National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-07

one, compared with this one; this one was
| fatal to the bid, in my opinion; and the Attor-
nsy General decided that that was an inform
atty, which could not be accepted where the
bonds were perfect, and 1t applied more
strongly TO this case. RI
Q. Then the result of the advice of the attor-
ney OF the District, and Attorney General was
the increased cost TO the District A. There is
no doubt of that-s60, zoe.
Q. Are you not aware of the fact that Thomas
Evans appeared before Governor Cooke, and
then offered to sign his name to these propo-
salsi A. No, sir.
@. And to make any condition that might be
required A. No, sir. 1 have no remem-
brance of Thomas Evans whatever. l do not
remember ever to have seen him.
Q. AMI II such offer were made, 1t was not
made in your presencef A. No, sir; have
not the slightest remembrance of meeting him
at all. have no doubt he did go to my office
and saw him, but cannot remember IL.
| O. Are YOU able to state the cost Of the lay
ing of this MANI A. No, sir; made the award
for the laying of it, but did not bring the papers
| In that case.
o. It was laid under the direction of General
Babcock7 A. Yes, sir. .... go
Q. It cost the District government, think,
something over half a million dollars, did 1t
notl A. Very likely, sir; 1 do not remember.
@. The entire cost was paid by the govern
ment of the District of Columbisl A. pre-
sumo So sir; was relieved from the WASH
fngton aqueduct when went on duty to CALI
i fornia.
By Mr.. Stanton: @. On page 1124I find
statement by Mr.. Evans, expressing belief In
the existence of a ring which controlled the
letting of that contract, and he expressed the
| belief that If he had belonged to the ring he
would have got the job. Did you then, or do
you now, know anything Of the existence Of
ring which controlled or attempted TO control
the letting of that contract A. No, sir; as far
as can remember nobody ever mentioned 1t,
and had no communication with anybody in
regard to that contract, except Governor
Cooke, with myself and the Attorney General,
whom tried to convince as have stated.
Q. Mr.. Alderman was Attorney General at that
timel A. Yes, sir. 81:
J. c. LAY RECALLED.
By Mr. Mattingly: Q. Mr.. Thomas Evans in
his testimony has collated from the reports of
the board some instances in which the board
has bought sewer pipe at tfty-nye cents foot,
and charged it to contractors at lightweight
cents. Explain that matter to the committee,
IL YOU please. A. We had regular list of prices
established by the board the cost prices Of
the pipe. The six inch was so much, the ten
inch was so much, according to the regular list.
l believe the price had been printed already.
This pipe was charged in the bill. We will take
twelve-inch pipe for instance. 1t was charged In
| the bill at lightweight cents; that is, it went
to the cost of the street at lightweight cents.
The pipe that was furnished to the contractor
on that same bill was deducted from him at
sIxty-ive cents, the board price for the pipe.
The street was charged for 1t at lightweight
cents. The contractor was never charged any
thing but the price of the pipe.
| By Mr.. Merrick: Q. The street was charged
higher price than the contractor A. You
misunderstood me, sir. For instance, If you
will get a measurement, we will say 500 feet OF
twelve inch pipe at IS cents foot. That IS
cents includes the furnishing and the laying OF
that pipe. We furnished the pipe to the con-
tractor, and we deducted that 500 feet from
the total of that bill at IS cents foot, allow
| ing him % cents for laying the pipe.
| By Mr.. Mattingly: Q. And the difference,
then, was the amount allowed him for laying
the pipel A. Yes, sir; the q cents was the
amount allowed to the contractor. The i'm
proyement, of course, was charged for the lay
| ing and the furnishing both, which was So
cents. Do l make it plant
| Mr.. Christy. o yes; think so.
