4
cost OF the contracts awarded to Lewis s. Fill
bert amounted TO S115, 5Sl 81, and the paymen :
made 10 him amounted to 1872 1915.
But none OF the contracts were given at any
| improper price, nor have any improper esti-
| mates or payments been made for auy or either
| of the parties named. All such allegations are
| made.
It'll. 1t is admitted that in contract number
! fl, made with John o. Evans, and in contract
4 number u, there Is a stipulation allowing the
use of old material which might be removed:
but this was allowed not for any advantage 10
the I'M, but because itwould facilitate the pro
| gress OF the work. 1t is denied that the board
agreed TO furnish TO them certain undesignatei
costly machinery owned by the District of
Columbia. to be used in the prosecuting of the
| Improvements by said contractors and without
charge. The fact is, the only machinery pur.
chased by the District government was one
steam roller, the use of which was accorded TO
any contractor needing II, he paving the eX-
penses of running it, but as respects the con-
tracts referred 10, the parties furnished their
own material, and did not use it at all.
IL is true that the following provision 0pro-
vided that partial payments may be made
under the direction OF the said party or the first
part otherwise than under the direction of the
said engineer, as provided above. if in the
opinion OF the said party OF the first part the
vigorous prosecution Of the work will be pro-
NOTED thereby" was not in the first printed
blanks of contracts, but il was Inserted in writ
ing, and embraced in the amended blanks of
contracts prepared by the attorney of the DIS
trict. But it is denied that said Evans aud his
associates were thus enabled virtually TO prose-
cute the Improvements without advancing any
considerable capital on their part, and to re-
ceiye pay in advance OF any inspection or est-
mate of the work done by them. And it is de-
MED that printed blanks with this provision
omitted was exhibited to bidders prior to the
list day of September. This provision was in
serted as its terms clearly indicate to and
promote vigorous prosecution of work which
had been delayed by litigation in the courts AMI
investigations, and which it became highly i'm
portant to have completed with the least posi-
bic delay, and will be found in other contracts
than those made with the said Evans and his
associates. 1t is denied that for the purpose of
assisting Evans and his associates, they were
permitted to become sureties for each 9th er
upon the bonds accompanying all the contracts
Ii is admitted that Lewis Clephsne executed
bonds attached to contracts number 2l3, Al, AS
~, q, l59, l9l, 81, 32, sggregating S17l ,OO0
but 1t is denied that the said Lewis Clephane Al
the time was not worth over SO 1000. These
bonds were taken for no sinister or Improper
purpose, but as in any other business transac.
ton, because the parties executing them were
regarded as good. The b0ndsnen were accept
ed only after critical examination by the leg Al
0fhcer OF the ID strict, to whom they were re-
feTred by order Of the board, and no loss has re-
suited on these contracts to the District.
1t is denied that exceptions were made 10
favor Evans and bis associates in regard to
keeping the improvements in repair, by pro-
yidiDg in the contracts Nos. IJ9 and 1874 that the
work should be kept in repair for one wear
These contracts amounted to Sl9,0lS 50. 1t il
DENIED that any arrangements were made with
the said Evans ard his associates injurious to
IDe publlc interest, or any knowledge withheld
from any party to whom it should nave been
communicated for the interests of the Distric;
with purpose to promote in any manner the
interests OF said Evans and his associates
Sth. 1t is denied that the board greatly aided
and assisted the said Evans and his associates
by unlawtully extending and enlargng the i'm
proyements to be made under their said con-
tracts. Contracts were originally given within
the limitation OF i've hundred thousand dollars
especially appropriated by the act of the Legis-
latlVe Assembly Of, and after wards, when the
four million loan was sustained, approved and
became available, contracts according to the
original intention were extended. The bonds
gwen for the original contracts were regarded
as sDffcient for the extensions.
IL Is denied that the board violated an express
act CT the Legislature Assembly in allowing al
dluonai compensation to that provides
IN the contracts to Lewis Clephane by in
creaslng the amount to he paid for grading
from twenty cents per cubic yard over tn
board prices established January %, 1872. Tn.
increase was general and applicable TO all con-
tracts, and made on the recommendation of tn.
engineer of the board, and deemed lust ami
proper, and IL less than as paid for similar work
IN other cities.
1t is denied that in any manner whatever to
aid and assist the said Evans aud his associ .tes
the board used its power, patronage. and inhG-
enCe to obtain the passage of an act entitled
IAN act creating drainage and sewerage sec
lions in the cities OF Washington and Ge0Ige-
town." and that by any act or purpose of the
board, the property purchased By Hallett xii
bourn and James M. Latta trustees. in the
northwestern portion of the said CITY of Wash
ington was made subject to tax of eleven mills
per square foot, while property of the memorial
lists and other citizens was subjected to tax of
twenty mills. This act referred to was regularly
passed by the legislative assembly, and its pro-
priety and validity, it is believed, were fully
considered by the members OF the legislature
prior to its passage. IL has been INDICATED in
the opinion obtained from the Hon. Caleb
Gushing and the Hon. Jeremiah s. Black, to be
found on pages 411-i77 of the Governors
answer. Thus it will be seen that by the terms
OF the act of the legislature section No. is
taxed seven mills per square foot, section No.
eleven mills, section No. 3 five mills section
No: twenty mills, section No. 5 twenty mills,
which assessment rs based upon the actual cost
OF draining these particular sections. 1t will
also De seen that the different rates were passed
Dy the legislature, and appear in the act re-
ferred to- and that this act was passed In accord
ance with the provisions of the section OF the
organic act allowing special taxes for special
10th. 1t is denied that for the purpose of aid
ing and assisting John o. Evans and his associ-
aies the board has disregarded the limitations
OF appropriation. 1t Ia admitted that in some
cases the actual cost has exceeded the estimated
cost, but this was the inevitable result OF tn
improvements carried on in the District, and
involved no violation of the duties OF the board
or OF any law of Congress or of the District
Inc estimates as made originally by the boaid
were general, and the act of the Legislative
Assembly OF July 10, 1871, allowed a dep arturo
thefefIo ON, as will appear from the first section
OF said law. (The section is here quoted) This
also appears from an extract from the report OF
the Investigating Committee of the House of
representatives made May -, 1872. (Fhe ex-
tract Is appended)
III b. This respondent denies that in order to
sun further aid and assist the said John o.
Evans and his associates that they have en-
tered into large number of contracts with the
said Evans and his associates for the LAYING
down, at vast expense to said District govern
ment, OF carrlageways upon the streets and ay-
enues OIL the cities OF Washington and George
town, In said District, long after the experience
OF those cities, and the experiments also of many
OF the great cities OF the United States, have
established their insuficiency, inutility aud
want OF durability; but, on the contrary, this
respondent states that In order to procure all
the lnfor nation and experience possible upon
the subject Of pavements, fully convinced that
the macadam and stone pavements were unfit
LOT use In capital city, where heavy teaming
Is exceptional, and that the eleanest, smoothest
ana most durable pavements were the
kinds needed for the District On the 10th OF
February following, as will be seen by refer
ence to the journal of the board, page 76, the
advisory board, consisting of General A. A
HuDphries, Chief Engineer United States
Army; General M. Q. Meigs, Quartermaster
General; General j. X. Barnes, Surgeon Gen
eIal; General D. e. Babcock, Engineer In
EEhaige or Public Buildings and Grounds; and