National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-04
Boar1 of Public WORKS, who had done the

/ hesitated to approve the bills I could not
say those bills ought to be paid out Of the sink
ing fund.
Q. Did you approve themi A will state if
you will allow me. will just make the con-
nection right straight through.
. The Chairman. Go on. --.
The Witness. I could not say these bills
ought to be approvedas payable out OF the
sinking fund, thus increasing the Gebt OF
the District or the city Of Washington,
and pay for which had actually been au-
thorized by the Board of Public WORKS,
and never had been authorized by the corpora
ton Of Washington, after several days, anu
might say weeks, perhaps, considering the
question. I was written to by the vice presi-
dent of the Board of Public Works, and by the
Governor acknowledgements Cooke-and asked
to nut those bills through. then, in order to
put myself right, wrote a letter to the Governor
making six or seven points In the letter, asking
his opinion, and if he was not able TO give MS
opinion, asking the opinion of the District
attorney In reference to the manner IN which
those bills should be audited or ap-
proved. 1t was some week or ten days be-
fore had any reply. Finally an answer
came, written answer from the District attor-
new, with regard to some of the points. The
answer of the attorney was in accordance with
my own views, and In others he seemed In
definite. There was, as say, an extra batch
L
SAFE, 900, amounting to between $4,000 and
$50, 600; do not recollect precisely. l could
mention tho streets. Finally, after considera-
BILE talk about the matter in various ways, there
was delegation of the officers Of the govern
ment-the Governor, the vice president OF the
Board of Public Works, Mr.. Shepherd, the cor
poration attorney, Mr.. Cook, the surveyor, MI
Forsyth, Mr.. Magruder, think, treasurer ana
the comptroller Of the District.
| He narna IN NV room in reference 10 Jle6t
accounts. Imade the same points to them thar
have before. could not approve large
number of those bills, according to the law as
| Understood it, out of the sinking fund OF tne
District; but l said to them, as said before
that it seemed to me that that charge-the
extra charge over and above what these corpora
tions had authorized-shouldb be paid out OF the
81 ,OOO, 900 loan, which had been made expressly
| for the purpose of completing or making i'm
provements in the city of Washington, improV
ing the streets and alleys, &C., in the city o.
Washington.
The position taken at this conference, where
was pretty closely examined and pretty
closely questioned, was that 1t was not m,
province to decide as to the appropriation ou
of which the amount of those bills should bt
paid, but it was simply for me to see whether
they were Just bills in accordance with thu
vouchers. Do these vouchers justify the bills
1 said, in reply, that If that was all my duty
could, by comparing the vouchers viii
the bills, very easily determine; but there were
it seemed to me, some other points ior me u
consider. They had passed law-the Legis
lature had passed a law-making 1t the dutl
of the auditor to approve bills where appropri
atoms, specific appropriations, had been made
confning my duty to auditing appropriations
or my duty in auditing bills.
NV idea of it was that was not to be al
lowed to audit bills to be paid out of any indefi
mite fund, but where there was specific fund
l could not find In this case exactly that wa
authorized to approve, payable out of the sink
ing fund, and therefore did not approve. Blu
finally, after talking the subject over and look
ing at the vouchers, and examining the bill
carefully in their presence, l approved them al
corrected according to the vouchers. haV'
not the language precisely. The indorsemen
is upon those bills. The language is specifi
upon the bills that were approved. lapproVeC
of certain number of bills, amounting 7
SS79, 900, or about that, making some S94 90
difference between the first batch of bills ant
the amount approved that day. In regard t
the second batch of bills which was brought me
l demurred entirely against them; was Opposes
entirely to any approval, or approving anythln
upon them. found that in the case, for IN
stance, of Fourth street east, and New Jerse
avenue, Vermont avenue, and several othe
streets which l cannot now name, the Wori
was completed and carried out under the con
tracts of the old corporation; the bills had beef
presented and approved, and, so far as know
paid.
O. By the old eorporationl A. No, sir; ap
proved and audited by me nearly eight month
before-six or eight months; l would not b
precise as to the time, but 1t was number o
months before. After considering those bills
Mr.. Shepherd, the vice president, said to Mr.
Forsyth: "Take those bills away; don't brin!
them here" Those bills were carried away
and have never seen anything of them since
never heard of them. In regard to the bal
ance, this S94 900, it was not approved, and, s
far as 1 know, has never been approved.
was left in that way. That is about all, be
lieve, that l could say about that transaction.
BY Mr.. Christy: Q. Are you still the auditor
A. No, sir; 1 was relieved of that office on tn
LIST of December last.
@. By whoma A. By the present Governor.
Q. Who is your successor A. Benjamin
Needs.
Q. Where were those bills upon which you
endorsement were nader Where would the
probably be nowl A. Probably they are il
the hands of the commissioners of the sink
ing fund. I am not certain about that, but
have been informed by Governor Shepherd tina
they are in the hands of the commissioners G
} the sinking fund.
By Mr. Stewart: Q. Did they name tn
fund they were to be paid out of. Were the
made out against particular fund.- A. Nc
sir; there were several bills; cannot recollec
the number of them. There was Sevent
street south. from the canal, somewhere wher
the canal usC to be, to the river; Fourteent
street, from H street north; P-street bridge
North Capitol street; Pierce street; and
part-well, LIDO not recollect any more.
The Chairman. do not think it is necessar
to 90 into this.
BY Mr. Stewart: Q. Ny question was, hoy
were they made out; were they made GU
against any particular fund.- Were they mad
out against the District government or agains
the city of Washington. A. cannot precisel
say whether the language of the heading wa
against the District government or against tn
old corporation.
@. You approved them as bills against thu
present District government. That would be
different kind of approval from an approval a
bill against the old corporationl A. Yes, sill
they were made out against the District govern
ment-the District of Columbia, debtor. / an
pretty certain OF that.
Q. Are you quite sure of thatl A. woul
not be positive about that.
By the Chairman: Q. want to see If ca
get at this matter. Those were bills that tn
Governor and the vice president of the Board
of Public Works and members of the boar
desired you to audit with view of making
claim against the old corporation A. Yes
sir.
Q. Was the actual amount included in thost
bills expended-the work had been donel A
The work had been done, 1 suppose, up to tn
amount of 1915, 900.
Q. The amount you actually approved A
Yes, sir.
Q. And the question was with you, as be
tween you and the board, whether these bill
should be paid out of the a 900 900 loan o
out of the sinking fund.- A Yes, sir.
Q. Who was the corporation attorney A
William A. Cook.
Q. What did he decided A. Well, in orde
to know that you ought perhaps have q copy O
the letter that 1 sent the Governor, or to hin
through the Governor.
Q. Did he advise you to reject these claim
or to audit themf A. Neither. 1t is in answe
to the points made in the letter. can presen
q copy of the letter which sent to the Gov
ernor, and also of the letter In reply, If 1t 1
necessary. have them in my possession.
| 2. Give the result of the advice7 A. Il
part, as was speaking of 1t before-in part
Mr.. Cooks opinion agreed with mine. Fo
instance, one point I made was this, that thu
Board Of Public Works had no right. asked
the question, had the board a right to snnu
a contract that was made by the old corpora
ton and make q new contract, and requir,
new parties - contractors-to do the worl
under the new contract, and then charge TIT
old corporation for it.
By the Chairman: Q. Those were questions
of law, of coursei A. Yes, sir.
n