National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1874-05-25

9. Il IL a very plain question, Il seems 70
me, And think you can answer II, and DO
not much care how you answer IL, only want
an answer. DO you or not know what Is at
this time generally understood by. system
organized or copied after the system of William
M. Tweed2 A. Qualified as have It, who
ever can, or wants to understand, will find that
the complaint is OF this great COMPLICATION,
where you cannot fasten the responsibility
upon anybody.
@. 1t was not qualified at the time you made
the statement A. think did qualify #.
= Mr.. Mattingly. Oh, no; will put this ques-
ton to you: Do you mean to say that this sys-
tenn was organized here, or copied after the
system adopted by Tweed in New York, for
purposes of corruption and fraudl A. No, sir;
did not mean anything like that.
Q. Do you know Of fraud or corruption on
the part Of the Board of Public Worksi A.
know Of gross neglect; have never said that
there was any fraud.
Q. Do you know of any corruption or fraud
on the part of the Board of Public Works of
the District A. No, sir; do not. Certainly
not.
Q. Do you know Of any grosser neglect than
certifying TO vouchers, as you have, without
knowing of their contents, or as you say you
hayei A. have reported to you how signed
those vouchers. .
Q. am not asking you about that. am
asking you whether you know of any case Of
grosser neglect than that, by any other men,
Der of the Board of Public Worksi WITNESS
pausing. After brief pause witness says:l
A. ! do not admit this was any neglect In
any shape or form. or course the matter was
done SO of-hand that indeed was only aware
that had to sign those vouchers which had
come from our ofice-but indeed It was more
than I thought ~ 3
Q: TWAS your duty, as head Of the depart
ment, to sign them, was It not, and very proper
for you to do sol A. Well, If the work had
been done in our department, could very well
have signed those vouchers; but, as 1t was,
everybody will see il was absolutely impossible
to know what 1t was. It was brought, you
know, by these assistants.
Q. Do you know of any case Of grosser neg
lect than thati II so, detail the fact. A. It
was certainly grosser neglect to ask me TO do
those things. :. .
Q. You think IL was grosser neglect for
anybody to ask you do those things than for
you to do themi A. Certainly.
Q. And that Is your instance of grosser neg
iecti A. signed those papers brought to me
by the assistant: :. .'-0
Q. Who asked you to sign those papersa A.
or course everybody knows that it is indirectly
the Governor.
@. Who, If anybody else. asked you to sign
them? It must have been somebody directly.
Now, who asked you directly to sign these
papersl Witness pausing.1 ..
q. Y. Did they not come to you as the head of
the engineering department in the ordinary
course of business ofthe Board ofPublic Worksl
A. No, not in the ordinary course of business,
because the ordinary course of business was to
keep the Government measurement concealed
from US.
Q. The ordinary course of business was to
keep the Government measurements concealed
from you'll A. Yes, sir. did not know any
thing at all about them.
Q. 1t was not concealed from you when they
were submitted to you by the pile which was
exhibited to you a little while ago and signed
by you, was III A. The Government measure
ment on which money was obtained had no
knowledge Of until saw It in the Governors
answer.
o. have already shown you where your
name was signed for upward of million of
dollarss A. have testified the first day-this
is q case.
Q. Now, you return to that constantly, that
the measurements of Government property
were concealed from you because the measure
ments upon which the money was obtained
were not signed BY you. Is that TT A. No,
sir; because did not know at all what was
doing:
Q. Were not measurements on which the
money was obtained measurements made by
General Babcock, with which your office had
nothing TO dol A. have made statements
already in regard to that.
Q. Do you know of any other cases of grosser
neglect on the part Of members of the board
than the signing of these estimates for the
of Government work, without
knowing what was in theml Witness pauses. !
Q. Any other cases of grosser neglect than
thatl A. Certainly.
Q. Let US have them. A. have stated this
was asked from me as a mere clerical matter.
Q. What vast A. An assistant, paid 50 900
q year, had brought those papers there, and It
seems, as clerical matter, for the purpose of
gaining more confidence in Congress, my sig
nature was asked.
Q. Then the assistant brought you these pa
pers on the 18th of November You kept
them for eight days, and returned them, each
one signed by you. And now you come here
and say you returned them, after eight days,
with your signature, with long letter accom-
panying them, explanatory Of them, and CIV
ing an abstract of them, and that It was q
mere clerical matter on your part, and sub
rnitted to you, and that you signed them with
out consideration. Now, can you indicate any
other cases Of grosser neglect on the part Of
Of the Board of Public Works than
than A. wish to say these papers were for
q week, to the best Of my knowledge, there.
were brought to me In order to have proper
shape. Sax.
Q. Was Il not proper that they should be
brought to your / have understood your COM
plants all along were that you knew nothing
about this Government property; that you
were not consulted about It; that you had no
opportunity to inspect the measurements. A.
That is so.
@. Now, you say that they were brought to
you for your signature. Day before yesterday,
you said you had not signed anything, and that
ments, and that you were not responsible for
hem in any way. A. still say 80,
Q. / understand that, notwithstanding all
these facts staring you in the face, your COM
plant was you were not consulted. Now, It
appears you were consulted. You say these
papers were brought to you. I ask you whether
I was not the proper and correct thing that
'hese papers should be brought to You for your
'ignaturea Ought they not to have been signed,
BY you'll A. Yes, SIR; they ought to have been
signed by me, but they ought to have been
prepared under my direction, so that could
inally sign them.
Q: You knew that when you signed theml
A. Yes, sir; / did. ..
Q. Why did you sign themi A. Because out
If accommodation to the Governor.
Q. Do you mean to say the Governor ask ed
Tou to sign themi A. Official courtesy.
Q. Now put the question again to you. I
have not been able to get an answer yet. Do
1ou know Of any other grosser neglect than
hat ' Al do not admit it is any case of gross
neglect at all.
Q. That is your answer. A. Yes, sir.
q. Do you mean to be understood as saying
hat the engineers office is not q subordinate
,ffice to the Board of Public Worksi A. The
Engineers office is, of course, branch of the
Board of Public Works.
Q. Is not 1t q subordinate Office of the Board
# Public Worksi A. 1t is a part of IL. i
Q. Is It any more part of It than the audi
or's office, or the superintendent of assess
nents' office, or the superintendent of prop
rtyt A. II is no comparison at all. The
ngineef's Office is the office.
Q. In your opinion the engineers office Is the
Ifice of dignity under the Board of Public
Norksf A. II is the proper place in the office
where improvements are carried on. OF course
1t is not you cannot have success.
Q. You have alluded throughout your testi-
nony to the feet that the vice president of the
oard detailed Mr.. Oertly to measure work
one by John O. Evans and Albert Gleason. Is
hat sol A. believe have answered the
uestion.
Q. You have alluded to that throughout your
estimony on day before yesterday A. be-
eve so.
Q. Was Mr.. Oertly detailed by the vice presi-
ent to make any other measurements Of Work
one by these gentlemen than such as related
the Washington canali A. Yes, sir; to the
est of my knowledge.
Q. What A. have here three vouchers,
N4.,n. r. - 4