National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-22

ment of sctual cost to the Board Of Publi'
Works for sewers on street, between twenty
fourth and Twenty-sixth strcsts' northwest
put down at 50, 1880, aud the amount paid by
the United States as its share s., esd !S3; car
you tell how that difference arisesf A. I can
not
@. It would appear from this that the United
States paid nearly 5000 more for this sewer
than it cost the Board of Public Works! A.
This is what the records of the engineers Office
would show.
Q. That is shown by the records OF your
officer A. Yes, sir.
o. Do YOU know whether there is any old
sewer embraced in that that had been formerly
paid fort A. There is no old sewer about
there's .-s -" '-z-
Q. So that the discrepancy could not have
! arisen therei A. There is q difference in the
number Of linear feet, IS well as in the price.
There is no more than $40 feet there, while
there is charged 1855 linear feet.
Q. What did that sewer actually cost-that
300 and odd feetl A. Two thousand one hun
dred and twenty five dollars.
Q. At what rate have they charged that to
the Government A. Eight thousand and
ninety one dollars and eighty four cents.
Q. They charged an extra number of feet
and at what rate did they charge per foot7 A
They charged 1t at 81. 20, their average price,.
Q. That next item I find is q statement of
the actual cost of grading on Maryland avenue,
between First and Fifteenth streets northeast,
and the amount it cost the Board of Public
Works, as you have it here, is SS5, 40S.5 Sc, and
the amount paid by the United States is
sos, 020 50. A. That Is correct.
Q. How do you account for that discrepancy
A. cannot account for IL.
@. The next one is the cost to the Board Of
Public Works Of grading on New Jersey ave-
nue., between B and Z streets southeast; also
what has been charged for the same to the
Government, the amount, cost to Board Of
Public Works, sll ,015.95, and the amount paid
by the United States, s16, 6sS; how do you ac-
count for that A. cannot account for It.
have taken the records and made up the state
| ment.
@. On South Carolina avenue the cost to the
Board of Public Works seems to have been
| 81, 257 "a, and the amount paid by the United
States 80, 4S1.33, and you have made Q note
here, 'No grading done between Sixth and
Thirteenth streets, except this stated here: !"
How do you account for this discrepancy A.
made this note because It was difficult to part
the quantity between Sixth and Seventh streets,
and so found that the only grading on this
line was between Sixth and Seventh streets.
| OF course the contract between Sixth and
Thirteenth streets is Identical with the grading
between Sixth and Seventh streets.
| Q. In North Carolina avenue, between New
Jersey avenue and Fourth street east, you have
it here that the cost to the Board Of Public
| Works Is SO, S2l.70, while the amount paid by
the United States is S31 ,306.67. How do you
account for that discrepancy A. find it on
| the record.
y. Do you know of any way of explaining
how 1t happened that the United States paid so
much more money than Il actually cost A.
account for It perhaps in this way: this whole
street is large gravel-bank, and of course
before the Board Of Public Works came
there, and since Mr.. Barnes has been paid for
1t, everybody came there to take sand and
gravel, and Of course the trouble has been for
the Board of Public Works to keep them away
from taking that gravel without paying for it.
Now, according to my assumption, this whole
| street ought to have been a source OF revenue
10 the District, instead of q charge; but in
making up this account, right or wrong, l had
70 say that found that S9,S21.71 has been
paid on account of this grayel-bauk-to reduce
that grayel-bank, and the Government has
been charged, according to the Governors an
swsr, sSl 900. I suppose they fall in error,
perhaps, on this account, because all the gravel
which was taken away BY parties they made 1t
q charge. -- ,
Q. They measured that up and charged 1t to
the Government A. .hink so.
@. You think that must have been the way
In which IL was donei A. I could not account
| for il In a different way.
| Q. On Connecticut avenue you have Il that
the cost to the Board Of Public Works was
SIC ,933 OF, and that the United States has paid
S27, 281 20; how is that discrepancy accounted
for, If there Is any way Of accounting for III
A. It Is the same as the others. have taken
the records without taking the time to lind the
reason why.
Q. Do you know Of any reason why that
should be soi A. No; there is no good reason
why an engineer who has to deal with quaint.
ties and facts should assume anything.
1 Q. What, If anything, do you know in re-
gard 10 filing the canal; who did the work,
and how Il was paid for, aud how the charges
against the United States on that account
were madsi A. I do not know. In the engi-
4 neer's office, TO my knowledge, not single
voucher has been passed involving one cent In
/ niling up the canal. An account was kept by
4 an Inspector where various small quantities.
| do not think they would aggregate q thou
sand dollars or so-have been brought in from
different little parties who filled In some, but
the mass Of the filling came from the streets
and avenues. .ar ,-
/ Q. We had hero the other day lot OF
vouchers 10 favor of Gleason, very large
amount Of money for filing that canal; do you
know anything about thosei A. have here q
book, which is the Journal of the engineer
Office Of the Board of Public Works, where all
the letters received and the answers arc en-