National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-14
The Chairman. He can answer tina. que.

cavation aud the pavement, eotn Ino soau
pavement and the brick pavement, ana puFI,hs
Board of Publio Works showed to the lnvesd-
eating Committee of the House OF Representa-
lives some two years ago, taking the prices
they showed they paid for this work, find
that, instead Of S7G2, as was charged in this
bill, It comes to s4.5z-S5, difference of about
s2.50 front foot. rs
BY Mr.: Merrick: Q. That comes to a grand
difference upon your whole frontage of what
A. About S375, or somewhere along there.
BY the Chairman: Q. Were ali others on
that street charged in the same proportion! A:
In the same way, as far as can ascertain. l
have seen several bills. .--...
The Witness: Ask me something about the
gradingi
By Mr.. Merrick: Q. What about the gradingl
A, The earth taken from that street was cut
out from to fleet below the original grade,
before the established grade, and, In doing that
It injured the property ON the street very
materially. The earth taken out of that street
was hauld down between that and the canal.
They filed up the low streets down In that part
of the city, streets which were far below the
grade; and In view Of tho fact that this earth
was taken from F street to I'LL up those low
streets, (taking It out OF street was great In
jury to that street, asked that the cost Of ex-
csystion should not be charged to street, but
received the benefit by the excavation.
By the Chairman: Q. Then in your estimate,
you charged nothing for excavation A. You
find in that estimate that / deducted the
amount of excavation from this 81 reducing
1t to SS.57. Now ask me something about the
curbing and brick.
By Mr.. Merrck: Q. Suppose you did not de-
ductl Suppose it was charged properly to the
street where the excavation was made, then Is
or is not the measurement erroneous A. Ger
tsinly.
O. Tie measurement is still erroneous? A.
Yes, sir; allowing for excavation-the earth
has been excavated-and paving, there is still
difference of $3.50 foot.
BY Mr.. Stewart: @. Did you measure the
whole street? Yes, sir; from Seventeenth to
Twenty-second street.
o, Did YOU make any allowance for nom
assessable property on the street, A. There
was none there.
O. Did you make any allowance for the in
tersection of streetsi A. Oh, yes, sir; made
all that.
Q. There was no worcestershire property on
the street, A. No, sir; there is piece OF Gov
ernment property at the corner of Seventeenth
and F, Winder's building, and presume that
was assessed like private property. do not
know the fact, but l counted that as private
property
O. There were no school-houses or other nom
assessable property A. No, sir; there is no
charge of school houses, or anything but pri-
vate property, the whole length of it, and
great deal of it is improved by good houses.
By the Chairman: Q. Have you paid your
assessment A. No, sir.
O. Have they generally paid on that street?
A. have not heard of but one-one or two
cases.
Q. Do they all regard their assessment as
excessiyel A. Yes, sir; the whole of them;
even those who have paid.
By Mr.. Mattingly: @. The result of your
measurement, as understand it, is that your
bill is about 60 per cent. more than it ought to
bel A More than that. Allowing these gen
tlemen had a right to take the earth from T
street, and taking 1t to some other street, and
charge the cost of F street, the difference
against us Is 81 so foot, but taking the ground
this earth taken from F STREET.-THE those
other streets, and charge 1t to those other
streets, and not to F street, then that would
reduce the cost to 3.57; then deducting again
the value of the old curb and the brick, which
were taken from that street and moved away,
and which l understand is estimated to be
worth 81 a foot, it reduces that estimate to
So AZ per front foot, instead of seven dollars
and sixty-two one-hundreths of cent, as
charged in the bill.
Q. It is about 2GO per cent? A. No, sir; it is
not 2G0 per cent; it is about two-thirds the
amount.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. WRIGHT.
John w. Wright sworn:
By the Chairman: Q. State what you know
about G street, north of the Interior Depart
ment! A. cannot remember dates very well
but got q clause put into the appropriation
bill to improve G street, between Seventh and
Ninth streets, providing the property holders
would pay for improving half of the street.
Q. What appropriation billl A. The appro-
In. Of Il notf aTTnnT haF
the exact amount.
Q. When was thisl A. 1t was the first year
that General GIANT came into office.
Q. Before the organization of the Board OF
Public Worksi A. Yes, sir; Secretary Cox did
nothing with that appropriation. The next
year got it renewed, provided the property
holders would pay one-half. Mr.. Delano came
into Office and took steps to try to get the
street improved. got an act of the city Of
Washington passed, ievying tax on the prop.
erty on the north side of the street for one-hah
of the improvement. Well, we all got together
and agreed to pay it. Whether Mr.. Delano
was afraid of me, or me of him, do not know,
but at all events, he felt very shy about making
the improvement without we all signed paper
giving the contract out. / examined the mat
ter very critically, and he gave the contract out
for the improvement of the street from Seventh
to Ninth street on G.
Q. Mr.. Dclano! A. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What has all this to do with
our investigation
Mr.. Merrick 1t will be found to connect it.
self afterward with the Board of Public Works
The Witness. This man got the contract. !
have seen him around here in town.
Q. Do you know his name2 A. No, 1 don't.
see him here frequently In town. 1 think he
is from Chicago. l can't remember names
This contract 1 paid very particular attention
to, to see that there was no cheat in it.. II
was for nine thousand and some odd dollars
At the end of the time went up to see how
much the Government had paid, and the Gov.
e eminent has paid 81, 500, as appeared by Mr.
| Taylor's books. l waited for my assessment
| to come. owned about-me and my SON
prise, when it came, It came in the name Of an.
other man; not in the name Of this man con
| tracted with.
Q. What was the name of the contractors
| A. forget bis name.
Q. What was the name of the other mani
A. Something pretty near like "Fillibuster."
Mr. Merrick. Filbertl
The Witness. l believe that was 1t; something
of that kind.
By the Chairman: Q. It began with an s'F7'
A. There was some "Fille" about 1t at any rate
Well, didn't understand it-but have got
little ahead of my story. After the Board o
Public Works was organized concluded It wa
not right for US fellows on G street to pay hal
Of that improvement and the Government Il
pay the other half; so l went to my frient
| Stewart here and drafted little bill, and the,
| put it through, putting two-thirds of this i'm
provement on G street on the District. Well,
could not see how the Government, having pait
the 81, 500-one-halfo of it-and the District two
thirds of it, which would make the whole and
little over, that they would then whop dow
upon us poor property holders for another thin
Of it. You understand me, don't you, gentle
| menl
Mr.. Huboell. think do.
The Witness. First and foremost the Gov
eminent paid one-half of it.
By the Chairman Q. Then the District pal
two-thirdsi A. WhCn I found this Board 9
Works coming in, and they were going t
''sock" the District two-thirds Of all, though
1t perfectly right that G street should come
and be paid too.
Q. And it was 80 paidi A. don't say that
because don't know.
O.. You don't know about that A, NJ Pfit
G street was turned over to the BOAR IL
lie Wnrks -tba-ssss>s--zht Us tne Otner street
they had to pay two-thirds. know the Coy
ernment paid half.
Q. But do you not know whether the Dill
trict paid the two-thirdsl A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether the property
holders paid snythingl A. l haven't. hay
the bills here in my pocket.
/ Q. For how much of that improvement a
| think it is