National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-06
,out that, however; do not think it was

tised for patent payements; the concrete is a
patent pavement, the same as wood, and In
order to contract for 1t, as q matter of course,
we must secure the right to lay it.
=. As citizen, you are familiar with the
public documents of the Board of Public
Works.! A. Only SO far as published.
Y. were you not aware Of the fact that they
had in express terms pronounced against patent
improvements of all kindsl A. think not az
that time. Well, that may be. Now would
state, you talk about the purchasing stone
crusher; there was q larger amount of macadam
work to be done, and that stone-crusher was
really bought directly with reference to that
macadam.
Q. You do not apply that, Of course, to the
steam-rolIerl A. Yes; to the steam-roller also.
Q. thought you spoke of the stone-crusher.
A. The crusher also.
O. They were both bought for macadam
pavement A. Yes, sir.
@. Did not you AMI your associates believe,
when you submitted your bids to the Board of
lowest bidderi A. Yes, sir; that was my idea.
Q. And you had no otheri A. had no
other.
Q. And It was not for the purpose of inform
ing the Board of Public Works, that you made
this bid7 A. No, sir.
Q. To what extent did you purchase asphalt,
or arrange for asphalt A. None. We went
around to the importers of It in regard to the
prices; we made no purchases at all.
Q. Did you not negotiate with s. NJ Pike for
certain patents that he had control of, for con-
crete pavement In the city of New York; A.
No, sir.
q. Did either Of your associated A. Not that
am aware of.
Q. You were not advised of that factl A. No,
sir.
Q. Did you with any other person in New
York; A. No, sir.
Q. Did you In Philadelphia A. No, sir; do
not know Mr.. Pike at al.
Q. mean with any other person in New
York; A. did, for an asphalt pavement. Not
at that time, however.
Q. At any time prior to the letting of the
Board of Public Works. A. Yes, sir. ..
Q. Did you in Philadelphia A. We did with
DR.. Hilbert.
Q. And no other personsl A. No other per-
sons.
Q. Why was It that you made these extern
sive arrangements prior to that lettingl A. To
be ready for contracting; no other purpose.
Q. What assurance had you that you ever
would receive any of these awardsl A. None,
whatever.
Q. And yet you invested in these to the ex-
tent mentioned in his letter without any as
surance whatever that you would receive an
award? A. Without any assurance whatever,
either directly or indirectly.
Q. You were subsequently a member of the
Washington Asphalt Company! A. Yes, SIR.
There was no company organized; but had an
interest in 1t, believe.
Q. You were also president of the Metropolis
Pavement Company, as you here stated A.
Yes, sir.
Q. All your contracts required you to keep
your pavement in repair for three yearsl A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Do you consider that you obtained no ad-
vantage in being allowed each to go surety
upon bonds for the otherl A. think not.
Q. You stated, in former examination, that
you were assessed at rate then mentioned,
and that you had interests in stocks' A. Yes,
sir.
Q. And also certain interests in real estate.
l desire to know what stocks you estimate as
making a portion of your wealth, which you
stated to be $50, 000l A. Well, 1 do not know
that it is necessary that should state what
stocks own Of every kind.
Mr.. Mattingly. think I must object to
that.
mr.. Christy. will submit this question to
the chairman. / asked Mr.. Clephane this
question; to what stocks he referred when he
stated that he had stocks and estimated them
at q value in order to arrive at his aggregate
wealth at the time these awards were made,
or at least the contracts entered into and bonds
given. l want to ascertain whether he is cor
rect in that statement, prcfacIng by saying that
he appears to have gone as surety upon those
bonds to very large amount, when at the
same time he was upon those bonds as princi-
pal, aggregating together SS17 900. also laid
as part Of the foundation the fact by the tes-
timony of the witness that these pavements
were required to be kept In repair for three
years. deem 1t circumstance of Importance
to show certainly that these parties were very
largely favored by this arrangement.
The Chairman. You are asking the question
with view of sScertaining the responsibility of
Mr.. Clephane.
Mr.. Christy. Yes, sir.
Mr.. Jewett. Do you want to show that he
misrepresented the value of his property
Mr.. Christy. No, sir; but 1 want to show that
the assessed value of his estate at that time
was only sig, 900, and yet he was allowed to
incur liabilities to the extent of S317, 900.
Mr.. Hubbell. Would his stocks be assessed
Mr.. Christy. No, sir; that is the very reason
of my inquiring as to their value. Perhapsw we
may eliminate all the difficulty from this.
To the Witness. Did you estimate In that the
amount of stock you held in the Metropolis
Paving Company! A. Yes, sir.
Q. You say that you were charged with the
duty of distributing that stock2 A. Yes, sir.
Q. l ask you, now, if the reason for that was
not because there were controversies between
the company and various persons as to their
right to receive the stock? A. Yes, sir; l
stated that, think. Some claimed stock that
we did not think should have it.
Q. There were persons claiming an interest
in that stock that you were not willing to recog-
nize! A. Yes, sir.
Q. What services had they rendered for the
company A. We did not consider that they
had rendered any.
Q. Did they claim that they had rendered
servicesl A. do not know that they did.
la, Nl.ke
eat in these pavements with the other parties,
and we declined to recognizeit.
Q. Were there any of these parties who
claimed that they had rendered services IN OBJ
tanning the passage of these bills through Con-
gress for the paving of Pennsylvania avenue
and N street, A. do not know that there
was.
Q. You say that you subsequently gave to
Matthew EMERY A. do not, sir.
Q. Samuel EmerYl A. That was It, sir.
Q. You say that you gave him certain
amount of stocki A. Yes, kirt- 3
The Chairman. All these transactions took
place long before the Organization of tn DE-
trict government. Unless ydu wish to connect
it in some way with this tuYsstigation, do not
think j is proper -. t,,;,s.. ,,r,..s
gard to this transaction With Sapuel Emery.
>AS 49,. 1ON SeH ~ w %1fHSSs% ~
would be doing Mayor Emery to undertake 70
investigate That question in bis ABSENCE you
certainly see that. - q
Mr.. Christy. But It is the committee that
have gone into the subject. -
Mr.. Hamilton. Well the committee have
Travelled out of the record good deal. The
counsel ought to show thsp q better ext
ample. -
The Chairman. suppose that matter may
have come out incidentally that Mayor Emery
Mr.. ChrIsty. 1 Will ask the question dlfsct,
whether Mr.. Emery was not ops Of The com.
missioners under whom N street wis paved at
the timel do not want 10 do injustice 10 any
one, and It may correct itselh q
The Chairman. 1t seems TO me that e would
be an injustice to Mayor Elnefy to Investigate
that now. That was all done before Che Board
of Public Works came into the eIatninstioh:
Mr.. Jewett. The question OF the committee
as to that point was 70 see whether that stock +,
as held by the different parties, was held in
good faith. That the witness explained.
Mr.. Christy. There was an inquiry made as to
Mayor Emery.
Mr. Jewett. Not to-day; not since have been
here.
Mr.. Wilson. No, no; I asked whether Mr..
Emery held stock in his own right, and the wit
ness answered that he held 1t IN his own. That
is my recollection Of the question.
Mr.. Christy. l agree with the committee
that the question is not one Of any gravity as to