National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-04-04

specifications. WheE the board came into ex-
fstence these specifications, as l understand,
were disregarded; an en1re change IN the plan
was made; the bridge made to cost some
$50, 900 or $780, 900 more and the bBl has
actually been brought in. The amount appro-
priated was paid by the old corporation or cor
porations of Washington and Georgetown-tHst
was one point which Idemurred at. Thought
that it was not really payable by the old corPo-
ration, but as # was additional work, made by
the Board of Public Works over snd above the
contracts and specifications with the old corpo-
ration, that 1t should be paid out Of the four
million loan that Il the point I made. But l
approved the bills as correct, according 70 the
vouchers presented. These vouchers were pre-
scented in connection with the bill, and It was
approved in that way, and was paid, as I'M
derstand 1t, out of this sinking fund.
| @. How much Of this approved as paid out OF
the sinking fund, should have been paid out
of the four million losnl A. II would be very
difficult for me to make any accurate statement
| in regard to that, because L could not make
division between the amount Of expense that
had been actually made for instance, North
Capitol street. 1 could not say exactly the
amount of the expense; do not know the
amount of expense that had been incurred In
carrying out q contract with the old corpora
ton. I know the contract was changed; the
street was changed; the whole plan OF it was
changed and the whole cost of It was can
/ give the WlOle 1hO
lures made by the corporation OF Washington
and the corporation of Georgetown were very
small compared with the amount of cost.
O, Was the same thing done with reference
to contracts for school-buildingsi A. Wen,
sir, / should think 1t was in some instances
Q. Didn't the District government annul
contracts existing, o. change existing contracts,
so as to make these buildings cost in excess OF
what was originally contemplated; then pro-
coed to the construction of the buildings &C.
lcording to the new specification, or plans, or
contracts, then charge the whole OF 1t back to
the old corporation A. think, in the case
II can speak positively in reference to two OF
the buildings, and in reference to the others
cannot now; that one is what is called the
Seaton building, and the other Jefferson build
linp.-the original appropriations In accord
ance with the estimates and specifications for
the buildings were exhausted, and additional
, appropriations called for and allowed by the
Governor and audited and approved. Changes,
perhaps, were made In some respects IN the
same building. They made additional cost.
That additional cost, in fact all the expense, l
understand, was charged to the sinking fund.
O. Do YOU recollect what the additional cost
wasi A. No, sir; could not say exactly.
O. About how muchi A. In the case Of the
jefferson school building, should think, in
the neighborhood of $50 900; but still would
not be positive about that.
Q. How long had you occupied this position
of auditor? A. From May l, 1871, to the first
of December, 1873.
o. What was the condition of the school-fund
at the time the Board of Public Works-the
new goyernment-was organized We're there
apy arrearages on account of payment of teach
ers! A. am not prepared to answer precisely
that. Yes, teachers were unpaid for month
or two.
The Chairman. submit that we have had
all this.
Mr.. Wilson We have not had it to my salts,
faction.
The Chairman. Go on, then.
There was a month or two, perhaps, that the
teachers were not paid. 1 recollect very dis
, tinctly the first conference had with the ther
. governor. The present Governor was there al
, the time. We made that point, that the frs
thing to be done should be to pay these teach
, ers something, and the Governor, believe
} came to the conclusion to make an effort Il
raise the money, and did raise the money, as -
, understand it, to pay them. That was after
, ward refunded.
| Q. How many months arrearages wert
, therel A. could not say. should say, per
: maps, two months.
O. Then the new Governor raised the money
and paid the arrearages on the teachers sala
riesl A. understood, the Governor-1 know
the money was raised|I think the GoVerno
borrowed it, l rather think on his own respon
sblity. 1t was put into the treasury, ant
afterward charged back to the treasury, in duI
time. cannot tell precisely when.
Q. The treasury was reimbursed that money
} A. understood so.
Q. Can you account for the fact that thert
-, were several months arrearages to teachers
and if so, how do you account for 1T A. d.
not know that should be able to give correc
, answer. can only state the Impressions, thu
: way the matter looks to me. There was Ger
tain amount estimated to be necessary in TIT
, year 1871, when the new government came int
operation. A certain amount of money wal
estimated by somebody, by whom do no
know, to be raised by the city of Washington
2 and other corporations-that is, the city o
E Georgetown and the county together-to CARR
on the schools for that year. Thirty cents OF
every one hundred dollars was to be assessed
on the property in the city of Washington fol
school buildings, or rather, for completing
: school buildings in the process Of erection
, That assessment was made, and, 80 far as tht
, money has been collected, 1t has been collected
and paid into the treasury. When these bill!
I for school buildings came in-the Seaton build
4 ing, the jefferson building, and the Cranct
f building, and some others-for my approval,
did not suppose there was any question at al
e as to the manner in which they should be paid
' II supposed, as q city proper or the District
The city, in the case of the Washington schools
/ was taxed expressly thirty cents on ever.
! one hundred dollars for the completion o
J those buildings in the process of erection, anC
4 it was my duty to charge the bills brough
to me for approval to the specific fund, and no
! the sinking fund.
1 did SO. In the course of a few months
= found that the comptroller's clerk was charg
ing all these bills to the sinking fund, instead
? of to this specific school fund. That is, tn,
building fund. demurred at that and eS
pressed
The Chairman. do not think this is 81
? material as to have this witness going into thi
) long narrative.
, Mr.. Wilson. What 1 want to get at is al
explanation of what has become of these tut
, ton funds.
The Chairman. If he knows, should like Il
J have him state.
NJ. Wilson. He is stating just how it cam,
about
, The Witness. was Just going to come Il
that. l found this was going to make dis
crepancy between my books and the books o
the comptroller. l then had some converse
ton with the other officers about 1t, never feel
ing that it was my duty to charge this to tn,
sinking fund; but the bills were charged by tn
| comptroller to the sinking fund, and, under
stand, paid by the sinking fund. Now, then
the amount received. cannot say as to TIL
difference between the amounts received o.
taxes for school purposes and the amount thai
was actually appropriated, that is, assessed
upon the property. That 1t is impossible fol
me 10 tell. But the whole amount that wa.
assessed and collected of course had been ex
pended; and as 8 large amount-some two hun
dred and forty or two hundred and fifty thou
J sand dollars-of it had been paid by the sinking
r fund, thought that II was not proper tC
charge the sinking fund with this amount o.
expenses for these school buildings, and at thu
same time hold the special school fund account
r able for It. One or the other should be cred
f tied with 1t; and If the sinking fund had paid
i it, then so much ought to go to the credit Of
the school fund. The point that I made al
that time was that, and there was little diff
ference of opinion in regard to the manner In
! which the work should be done. Nothing fur.
Their than that.
By Mr.. Stewarts Q. Let me ask question
You were auditor of the government up to last
fGlll A. Yes, sir; to audit all bills that came
before the District government. .r
Y. You were not the auditor of the Board Of
Public Worksl A. No, sir.
@. Did you audit all bills that came for the
health department. A. At first they did, but
afterward, after the new arrangement, It was
changed, and they drew by requisition.
@. During all that time that you were audi
tor for the city, did you ever audit any bills
that you did not think were correct in them
selYes-that is, that the thing was donel A.
No, sir; never would allow myself to do that;
Lar l.. ko5 LII 5sl