National Republican., 1874-06-01
PMATTINGLY'S ARGUMENT.
4 CONCISE AND rRUTHFUL view OF
TEE FACTS.

|
CONSTRUCTION OF THE ORGANIC ACT
The POWERS OF THE BOARD UNDER 1T
THE LEGISLATIVE APPROPRIATION BILL
EXTENDING THE FOUR MILLIoNs-THE
SEWERAGE ACT ExPoUNDED.
Gsstlersen Of tbs CoDsnlittes: Ny purpose In
this argument Is briefly to review the alleged
violations Of law claimed by the counsel for the
memorialists to have been committed by those
to whom the management Of affairs In this
District has been intrusted. Congress having,
under the Constitution, the power to exercise
exeIlstYe legislation in this District, saw fit,
by the act approved February q, 1871, 70 radi-
cally change our form of government, and BY
said act authorized the appointment BY the
President offs Board Of Public Works, consist
ing Of the Governor and four other persons.
The act provides that "the Board Of Public
Works shall have entire control of, and make
all regulations which they shall deem necessary
for keeping in repair, the streets, avenues,
sllefs, and sewers Of the city, and all other
works which may be intrusted to their charge
by the Legislative Assembly or Congress" :"
The new District government went into opera
ton on the LIST day Of june, 1871. The Board
ofPublic Works from the first was bitterly op-
posed by some few of our citizens who enfleay-
ofed, through the courts and in other W aYs, to
Impede and obstruct It In the execution Of its
designs. Notwithstanding this opposition, and
although two Congressional investigators have
been had In response. TO the hue and cry Of the
enemies of the board, occupying about six
months of the time, yet within less than three
years the city of Washington, from having been
q national disgrace, has, by the wonderful
energy and ability of this Board Of Public
Works, aided and encouraged by the large
majority of citizens, been converted into the
most beautiful city of the country, worthy to
be the nations capital, and an object of pride
10 all from every section.
While those gentlemen who have seen fit to
memoTialiZe the bodies Of which you are men,
bers arc compelled to admit that this is true;
while they further admit that they have utterly
failed to prove the slightest degree of fraud or
corruption against the members of the board
which would alone justify you in making the
Recommendation they ask, yet they say that
while all this is true we are not convinced, our
suspicious are still aroused. although we have
failed to prove the facts alleged, we still believe
them to be true. And you, gentlemen, are
still asked, as you have been throughout this
tedious investigation, to accept their suspicious
for proof Of what, they suspect; and if you
won't do that, then the claim Is that you
should condemn the gentlemen composing the
Board of Public Works as unworthy longer to
hold the office which they have filed, and
brand them as traitors TO the trust conhded TO
them because they have committed some few
alleged violations of law.
Section 81 Of the organic act provides as fol-
lows:
And said Board Of Public Works shall have no
the payment OF any sum OF money except in pur-
suance OF appropriations made by law, and not
until such appropriations shall have been made.
1. 1t is claimed that this provision has been
violated In this that the Board of Public Works
submitted to the Legislative Assembly 4 plan
of improvement which was made the basis of
the appropriation Of 81 ,000, 900, and that said
plan was not carried out by the board In &C
eordance with its details and specifications ::
and further, that other contracts OF the board
beyond the amount contemplated by this act
have been made In the absence of any appro-
priation made by law.
It might be q sufficient answer to this charge
to say that IL the board has made a contract
not in pursuance Of appropriations made by
lawS then the District is not bound for their
payment. But we do not place our defence
upon any such GROUND. The four million act
provides in express terms that the money shall
be used "as fully as may be practicable and
consistent with the public interest, in conform
ity with the plan ofimproyement." The proof
in the case shows that the board deemed il ad-
Visable, to narrow the carrisge-ways Of the
streets, and then put down q smooth pavement
at about the cost Of much inferior pavement
designated in the plan; other Improvements
that were made were but an extension and en-
largement Of the plan, aud in general conform
ity with it.
In the prosecution Of ne improvements II
was inevitable that work should be done by
the board around Government property; other
wise there would have been breaks in the work
on almost every street in the city. The work
was therefore done, and the justice and equity
Of the claim relied on 10 secure its payment.
Reports have from time % time been made to
the Legislative Assembly of the District and to
the Government of the United States, showing
what had been done and what was contem-
plated to be done by the board.
So universal was the appreciation of the
merits and importance Of the work done, that
both the Legislative Assembly and Congress
have, from time to time, made appropriations
for its payment. Take Mr.. Shellabarger's own
figures, and let US see what is the result. He
says the plan prosecuted has already cost
SIS, ST., ,565.1, (page Is of his argument
This amount is derived from pages 4G4 and 465
of the Governors answer, as follows. Total
amount of certificates issued, SIT ,546, ,654 90;
estimate of cost to complete contracts, 81 ,325,-
Gil .62; total, SIS, ,S72, ,565.1. He admits,
(page SO of his argument,) appropriations by
the Legislative Assembly, amounting to ST.
&c, ,92l .21S add to this appropriations made by
Congress, 50, ,522, ,946.1s; assessments on pri
yste property, (429, reeord,) S., 5,217 ,561 40;
to this should be further added the amount
due by the United States, (page 460, Gov
ernor's answer which, at the lowest estimate,
making allowances for every objection made
throughout the investigation, would amount
to S3, SOC, ,O00 making total Of SIS, ,SG1 10,
which fully justifes the statement made by tie
Governor, that with the assessments and the
amount justly payable by the United States.
the entire Indebtedness Of the board could be
liquidated.
It IA true in the above amount of appropria-
tions by the Legislative Assembly there is in
,cluded the sum of S260, 200 which ought not
to be, because It is included in the 81 900 900
appropriation, being the discount on sale of
bonds. But, on the other hand, Mr.. Shella-
barger has included in his charge against the
board upward of one million dollars payable
by special appropriations by the Legislative
Assembly, so that the margin is largely in his
favor. Again, with equal unfairness, he OBJ
jects to the appropriation for main sewers
being credited in this account to this board,
when he charges in his statement Of the cost
even the amounts yet to be paid by the board
The learned counsel for the memorialists
charges the board with the cost of all work
done around the Government property, and
does not credit it either with the amount due
by tho United States, or even the amount paid.
Common fairness would have suggested thst,
unless the credit was given, the cost of the
work should not have been included in the
charge.
1t is objected, also, that in this estimate the
assessments against private property should
not be treated as an appropriation. That they
should be so treated cannot surely admit of
any doubt. Take as an illustration the first
appropriation act by the Legislative Assembly
of 81, ,000,0 900. This was based upon the
"plan" which contemplated an expenditure of
81, 900 900. The law provided for an assess
ment of one third (Which would have been
81, 600, ,000) on private property, and the re-
naming 100000 were appropriated in
money.
According to the theory that assessments are
not to be considered as appropriations, under
this act the board would only have been author
lied to have work done to the extent OF
s. ,000, 900. If so the money appropriated
would pay all lawful contracts, and private