By Mr.. Merrck: Q. see here now, for ex-
ample, something that does not correspond
exactly with your explanation. On table 20, in
the report of 1872, for D street north, Scotch
tiIe-pipe, twelve-inch, at so cents, and i'm
mediately below it, Laying, % cents see
2,O42 twelye-inch pipe, 80 cents" Immedl-
ately below, ''4l5 twelve-inch pipe; laying, %
cents; and 1915 xinch pipe; laying, 80 cents"
So that the cost of the pipe and the cost of lay
ing seem to be made by different items in this
schedule. There seems to be a distinction
made between laying the pipe and the cost of
pipe. A. If you will notice in the first column,
under the column of dimensions, you will find
that that % cents is for laying also.
Q. That is what say. l say find in your
tables these charges for laying and cost of pipe,
although you say that tie 80 cents cost of pi )e
includes laying. A. That does not refer TO
the same amount of .pipe. We furnished and
laid 2, 040 feet of twelye-inch pipe at 81 cents.
The other is an item of Ais feet of twelve-inch
pipe, which was laid only. The pipe was there.
1t must have been some piPS probably, that
was already on the ground, that had been
furnished or taken from some other street.
He only got paid for the laying of that pipe.
Q. The board supplies all these pipes, sup
pose, in all cases! A. Yes, sir. That might
have been case of only relaying the pipes, for
laying only; or it might have been old sewer,
for instance, that had been taken up there in
the course of the improvements, and simply
put back, relaid. We allowed him for the lay
ing only of the pipe when the pipe was already
there. can explain it more fully if get the
vouchers in this particular case, but am con-
ident that that is the proper explanation OF
the fact. The so cents would be the price OF
furnishing and laying at that date. That was
before January %, 1872; the old price list of
81 cents and the % cents made the so cents.
O. Then, in all the tables where there is no
distinct charge for laying, the charge for laying
is included in what is called the cost price OF
the pipei A. Yes, sir: the So cents means, in
all instances, the furnishing and laying; and in
all the vouchers you will find that the pipe has
been deducted from the contractor at the cost
price. 1t is a uniform price all the way
through. We have never made single dis
tinction.
Q. Then, when the contract Is settled for, he
is settled for at WHAT A. Twenty-three cents;
but we pu: it in at So cents, in order that the
| Improvements may be made.
| Q. So that the Board of Public Works may
be re imbursed in that mode for the cost Of the
pipe' A. Yes, sir.
B. oERTLY RECALLED.
By Mr.. Stanton: Q. When youleft the stand
the other day was about to inquire of you
whether the cost of work, as taken from the
vouchers, was based upon re-measurement OF
the work. In other words, whether a careful
re-measurement constituted the basis on which
payment was made and on which voucher
was issued! A. The vouchers are based on
very careful measurement.
| By Mr.. Jewett: Q. When were those meas
urements madel A. They were generally made
after-well, the final measurements-there
were measurements made during the course OF
construction, and then there was invariably a
final measurement made, very carefully, after
the completion of the contract.
| @. That schedule which you made out and
which you presented here in evidence, gave the
measurement of the work done; what street
was that? New Hampshire avenue or Penn
sylvania avenuel 1 mean the first item on
your schedule. A. think it was First street
west.
Q. Well, whatever street It was, you pro-
fessed to give to the measurement in that
scheduled A. Yes, sir.
Q. You then, on the opposite column, gave
the amount Of payment, as by the voucher
A. Yes, sir.
Q. In your testimony you said that your
measurement was wrong-the measurement as
evidenced by the paperl A. Yes, sir; 1t was an
approximation. The first measurement against
the Government was an approximate measure
ment.
Q. You were asked distinctly II that street
or work was ever again measured, and you said
no. You answered emphatically that there
never had been a second measurement A.
do not exactly understand you. Do you moan
the second measurement against the Govern
menti Of course there was q correct measure
ment when the payment was made to the con-
tractor.
Q. You were asked that question when you
were on the stand before, and you said that no
such measurement had been made. A. We'll,
fhnn 7 nertainlv unust hava mfsuDderst00d the