The Indiana State sentinel., 1874-05-19
UNEARTHED.

4
UNEARTHED. ara of
THE DISTRICT INvEsTIGATIoN--A STARTLING
SERIES OF oyERCHARGEs-A BIG BLOW FOR
SHEPHERD. 1
E WASHINGTON, May 1.-THE most dam
aging testimony in connection with the DIS
trict of Columbia investigation was elected
to-day by the examination Of Bleckensdorfer,
the exp pert engineer employed by the COM
mittee to make measurements around the
government property. The witness testified
that he had followed his profession for
thirty years, and had been president and
engineer of the board Of public works for
the State of Ohio. He had also served the
government as an engineer at West Point
and on the Pacific railroad. The witness
had measured all the circles and in each in
stance had found that the government had
been overcharged. According to his
measurement, the work should have cost
$74,7S9, whereas. according TO Colonel |
Samos' measure ment, the government
had paid S7S,540. On Scott square
the government has been overcharged
81 900, giving Samo the benefit of his own |
estimate of the grading. On Railroad square
the witness measured il to cost 81, 2l0. 1t
was charged against the government at
Sc, 1863, after allowing Samo an error, ad-
mitted to have been made by him, OF up
wards of $4,000 which does not appear
in Gov. Shepherds answer, but which |
Col. Samo alleges has been credited
TO the government and covered into the
treasury. The greatest over-charges were
in grading. The witness measured New
Hampshire avenue and ascertained that it
should have cost S109, ,233, but Is charged in
the governors answer at sf43HS4. making
an e&cessvef the charge agaifistrhe United
States OF $40, ,251. He found that the contrsc-
tors, in several instances. had been over
paid. On New Hampshire avenue they
have been paid for work in excess OF 1
s. WHAT HAS BEEN DONE. Sol 4
Sulsey, contractor. was operpaid one
thousand dollars. Murray was oyerPeid
five hundred and twenty-eight dollars.
The next point the witness measured was
Virginia avenue, and took complete notes
of the entire avenue. cross sections and pro-
files. The grading, including the reserva-
! tiOns at 18th and Q streets, is 102 657 yards.
There was allowed the contractor l03,000
yards. The government was charged 104, 600
wards at 40 cents. The correct charge to the
United States government should be 81 ,909.
The overcharge is S10,7S7. On G street, be-
tween Twenty-fourth and TweDty-sixth
streets, the witness found the grading II, ,402
yards. The contractor was allowed 10 ,239
yards. The government was charged 80, ,lO9
yards. The government was overcharged
2l ,407 yards, or Sl2, $50. The government is
also overcharged on a sewer on the work. 1t
| is charged for over three thousand feet, and
| there are only some seven hundred feet on
the work, making a total overcharge of
Sl76 6S3. The witness explained that
the difference in the over payment was made
by paying contractors twice for work at the
intersection of the reservation, at Twenty
sixth and G streets. The government was
also made to pay twice for the werk on Mary
land avenue east. The witness found the
grading TO be 22l PCS yards, while the amount
charged the government was for over 257. 900
yards. The contractors were allowed S91, ,165,
and the government was charged and paid
$92, $780, as its proportion, and more than
| the entire work cost, as shown by the pay
ments TO contractors. The government
should have paid S62, 900. The over-charges
paid amounts to $50, ,920. The witness said
that the grading around the patent and post
offices, according to the vouchers of the
board, cost the United States S2.O6 per cubic
! yard for earth removed. On Second street,
| between Pennsylvania avenue and III street,
the witness made measurements. He had no
notes. lie used marks on
THE SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS
as land marks. He found the grading to be
o LOG yards. There was allowed to the con-
tractor So. 900, being overpaid Sc ,S52 The
witness stated that he had looked at the
other work, but had not brought it to final
conclusion, because he could not get the data
with regard Second street between Indiana
and n streets. Its contractor is allowed "a
443 Yards. The entire length and breadth
| of the work charged would have to be exca-
waited three feet and several inches along
the entire length to make mp the charge,
| and it does not bear evidence Of having
been made. The witness said he saw no
evidence or rock excavation, which is
charged the government, when it is alleged
| to have been made at one dollar per yard
The government is charged for the grading
and the hauling. The government
| ia CHARGED 11suallv lQrOer NV tan oa,ta
on excavation and about five
cents in hauling than is paid the contractor
On G street the government is charged 2l
cents more for haaling than was paid the
ing paid the contractor varies from 4 to 2L
| cents. Three-fourths of the charge is at 9
cents. The government is charged the whole
at 10 cents. In making bis measurements
the witness used proiles and notes furnished
| by the board ofpublic works and in approx
imating the cost used the rates
established by the board as paid to
contractors. After the recess Blickensdorfer
was recalled. He said he had examined the
accounts and vouchers in the office of the
| board of public works and found a loose
system of keeping account regarding the |
measurements. When he first found his |
results on New Hampshire avenue he asked |
Samo If he could explain the differences. He |
answered that he supposed his notes would
explain, which he furnished. he
ground snd pointed out the discrepancies. !
BE answered that he had to include some old |
work done before the board of public works |
came in. He also called on General Bah
cock and gave him an opportunity to ex-
plain, giving him the results he had OBJ
tanned. This he did at the instance of the
committee. The engineering of the work
done in this city has beeno very
loose and without due care, and from
the way the work was done, particularly
\ q NJ n m q 10 n ar Il
rive at accurate results Colonel Magruder
was recalled to explain why he had diverted
the bonds appropriated for a specific pur-
pose to the payment of work foreign to the
appropriation. His explanation was that
the provisions of the law had never been
pointed ont to him. No witnesses were ex-
amined with reference to the safe burglary. i