National Republican., 1874-06-01

| omethtng about thatf A. don't know.
Q. Who would be most likely to know how
ths. transaction wasl A. do not know that
\ anybody can tell you anything shout it except
the bOard-just what Z have stated. They
can tell you at the bank whether the account
was oyerirawn or not. = = 81 y
SyDon't you think you ght to be able to
tell us that nowt A. Not now, III
g S% notl A. Do you rscollect al the
q. Mott bit Oft, and would not try It; I
would Keep hooks. "A. Ny Impression is the
account was cyerdrawp, but Icsnnot teH how
much: probably SEQ, 900 or $25,0OO.
Q. Is 1t not the fact that there was distur-
bance created in regard to the condition of your
/ bank account, and had not the Comptroller of
the Currency been sending out bank exam
| liner to look into the affairs Of this bank, or
was not the bank anticipating he would be
there to look after this thing, and this arrange
ment was made, aud this money was used for
the purpose of getting your bank account
straight A. No, sir; not that know any
thing about. So far from that, you have
brought certain things to my recollection. Our
bank account was overirawn when he Was
there. 1 said to Mr.. Kelly had there in the
bank then quite number of bonds amounting
to 500, 900. -g ..-.-- ~. -,-,-.--.,- %, tt.r--
Q. What kind of bonds, A. District bonds.
! said to Mr., Kelley, "You can take these and
hold them as collateral until your account is
made good. They are in your bank. You can
take these in and show them to Colonel Moore.
Let him COUNT them If he, wants to, and show
him you have got ample collateral for our
overdrsft." Metzerott was making a fuss
since that about the oVerdraft, and settled 1t :.
Q. How did you settle IT. A. BY paying q.
part of 1t and giving our note for the balance
O., What did you pay 1t ini A. Part,ot II IN,
money. --... =. :, :
9: Did you use anything else in doing That
| A. No, sir. -'-'l 1.7 % : % ..--. = I
9; DID that money come out'of your SIS 900
Q. This Is the fact, I suppose, beyond all per-
adventure, that you used that City Hall money.
for your general purposesi A. Seventy thou
sand dollars; yes, sir. Five thousand dollars
we didn't. There is no question about that.
We would not have changed 1t.
By Mr.. Bass: Q. As l understand itfe2yl
account as treasurer has never been audited
A. No, SIR Frequently Mr.. Lay has gone over
and checked off. e.. ".
O. But there has been no regular auditing of
the account by the boardl A. No, sir
By the Chairman: Q. There has never been
any settlement between you and the auditor to
see how your account compares with his : A.
Yes, sir; we have done that. Compared my
account with his, and we agree.
O. How did you do that A. By taking all
the certificates / had-an my certificates.
O. Taking your vouchers and his vouchers
A. Yes, sir. He has got list of his certif-
Gates, from No. 1 up. have taken my certif-
Gates as far as they are paid, and compared
them with his books and checked them of,
and whenever there was 9 certificate number
Intervening, would let that stand He has
got list Of all the certificates.
WRIGHT RIvEs, RECALLED.
Q. understand that you have revised your
statements, or looked over them again, and
and also over the statements of Mr.. Oertly2 A..
have looked over Mr.. 0ertiy's statements.
Q. Have you anything that you wish to put
In in reference to ft . A. Yes.
