New-York tribune., 1874-04-09
WASHINGTON.
THE DISTRICT INQUIRY.

EVIDENCE THAT PAVEMENT KNOWN TO BE WORTH
LESS WAS LAID WITH THE CONSENT OF GOV.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS DEALINGS WITH CON
TRACTORS.
lBr TELEGRAPH TO THE TRrBUNE.I
WASHINGTON, April S.-Mr. QUinby of Chicago,
who has superintended the laying Of wood pave
ments in Washington, told the District Invcstigat-
ing Committee very interesting story this morn
ing. lie was the man who had charge of the work
done by DE Golyer & Mcclellan on Pennsylvania
ave-, East, and Eighth-st in 1872, contract
ing 100000 yards of pavement, which was profit
able that the contractors it is reported paid 100000
to obtain It, Mr.. Qunby described this De Golyer
No. Pavement and the method of laying it, and
then submitted an temized statement of its cost to
tho contractor, which amounted, after paying for
all the material labor mperntendence &c, to just
81 % yard. The Board paid So 80 q yard,
or profit to the contractor Of So
yard. The work on this contract was begun
in july, 1872, but the contract not
executed until the following October. That instru-
ment when it was drawn, contained aproyision that
the contractor should do without extra charge two
feet of grading but the Board had previously made
q contract with Peter Mcnamara to do the grading
on this avenue, and the settlement vouchers show
that no deduction was made from tho amount paid
De Golyer g. Mcclellan on account of this grading,
from which they were thus released. The grading
done on the avenue was on an average, three feet.
For this the Board paid Peter Mcnamara 40 cents o
cubic yard for excavation, and 4S cents cubic yard
for hauling, the amount being in round numbers
about $4,000. Two-thirds of this ought to have
been charged to the contractor, but was not. De
Golyer d Mcclellan did do a little grading on
Eighth-st., and Mr.. Qunby's time book, which he
produced showed that this had required the labor
of 40 men not moro than 10 days. Five hundred
dollars, Mr.. Quinby said, would have been large
| allowance; the Board paid for it Sl,2OO.
The wood used in this contract wcs treated by
what is known as the ironizing process. The value
of this process of treating wood had not at that
time been tested. In July or August, 1873, street
superintendent in Chicago called Mr.. Quinby's
attention to the fact that wood treated according to
this process, and put down in Lake-st, Chicago, two
years before, was badly decayed. A careful exami-
nation showed that the process used promoted
rather than retarded the decomposition of the wood
Mr.. Quinby then took some of the blocks and
brought them to Washington, and showed them to
Mr.. Shepherd, who said that it would not require
much argument to convince the Board that the
pavement was worthless He also took up some of
the blocks that he had laid tho year before, and
found them rapidly decaylng. Ho showed these to
attention of the Board and fled with them a copy
of certificate by the Chicago superintendent that
the pavement had proved worthless there the Board
issued an order that no more OF this wood should be
laid.
De Golyer e. Mcclellan were in great distress
and called upon their Congressman, Mr.. Farwel of
Chicago. to help them. They told him that they
had on hand in Washington, $685. worth of ma
teral, and begged that he would come to Washing
ton and ask Gov. Shepherd TO allow them to use
that up. If he wonfd do so they would give up the
remainder of their contracts Mr. Farwell came to
Washington saw Gov. Shepherd, and got permission
for the contractors to go with their work. This
SG5 600 worth Of material would lay about $10S0O0
| worth of pavement. and this used up after the
Board knew that the pavement was failure and
showed signs of decay the first year.
Mr.. Farwell, who appeared before the Committee
to make his statement in relation to the matter said
that he never got any fee or emolument of any
kind, and that he came to Washington at great in
convenience. The important point of this
testimony as it now stands. is that Mr.. Shepherd at
the request Of member of Congress, allowed
worthless pavement to be laid to the amount of more
than $4,000, after the failure of the pavement
had been demonstrated, and the Board had voted to
| discontinue its use
Board, was upon the witness stand for the first time
| this afternoon, and was questioned with regard to
| the Boards dealings with the contracting firm OF
| Filbert 81 Taylor. who did largo amount of work
| last year. This firm contracted to do the grading
and paving on Est, and their contract, like all
| Others, required them to do two feet of grading
| without pay that being considered as part
| of the paving Mr.. Willard admitted that by
! an understanding between the contractors
| and himself, the former were paid for this
! two feet of grading, and the price was increased
from 40 cents to 80 cents cubic yard. Mr. Willard
said that this done to pay the contractors for the
extra expense of excavatng underline street railroad
| track. An examination of the vouchers showed that
the contractors had originally omitted the two feet
of grading from their bill, and had charged the
Board but 40 cents yard and that the bill had been
changed both as to amount and az to price. Mr. Will
lard also admitted that the money to pay the Janu-
ary interest on the District bonds had been raised
by hypothecating sewer bonds in New-York, but he
could not tell how it was that the District Govern
| ment which is separate and independent from the
Board of Public Works, got these bonds, which
| belong to tho Board. He knew of no formal action
Of the Board on the subject. 1t was shown from the
Boards report to-day that they have been In the
habit of charging tho United States 80 IS square
yard for road pavements that cost but 80 80
THE SOUTH CAROLINA FRAUDS.
REPLY OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA DELEGATION TO
THE CHARGES OF THE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
FACTS ENTIRELY IGNORED.
Bf TELEGRAPH THE TRrBURE.l
w.sUIyGToy Anril 8-The delegation sent here