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


l NSs<ftfst><f y ~ Ss~t+s = ~.
had no method except sitter the work was done
70 go to the land marks and escertain as nearly
IS you could, and make rough estimated A,
yes, sir; not alwsys rough; very offsn youeould
come very near.
/ Q, How do you know you cans You had no
method Of testing your resuits1 A. Well, I do
4 @. You did not have the cross sections. and
4 you did not have your surface measurements.
| You say you could arrive at an accurate rssult;
but how do you know you could so long as ypu
had no test 70 apply TO it to determine its e.
curacyf A. There Is some test LEFT. In the first
| place, you can test the land marks and the con-
tour Of the ground, except where Il had been
| broken; you can re-establish them, mean, as
well az Cuvier could establish the bones of some
lost animal. But the reason is the main thing,
and we want correct record. Where we have
not got 4, Of course we are left to the best au-
thorfty. Sometimes, however, those very
records from profile can be erroneous just as
| well as 8 measurement on the ground or from
| the land marks of the ground.
/ 9. By observation of the landmarks after
! the work had been done, you were enabled TO
1 ascertain how much excavation had been done
at given place by measuring the height Of the
land mark from the opposite side Of the street,
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was not that simply ascertaining then
what cross-section would have been II you
had made one! A. Exactly, sir; it is virtually
restoring In mind cross-section formally
| made.
/ Q. Then would not your work have been a
great deal more accurate If you had made your
original cross-sections before you had taken
/ your chances of an CELEBRATION of the land
marksa A. Most certainly. Where had a
chance certainly would have made section;
would not say cross-section; but would have
| taken the levels.
| n vuko,. ata
before the work was donei A. DO you mean
| myself
| q. Yes; you or the corps Of engineers in
charge Of the work. Al think after the
| spring or early part of 1872, we tried to make
cross-sections and take levels everywhere, and
/ did do our best. s4ls sa'
Q. Then In those cases where you did make
cross-sections, did you use those measurements
to ascertain what amount of work was done,
or did you adopt the other course and examine
the landmarksi A. No, sir; wherever had
cross-section I preferred that to the land
| marks.
@. Do your records in the office show exactly
you still preferred the measurements madel
A. think they have; that is branch which
belongs more to Mr.. Barney than to me. I
only acted in exceptional cases.
By Mr.. Stanton: Q. What degree of care was
taken in making these measurements A..
Well, We tried TO really get at it the best we
| could. We used all care.
| Q. To your knowledge, was the best done
that could be done In order to ascertain the
correct measurements A. I think so, sir.
Q. And In your opinion, In the main were the
measurement correct A. I think so, sir.
Q. On page 1121 of the testimony of Mr..
Thomas Evans, find some statements made
in relation tito Ito to sewer PIE which win read:
statement about the pipe: A. ! have, sir. have
By the Board Of Public Works for the Govern.
O. State what would have been the reasonable
cost Of that, A; would undertake 70 put all the
Public Works for sl.s6 a foot. ~ ''' -,O-'- y
q. What Is the average price paid BY the board ,
A. Four dollars and seventy cents.
the Government, Is It not-s4Tof A. Yes. sir.
Or, In other words, will put down the whole
q Gn RRs Ss S9 6 they
BY the Chairman: @ Have you list OF all the
pipe that you refer to now In your statement A.
j q, Explain to the COMMITTEES what that state.
ment is Ehich you hold In your hand. A. II is the
Of RRs put down II each and
the reports for that however. breads as follows:
Have you collated any statement in relation
to the cost Of sewer-pipe and the amount
charged to the Government A. Well, have
not with regard to the cost of sewer-pipes.
have in regard to the price charged to the Gov
| eminent.
By Governor Shepherd: @. In regard to the
sewers charged to the Government of the
, United States, showing wha. the Government
paid for them and what they cost the Board of
Public Worksl A. have done so. The reason
is this: am responsible for that price. "a 40.
gave at the time of the data, think, to Gen.
eral Babcock, and he approved of it, and felt
q great deal of interest That being my judy
ment at the time was not far from the truth.
| @. Produce the original estimate and state
how the result verifesEit.
| WITNESS produces document as follows:l
In consequence of the sewers, which had to be
measured In January, 1873, being of many different
sizes, Finch; 15nch, 1sinch, 2linch, and 24inch
pipe sewers, and some 3foot, 81 foot, and 4-foot
sewer, B-strest intercepting sewer, Missouri
i avenue. and Slash Run sewer and all Of the
above Of different depths, varying from feet to
ting the measurements and accounts, an average
| size of sewer was assumed, and It was thought
that the cost Of an lsinch pipe sewer would be
This cost, reduced to linear foot, of sewer, wa.
arrived at. thus:
ls-Inch pipe at wharf, boardsprice. q a
lilo yards Of excavation, at 10 sents per
| yard, boards price, 81
s sP spa psl E IS l hss 1 sssE fec:
80.
eayins, superlntsndsncs, y per cent. con,
/ tngencies, Is
Total.per linear foot a 7C
By Mr. Stanton: O. understand you to say
that you are responsible for the price charged
the Governnen.-s470,' A. I am.
O.. Can you explain how that pr o, was fixed
A. I can do so. That paper shows (referrinc
1 to document printed aboYe) I arrived at thai
at the time, and on getting over all the
amounts paid by the Government for sewers
and the amount due to us from, our vouchers
for these various sewers, Lind that the total
amount paid by the Government ia s4S4 ,S14. II
and the total amount DUE, according to oul
vouchers, without any five per cent. added 4
1855, 3S0.3S.
BY the Chairman: What do you mean by tht
amount duet A. mean If those same sewers
on these various streets where we charged hac
been procured from ouryouchers-
O.. Vouchers that you paidf A II the cosi
had been procured now, as they all have beer
measured and settled-if that cost, instead Of
having been put down. as it was done by me, OF
as it was proposed by me-if that was charged
according to,our vouchers, the amount would
J be S4S5 600 instead of s4S4, 900.
| By Mr.. Stanton: Q. Them, in. other words, 4:
the price charged to the Government less thar
what the work cost the. boarp A. From thi;
statement 1 would judge that I came very neal
the mark
Mr. Mattingiy. Within o thousand dollars.
Il By the Chairman: O.. Let me see II under
stand you correctly, Mr.. 0ertly. Do you meal
to say that you. have examined the voucher
which are the amounts paid by the Board o
Public Works for this work. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that ID cost 81 900 more than thu
Government paid2 A.. Yes, sir; that is what
. mean.
Governor Shepherd Here ia the Statement
in writing In detail.
5 Mr.. Stanton. We desire to put that in eyi
dence, statement sAown]
By Mr.. Stanton; Q. Could the work shown
) in your statement there have been done. 70
, S1.6o foot, as stated by Mr.. Eyansi
, The Witness. For WHAT
Mr.. Stanton, For the sewers they have col
lated in your statement A. That could hav,
7 been done for 12-inch sewer, but It woult
D be impossible TO apply that rate to f5-incl
n sewer.
!, Q. am asking you about all the werk tina
tyou have referred to In your statement. Coul(
It have been done for SLIGO o foota A.. No
\ that would be utterly impossible. You coult
: not lay four-foot brick sewer twenty fee
deep for st.60.
/, Q. Have you prepared any statement in rela
!, ton to statement put in evidence by Mr.
Wright Riyes on pages 1903 and ,S07 Of hi