National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-03-15

ecution Of existing lfgsl obligations and con-
tracts, and 70 the Profession or preservation Of
completed az the time Of the passage Of this act.
IL 10 being thus apparent that the Commits
sior ers we're authorized 20 proceed with the ex.
ecutien OF existing contracts which had not been
| fulfilled, it seemed equally apparent tina. the
| claims thereafter arising out OF such contracts
were snong those submitted to the board Of
In relation to the fourth class of claims the
board Of audit said In that report:
| jeetiops were intsrposed By representatives OF
the Taxpayers Association Of the District. The
principal objections were based upon the allega,
| tion that the prices agreed TO be paid exceeded
the cash value Of the work, and that, therefore,
the contracts were fraudulent, and upon the
carried the inde6sednsss Of the District to an
amount exceeding the limit prescribed by the
act 70 provides government for the District Of
"The board of audit was Of the opinion that,
while the excess Of price might prove that the
t2sstnS 4 AZ nos nscssssr,
Of fraud in the contract, and, indeed, In many in
Espc. It was apparent that the contractors
cepIecisied evidences Of debtedness with which
FOR the fact that the aggregate of the con.
tracts imposed upon the District an amount Of
Indebtedness exceeding the prescribed limit, no
contractor was responsible. Esch contract was
ep,esIsy ritDip ne poTyeS conferred upon sne
altogether necessarily mplied the creation OF
debt In excess Of the authorized amount. The re-
suit Of all may be debt in such excess but the re-
sponsibiity rests upon the agents Of the District.
and not with those who made contracts within
the apparent auth o:ity Of the board. Besides the
work was performed and the money expended
with the knowledge and the approval, and under
the promise Of payment, of those who represented,
and who only could represent, the District In this
And again, in refereee to contracts, the beard
Of sndit said in that report:
continued BY direction Of the Commissioners, and
claims thence arising have been audited by the
"ln addition, there is o large number of
measurements by the engineer Of work under
contract, the amount Of which has not been CON-
puted. The claims In this class include q large
amount for work done under the Commissioners"
And again, the board OF audit said 10 that re-
port, in reference to unaudited claims Of the sew
eral classes, that "by continuance Of work under
contracts No. Will be ultimately increased"
The amount OF the increase depended upon the
action Of the Commissioners, and was not under
When tie board If audit had made their re-
port Of December I, 1874, they considered their
construction given to the OF June 20, 1874, BY
the mmissioners and the board OF audit, and
the action had in conformity thereto, having been
that booy, with knowledge thereof. passed the
Joint resolution approved December 2l,lST4 there
BY resolving that the board Of audit constituted
by section six Of the act entitled AN act for the
goverpmsBt Of the District Of Uolumbis, and for
other purposes approved June 20, 1874, be con-
blLutu OtucINlSo PROVIDED Dy W, with all
the powers and duties specified in said section"
That resolution also extended the time s.for pre-.
senting claims" Of all the classes, eight in num-
Der, including claims for damages 10 real estate,
not before presented TO the Board of Public
tatE
der that action of Congress We assuneJ and
had an unquestionaole right to assume, that the
proceedings of the Commissioners and the action
o. the board OF audit and as we'll, also, the con-
the approval OF Congress. The Commissioners
were, until otherwise provided by law" TO sex.
vested in the Governor or Board Of Public W".Ss
OF seid District" and that act removed -.ue lin.
itstion previously assd to tia $50 OF the Dis.
trict. IT, Joint resolution provided that the
bosTS Of audit Should "be continued until other
wise provided by law" and thereby the board Of
audit held ONCE by the same tenure as the CON-
misstoners, ard under the known construction
which has been stated.
TN thu passage Of that resolution the Commis-
Charge Ct their duties as fspmefy
was publicly and generally we'll known. Under
date of February Is, 1875, the board of audit re-
joint resolution to that date, and stated in the
report that there had been presented since their
report Of December 1874 claims Of class to the
amount Of sT0e,7764. The report also said that
'this class includes the continuation by the Com
mifsoners OF work under old contracts which had
ss D1en ,qs eomPsIsd PIlOT 70 me change Of
however, be made to class by the c3ntinustIo"
Of work under old Contracts" -Ea
IN IepOIIb OI Dect mDer 1,lS and he
IuaIy Is 1875 the board of audit referred to Ger
tain classes of claims as fixed in amount some Of
which had lot been presented. These claims
shown by the records of the District. BY act Of
March 3, 1875, Congress extended the period for
presenting clsims Of the first and second classes
and Tor rounding sewer taxes until June 60, 1875.
