National Republican., 1874-05-16
DISTRICT INVESTIGATION.
CONTINUATION OF rRE TESTIMONY
OFF. BLICKERSDERRER. -s!

OF. BLICKENSDERFER. vs!
COMPARISON OF MEASUREMENTS WITH
ENGINEER RsAMo-DISCREPANCIEs FOUND
TO .ENIsT-SOME OF THEM IN FAVOR OF
AND OTHERS OPPOSED- To THE DISTRICT
ERHAEHT-COMPARISON OF AMOUNTS
PAID TO CONTRACTORS WITH THOSE
CHARGED THE UNIRED- STATES
Mr.. Mattingiy. He has 81 yards of wood
pavement, and you have none, and street curb
ing he has ,9S2 where you have :, ,S45. Those
are the only two cases where he has more tina II
you, and the difference is very small.
Witness. My sum is smaller than his
Q. Now your aggregate in doliarBi is less than
his, but your aggregate in amounts, It appears
to me, is larger than his, that is the reason do
not understand the difFerenceI A. He has
more street curbing than have. l have not
analyzed that to see, because ] carried out my
quantities only, and / thought correctly. am
perfectly willing TO have them examined.
The Chairman. MI. MattlnSly, after 1t is
printed you can see.
Witness was going to say there were IN
this case two of those intersections that
calculated. One of them has but little work
done upon 1t, the other is completed. One
amounts to $S4O.95, and the other to ST.
1881.
By Mr.. Stewart: Q. What is the comparison
counting those inf A. Counting them in,
make the quantity S153.39 less than he does.
Counting them out ] make it 81 ,767. .55 less
than he does. 1t is possible, Mr.. MRttingly,
may have made some error in extending these
things. o.
Mr.. Mattingly. ! shoald think it very likely.
Witness. II you had called my attention on
yesterday 70 this l should have gone over
these figures again.
Mr.. Mattingly. If had known it yesterday
Icertsinly would have done so.
The Witness. These are all the measure
ments I made of carriageways, sidewalks,
and paVements, and matters of this kind that
are visible, with one or two exceptions that
will appear as / 60 on. J. desired TO get some
points, if could, where could determine the
quantity Of grading, and institute a compan-
son, and l therefore next turned my attention
to these points, and selected somewhere. Ibid
not pay any attention to the carriageway, of
any consequence at least, and simply devoted
myself to the grading.
The Chairman. Take up those cases, if you
please, now.
The Witness. One of the first of those that
undertook was New Hampshire avenue. Do
you wish me simply to read my results, as
did before?
The Chairman. Yes, in your own way.
The Witness. In measuring New Hampshire
avenue / made the amount of embankment
67,654 yards, and the excavation GA 1858 yards;
the two together, 49,, ,512 yards. In this is in
cluded 23,279 yards between Fl and G
SJTeelS, near the lower emu Ol Tue dNGIut,
which was taken out by the contractor who did
the work on Virginia avenue and hauled into
Virginia avenue embankment, and paid for,
with slight exception that will appear here
after, as Virginia avenue work, leaving 109, ,233
yards for New Hampshire avenue, counting
excavation and embankment both. The charge
against the Government and in the Governors
answer is 149, ,4S4 yards, the difference being
40,251 yards, if you take excavation and
embankment both. OF the work on New
Hampshire avenue by referring to the Youch-
ers, there was allowed to the contractors on
grading, TO Mr.. Hulse, 446 yards Of rock at 81
yard; 13, IA yards Of grading at 80 cents;
II, $50 yards Of haul at 9 cents, amounting
altogether to s5,822.44. To Mr.. Fnbert, $500
yards of grading at 80 cents, and 1903 yards
of haul at 16L cents, amounting in the aggTe-
gate to S5,4G2 IS. To Mr.. Murray, 29, 1885
yards of grading at so cents, and 29, ,3S5 yards
of haul at 31L cents, amounting to 81 1888 81
aggregate, S29 ,0S3 90 paid to the contract
ors; but to this must be added 81 500 that was
charged TO this avenue out of payments made
to Mr.. Vandenburgh, who did the work on Vir-
ginia avenue, suppose, because he took
portion of the earth out of New Hampshire
avenue when he hauled it down to Virginia
aYenue-of course do not know the reason
making with that addition, total payments Of
S33, ,5SS .29 TO contractors for work on New
Hampshire avenue. The charge to the United
States Government is 149 ,4S4 yards of grading
at 40 cents; two thirds of it, ! should say,
amounting to S29, ,s64 40, being s6,2Sl II over
the total payments to contractors.
