National Republican., 1874-05-09

ing having previously been done by some other
contractorf A. / am not familiar with thu
measurements at al, sir; they we're made By
the engineer and the Lyatter left with him. He
had the contracts and al the necessary data
upon which to base his alSulstion.
Q. Were there any cases 10 which the engf-
neers undertook to make these deductions and
the contractors appealed to the 0oard, and the
board refused or declined to allow the deduc-
tions 10 be madea A. think there Eas one
case, on r street, all the papers reiattng to
which have been put ID evidence, think
Q. We're there any other cases, do youi re-
menberi A. do not recollect any. sir.
Q. Do you regard It as the duty Of the engf-
neers in that case to take from the DeGoI1er
& Mcclellan contract the grading, or mske
any deductions from it on account OF grading
A. think some deductions should have BEEN
made.
Q. Do you think thst was the duty Of the
engineer L., Il must have been his duty.
IL could have been nobody else's.
y. why was there not some provision In De-
Golyer q hcClellan's contract In order that
the Deduction might be made by the engineersf
A. well, the provision was put In DeGolyer 81
McCleilans contract similar to that In sll other
contracts, aud the award was based upon the
provision which prevailed regarding ali CON
tracts for patent payements.
Q. Yesterday you said soznethin0. as am
informed, In regard to the sewer down Seventh
street east. was not present at the time you
were examined In regard to that matter: I
would be glad to have you state here again
about that sewer. A. said my impressiou
was that there were to be two brick-sewers
built in the section to which Judge Thurman
had referred-one on Seventh and one on Eley-
enth street. ...
. Q. They have not been buiisf A. One OF
them has.
Q. Has the one on Seventh street been built
A. No, sir. think not. =
Q. Is there any sewer down that streetf A.
There Is sewer on Sixth street. The main
sewer In Seventh has not been built.
9. From what point to what point has that
sewer been built A. My impression Is that it
Is 10 start &C the ridge-Pennsylvania avenue,
between that and East Capitol street-snd
empty into the river.
railroad tunneIl (. There Is = sewer under
the tunnel now.
Q. You proposed to drop IL into the sewer
underneath the tunnell A. Yer, SIR
Y. What kind of sewer Is underneath the
tunnell A. There is brick sewer there that
the railroad company built. The Baltimore
and Potomac Railroad Company built that to
carry of the water.
Q. Where does It go to7 A. It empties on
the other side of the railroad track. DO not
know whether 1t has been continued to the
river. think not, however.
Q. You are reported yesterday to have said ft
needs a large brick sewer, one of which we
five or six feet in diameter. That is misprintf
A. Yes, sir; it should read Eleventh street. It
Is misprint.
Q. You seem to have been misunderstood on
that subject. That is the reason my attention
was called to It. What has been the mole Of
letting contracts since the Board of Public
Works came into Operationl A. The mode OF
letting contracts has been to give the work at
the prices fixed by the board to responsible
parties, as far as it was possible.
Q. Was there any particular member Of tho
board who was authorized by the board to let
these contractsi A. The vice president Of the
board was the executive officer, and did most
Of the business All contracts for any
amount, of any size, were acted upon by tho
board and let BY him by authority Of the board
Or a majority Of the board.
Q. Then, If understand you, the vice-prest-
dent had authority from the board to award
these contracts, or signify the parties to whom
the contracts should be let, and what contracts
should be let, which was afterward ratified by
the boards A. No, sir; 1t was ratified before
they were let, In all cases OF any moment.
Q. They were, you say, In all cases let to re-
sponsiDle partiesl Were they let to contractors
in all casesi A. To contractors; yes, sir.
Q. Do you know Of any cases where contracts
were let TO parties who were not contractors,
those parties afterward selling them out to
persons who were contractors, and who were
any case where they were let to parties with
out those parties came indorsed BY some per-
son as entirely responsible to do what they un-
dertook to do.
Q. Do you know of cases where parties
would go TO the board or to yourself or any
other member Of the board and propose TO take
the contracts to be performed BY
elsel A. No, sir; no contracts were
let in that way to my knowledge without they
represented some firm or had connection with
soma firm; that point had to be established
first, that they had connections which would
enable them to do work promptly and we'll.
@. Why was 1t that you did not negotiate
with the parties directly who were to do the
work. A. We always did, sir, where such
cases came up; that Is, as far as | know:
Q. Do you know how many patents the
Evans Concrete Sompany CONTROLLED
The Witness. The Evans Concrete Companyf
Mr.. Wilson. Yes, s;y. A. don't know that
they controlled but one patent; they may have
had two or three patents, but they were
merged into one here In putting down these
pavements.
Q. They were merged into one companyi A.
No, sir; into one patent; that is, the patents
were merged into one company, yes, sir.
@. Something like the woNi payements that
were merged into the Metropolis Paving Com
panyl A. Well, the Metropolis Paving Com
pauy, as understood Il, had control of two
different patents for pavsments.
Q. Three wood-pavemeut Patentsl A. The
bid of the Evans Concrete Company specifics
the kinds OF pavement they were 10 lay.
Q. But do you know how many patent pave
mants they had control Off A. don't; I
think Mr.. G. z. Evans testified In regard to 1t;
his testimony Will probably give the informa-
tion desired. ..--.
priation having been made by Congressi
The Witness. An even million do yo1 meant
Mr.. Wilson. Yes, SIR 1850.
The Witness. To reimburse
MIR. Wilson. Yes, sir. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there any account made out upon
which that appropriation was predicatedl A.
There was.
Q. Who made out that account A. 1t was
made out by Mr.. Forsyth aud Mr.. OertIy, I
think.
@. At whose suggestioni A. At mine.
q. Do you know the data they bad upon
which TO make out that account A. They
had for 81 200 900 Of IL, tho data, which Is put
in the report for 1872, and the remaining data
was compiled from the old records In the Office.
Q. The 81 FAC, 900 was an appropriation pro-
cured upon an Independent account, was it
report of 1877 of expenditures on avenues, I
think, If my memory serves me right.
Q. Have you 3 copy Of thatl A. I do not
think have; I think that was left. Il was
furnished the Senate Committee on Appro-
priatious, or rather it was furnished to the two
committees. It, went first to the District Coul-
miLtee and then TO the Appropriation Commit
tee Of the Senate.
@. Do you know whether that account can
be procuredl A. Indeed do not know.
Mr.. Wilson. would like TO have that state
ment, If anybody has 1t. It IS on page 527, I
believe. G1he book handed to Mr.. Wilson By
Mr.. Starton.1 -
@. Ono Of these Is 20 complete the improve
ments of streets and avenues now IN progress
opposite to and around Government property,
$yl4, ,497 u. Now, was there an account
made up, or an estimate as TO the amount Of
money necessary to complete improvements Of
streets and avenues then in progress around
Government property A. Yes, sir; there was
an estimate made and submitted to the COM
mittees.
Q. That seems TO have been made out with
some degree of accuracy, because see It even
comes down to the cents that were requiredi A.
Yes, sir; the committee required IL.
Q. Was that regarded as being sufficient to
complete the>Tork then In progress around
Government Propertyi A. Il went for what #
was. do not know whether It was sufficient
"a 49, ~