Q. Have you the statement in writing' A,
Yes, sir; it is as follows:
In the testimony Of Mr. Oertly's, presented by
Mr.. Mattingly on Saturday he reviews my former
| statements and says that the total amount to be
charged to the United States for New York ave-
o2S IS. Now, respectfully refer the committee to
Mr.. uertlys testimony On page 1o7S, whore he
there states that the amount due By the United
SIS 49, o. deduoting this from the above, and we
have difference Of tl5, S4l.3S between his two
ststement& Iu table No. Is, report Board Of
Public Works, 1872 the total amount due By the
United States for Its portion Of the avenue is
| Ell, ,2lo.65. This statement Is the one that was
for its information, and purports 70 contain true
and accurate statement II was this report that
was presented TO the taxpayers for their informs-
PablIc works hare for the same avenue caused to
be made out andpresented 20 this committee three
different and widely different statements Is TO
the smount charged TO the United States, and
such being the case, am compelled TO believe
that other patches Of figures would be presented
as often as theirs were proved wrong. Now let us
examine his (Oertly's 80 last statement If to this
amount, go 02S.3 IS, we add the amount paid by
the property holders, table IS, B. P. W., 1s72)
S3S, ,eoss7. We have Sls2, ,oos.7T as the amount
collected in money by the Board Of Public Works
| for the cost Of the avenue. Now from this deduct
! the cost Of the avenue, $l12 81 and we have
yond the cost OF the street. The total cost OF the
street is stated In table to be el2 g. and this
is the same amount as stated BY Mr.. Oertly; but
| from 1t must be deducted the amount charged to
other streets and railroads, amounting to &, 23S
and this leaves ais, ,23s.s4 as the amount to be
Nov 20 Ss ss aSS ta
paid by United states, according TO Mr.. Osrtly's
last statement, viz, ss9 IS, and It leaves tit
deduct this rom tRs pad by pp
vste property holders, 93s 60e.S7, and II leaves
sls, ,S9e.SS, and this represents the amount COL
this must be sdded the amount charged TO gen
eral fund.- eo7 2l9I4 and We have ESQ 6l9 Il as the
amount collected ana charged BY the Board Of
| Public Works beyond the cost OF the streets. l
| should, In this connection, state the follow
ing, that l should have stated in my tes-
finished. the amount it cost was taocording to the
report OF the Board Of Public Works for 1872,
tables "a and 1s) sl2l All "a, divided ss follows,
and various streets Ss 2SS making in all t2s t43s5
Now, they deduct this from the total cost and it
leaves t9o o2s.l9. To this per cent. is added for
amount. to be charged as follows, viz: Two thirds
to general fund, so7, ,2l9T4; one third to private
property holders, SO $Ss;SoST; & Nov, after these %
mode ofassessment, and charged the United States
with the amount paid BY the general fund, and
received money for all avenues except Missouri
and Massachusetts. But, instead Of sppropris-
| ting this two thirds received from the United
States to repay the general fund. they made other
books @ and made % INQUIRE. of ofciaIs and cannot @
hnd that this amount has been used topsy the
/ amount charged to the general fund. Some OF
these avenues were finished IN 1877, but in the
port OF the Board Of Public Works ior 1878 no
mention is made OF the deduction OF this debt;
and not only this, but the general fund has been
| (exeept those mentioned and hence I claim that
they have Appropriated the two thirds received
trop the United States for purposes that their
their books, my former testimony was correct.
| Mr.. Oertly admits EsIncs he does not dsny) that
t0r materials l aO on this avenue the United states
testimony, p. 2o27 for New York avenue.)
PenngyEpdnfd Avsnue. 100
Mr.. Oertly states that he Is unable 70 state the
result Of my figures on this avenue, lpage 1901
"He (Riyes) states that the United States over
paid $57, ,24S9 9o." ] think made IL plain enough
to the committee and Governor shepherd. but Will
now state again that the Governors answer, page
have taken two thirds Of esd, ,soao5 and deducted
from II e1Il.14oSO, leaFlng v6b,@SAG.l instead OF
this he takes S39l 05 and deduots from 1t Sl7l
T4o. 80, and takes two thirds Of the difference and
has Sl46, 6,TI3.43-s difference of 957,2ls. .90-and l
claim, since IL 10 not correct, that it Is over
charge. (See my testimony, page 1907, bottom Of
page.l In reference TO the number Of feet on
Pennsylysnia avenue, the testimony Is printed
wrong, (page 2o27.) 1t should read, For square
west Of square "a" And since this square con-
tslned the greatest error I submitted diagram
to the committee and explained It. To rsoapitu-
late in brief the square has two lots on Pennsyl-
vaniA avenue, numbered and z No. contains
lSs feet inches No. contains 1oI feet Q inches,
and was divided as follows: 81 feet Q inches TO
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal Company for tow
path, leaving 20 feet Of private property. Now,
add this to the 13s feet Inches, and we have 2os
feet inches, instead OF IT'S feet 5 inches as in
table and since his frontage Of private property
is wrong, his quotient and results are wrong.
referred 70 no other square, and all the rest rela:
Ing TO squares are wrong, IS one can readily see
by reading the testimony.
--.-.- Connecticut Avenue.
In reply to Mr.. Oertly on this avenue admit
that base all my calculations on tho statement
that the avenue cost only tl10, ,575.43, and take
this statement from the report of the Board OF
Public Works for 1873, page 81, which states the
total cost Of this avenue as above stated; and n
this amount is not correct than say that the true
amount WAS purposely avoided, for this table 70
prepared with TOO much care to contain mistakea
(unintentional.l Mr.. Oertly states the auditor
gave him tls4, 1852 as the cost Of the avenue
IN this fG so then the amount forwarded to Con-