Q. Then the payments to contractors in
cluded the whole; the charge to the Govern
ment was only for two thirdsl A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then he should take two thirds of what
was paid to contractors and compare that with
what was charged 20 the Governments A. /
have made q statement of that kind just fol-
lowing here. have made an additional state
Al Nl.,t - r. sv,
cases have been actually overpaid. They have
been paid for larger quantities Of earth work
on this avenue than they actually performed,
or that can find by measurement, and so l
have made statement of that, which comes
next. The correct allowances to the contrac-
tors, as I think, to Hulse, 400 yards rock
grading, at 81; S,971 yards Of grading, instead
of what read before; $4,000 yards at, so
cents; {, ,437 yards of haul, at 9 cents; amount
ing to "a, 4,OO6.63. The actual payment to
HuIse, S5,622 A; Hulse oVerpaid, 81 ,615.S1.
To Murray the correct amount should be,
20,s00 yards Of grading, at 80 cents; 20,S00
yards hauling, at S1T, making Sl2,74O,
payment, IS, ,25s 81. Then, say, the correct
charge against the Government would be the
correct quantities repeated at the contractors
prices. have it in detail, and will read 1t if
you desire.
The Chairman. You had better read it.
luc HlJutbb. TOuE huu slAIy-SIA
yards of rock, at 81; Sc, ,761 yards Of grading,
at so cents; 9,4S7 yards hauling, at 9 cents
17,0l9 yards haul, at 1914 cents; 90, 800 yards,
at 31H; ana the amount charged to this ave
nue. that was paid to Vandenburgh, 81, 500;
amounting to S26, ,609. 81, two thirds Of which
is S17 ,7S9.47. The actual charge against the
Government, $50 ,S64 40: the excess S22 124. .93.
These are my results on New Hampshire ave-
nue..
By Mr.. Jewett: Q. What was the distance
between the point of excavation and point of
embankment! A. could only answer that
by referring to the map. do not know from
recollection.
Q. In this calculation you gave the Board of
Public Works the benefit both Of excavation
and Of embankment? A. don't know that
fully understand you.
Q. In this charge--this amount-was the
contractor paid both for excavation and embank-
mentl A. No, sir; he was paid for excavation
only.
Q. And haull A Yes, sir; these payments
to contractors are extracted from vouchers that
were furnished to me by the Board Of Public
Works-simply their statement of the ac-
count.
q Just turn to the first part of this s. ate
ment where you give the number of yards of
excavations.
The Witness. The total excavation, including
that which went on Virginia avenue, is 81 ,S5S
yards.
Q. What of embankmentl A. sixty-seven
thousand six hundred and fifty -four.
Q. Together, what do they makei A. One
hundred and thirty-two thousand five hundred
and twelve.
Q. When reduced to dollars, what does it
make3 A. That depends upon what price you
attach.
Q. In asccrtaining the result do make no
allowance for the embankmenti A. No, sir;
except for the haul-the excavation and the
haul. l take merely figures from the vouch-
ers-what they paid to the contractors. lhaVe
made no other calculation.
Q. The length Of the haul you cannot teli
a. could, but don't know It now.
:. g. Was there profile of that avenuef A.
Yes, sir.
Q. Had you the benefit of these cross-sec-
tions' A. Yes, sir. ] should perhaps explain.
inquired for profles or cross-seetions, and
found they were in existence for the work on
this avenue with several exceptions; that Is TO
say, for the work between P-street circle and the
embankment at NJ street, the notes were com
plete; for the work between II and G streets,
and for the embankments between Twenty
first street and Pennsylvania avenue, the notes
were complete; but for the excavation between