Thus again, after full opportunity for correction,
had Congress found error In the action of the
The opinion Of the Attorney General was not
taken by the board Of audit in relation to audit
ing claims crt ated after June 20. 1874, "arising
Board Of Public Works, +" FOR was the opinion Of
any legal adviser formally taken by us. Some
time during the spring Of ISIS, the date we can
not give, the Commissioners invited our attention
to the condition OF Massachusetts avenue where
the wood pavement had given way and was
2. ta1
put dol n. @35 =@zE
toner's informed ed US that thew 'n nronSssa 70
complete the work under the contracts, and
bol1 the contractors for its cost. They expressed
the opinion that the cost of the completion of the
class four ariting out Of contracts made by the
Board OF Public Works, and referred to the board
Of audit as claims created after the 10Th OF june,
1874. The board Of audit regarded such claims as
pay able in bonds by the provisions Of the act Of
June 20, 1874, under the opinion OF Senator Thur
The attorney of the District was Of that opinion
but We do rot know that his opinion was In writ.
Ing. Work of similar nature hsd beea pre-.
VIOuElg SulcISu pun W buc
A eIause all ooLLraoLs .prvyIued that If at
any time during named period-usually three
years frcm tie completion of the work to be
done-sny part or parts Of the work should be-
come detective from imperfect or improper
material or construction and require repair, the
contractor would, on being notified thereof, i'm.
nediately commence and complete the same to
the satisfaction Of the Board Of Public Works,
and in case OF bis failure or neglect so to do the
same should be done nPas En- the directions and
and expense Of the contractor. The board of !
audit was informed that the pavement On Mass
achusetts avenue had been condemned BY the en-
gipeer as not laid in accordance with the terms
OF the contracts under which the work had been
done; that the contractors had been notified
the same, and that the time had arrived when.
the Con missioners must cause the work to be
done, or suffer what had been DONE and what
might be preserved, to become worthless and the
avenue TO get lao bad and, in some places, an
impossible condition.
The subject was not one for on agreement or
Understandings otherwise than as to the law, ia
which there was concurrence of opinion. The ex-
ecutIve authority of the District was authorized
existing contracts, and on the board Of audit was
dsyolyed the duty of examining and auditing
for settlement claims arising out OF such con.
tracts; not ~ interfering with or hindering
their execution.
Other worA u like nature was undertaken by
the Commissioners without further consultation
in regard TO the questions which had been pre-.
yfously disposed Of. Claims for work so arising
out of contracts made by the Board of Public
y
20, 1875, and showed on the contracts and reports
ofthe engineer that they were claims for work
arising out Of contracts made by the Board Of
Public Works. The fact also appeared as to
work done on streets, avenues and sewers, when
cur attention was drawn to them. TWAS NOT our
intention at any time to allow or certify claims
created after June 90 1874. unless they arose ont
OF contracts made by the Board Of Public Works.
We did not intend to allow claims for current re-
pairs. nor for new work disconnected from the OBJ
hg cations Of contracts made by the Board of Pub
lie Works. and We hare no knowledge that other
claims were allowed. - 116
Tn occasions where seemed proper, and the
relation between the claims and contracts did
not seem direct, explanation was asked Of the
Commissioners, and, as given, the relation was
shown TO exist New contracts for new work
were understood not 70 be for consideration of
the board of audit. Contracts for repaving
streets and sidewalks where contractors had
failed were contracts made by the Commits
sioners IN execution Of existing contracts and OBJ
legations, and claims created under them and
audited were claims arising out OF contracts
made by the Board Of Public Works. The terms
"extension" and enlargement" we were IN
formed, were Inappropriate, and the contracts,
SO called, were made IN execution Of existing
and incompleted contracts Some of them we
examined and found them to be correct. We're
peat that we did, not intend to allow claims IN
less they arose out of existing contracts at the
time Of the passage Of the law under which We
aci-d.
We cannot, without an examination of the ac-
counts, distinguish the WORK done under the Com-
missiouers from that done under the Board Of