National Republican., 1876-03-01
THE INVESTIGATION.
Proceedings Before the Committee Ysstsrds

Il
The House Uommittee on the District yester
day resumed their Investigation into the affairs
| the board Of audit and the District governm ,nt
| Judge John J. Keyes appeared as counsel for tht
| board of audit.
Mr.. Birney, counsel representing tns District
| Commissioners, stated TO Mr.. Buckner, chairman
ofthe committee, that he understood there wa.
| testimony taken privately before ths comm lttes
yesterday which. related to the conduct Of the
District Commissioners, and If such was the fact
he desired to have the privilege of reviewing 1t in
order that he might be able to crosse ex anime
should he deem It advisable.
Mr.. Buckner. "No, sir; you cannot have It. The
testimony did not relate to the District Commis
sioners as body" ILaushter.l Nor did It re-
fleet upon any member of that Commission that !
know Of. Nor TO anybody else. tLaughterl
MR.. WIN. BECKETT,
Of the firm Of Beckett & Williams, who testified
that he and bis partner had contract With the
Board of Public Works, which was finished mp in
the board for hauling. old material and extra
hauling, which the audit0r Of the board disal-
rm found tsef n debt, Witness Win suoSs q tbe
present auditors about his claim not being al
lowed, he was not satisfied with the settlement.
The auditor TO the Board Of Public Works would
not allow the claim. and witness thought that
was final. He made no protest in writing to the
Board Of Public Works. witness made no spe-
passed, but gave 1t to his attorney, Mr.. MoLaugh-
lin. This was some time last fall.
Q. How did you come to give # to McLauEhiin
was he o lawyer or agent? a. found Nc
Laughlin was around that office, and seme one
said to me that he was good man to get for that
q. Did you tell him the nature of your claimF
A. 1 did, and offered to give him one half he got.
q. How much did You getF A. About ~ 500;
q. Did he get the extra hauling in that claimf
A. He did; SO he told me.
e How long amer you gave him the the claim % wa,
q. Did he pay you the half of that claimG A.
q. Did you say anything to your partner about
this? A. 1 did not, as had no opportunity to do
60, having to go to Pennsylvania 10 see sick sis
q. Who gave you the inform alton that you had
any claim thereT A. One OF the contractors.
Did you get the t0IS tSm
lin was good man to employ, as he was very
successful
q. Did any one in the office OF the board give
you any information, or did Mclaughlin tell you
what was due you there? A. No one In the ottice
told me anything about II. McLaughlin said he
thought there was q right smart due the firm.
q. Did you approach him or he you hrst. A.
approached him, as heard he had got such
clsims through.
O. why did you suppose there was anything
due you, when, as you state, you didn't know
whether your claim was according to contract?
A. Because others had been allowed the same.
q. Was not the amount Of the claim allowed
far beyond your expectstions9 A. was not sur.
prised at anything; would not have been sur
priseu II less had been awarded.
O. Since your return from Pennsylvania have
you had any talk with McLaug hlin? A. have;
l told him had been summoned before the com
mittee, but had no conversation as to what the
testimony would be here.
q. Did he make any suggestions as to what you
o. What did YOUR partner say when he heard
Of the allowance Of the cIaiu-did be express any
establishment? A. No, sir, he did not; His aston
ishment was expressed when he heard OF the al
lowance before this committee.
q. Have you had any conversation with your
partner about your Transactions with mcL1ugn-
lin? A. have, and have explained It all salts
factorily TO him.
SECRET SESSION.
Here recess In the public session was taken to
hear testimony from ]. W. Phillips, inspector OF
concrete under the present District government,
which was taken in secret session, occupying half
an hour,
Mr.. M'LAUGHLIE's TESTIMONY.
On reopening the door, Mr.. II. ]. Mclaughlin
was put upon the stand, and proceeded to explain
how he transacted his business. He said Mr..
Beckett called on him and asked him to get his
bill passed. A conversation ensued which re.
suited IN Beckett giving him power Of attorney.
Witness got 9T3 on his claim, he (witness) hold
about the 10th or 18th Of December and he got the
certificate from the board Of audit the Sd Of Janu-
ary last.
tb.se dates9 A. No, sir.
q. How did you make out the account or bill !?
A. made 1t out from the statement Beckett gave
q Did Beckett have any papers to show you
on which to make out his claim? "A. He did; and
from these and his verbal statements made up
q. In making out this claim did you have any
conference with any one inside the office Of the
auditor? A. ! old not.
q. Did they pass on your accounts without any
decuction or did you get the entire amount
claimed? A. The whole amount, nearly.
q: To whom did you present the accounts? A.
q. And he found these accounts all right?
SMALL DEDUCTION.
A. He did, with the exception Of charge for
extra hauling-a small deduction was made for
that.
Q. What did Beckett say was due him? A. He
did not say what the amount was, only he thoug ht
there was about ss,OtOdue him. The claim al
O. Did Beckett's books or papers show the for.
mer settlements made with the frm3 A. They
did.
O. Did you have any talk with Williams, Beck.
ett's partner? A. No, sir; never knew MIN.
q. Did you consult with Mr. Stone or Mr.. Will
Iiams in reference TO this claim of BscEett'sT A.
@. Did Beckett say that he had put in this
claim before? A.. He said he had put in part Of
q. DID you see Beckett's contract before you
made out the claim? A. saw copy Of 1t which
he had at his house.
O. Had you any Information from any one In
side the ONCE OF the board Of audit, or from any
one who had formerly held position in that OF.
fee, as TO Beckett Wtiliams' claim? A. never
put IN a claim for some 81 100, but knew nothing
as to VIII at was coming 10 them.
THE EXPERT.
Mr.. Morris wac next called. He testified that
he was clerk in the auditors office from Febru.
ary, 1872. and chief clerk from January, 1872, up
adopted in settlement Of claims was an allowance
for hauling, so much per mile, which was IN.
eayated % esrtb This created ~ ' considerabe I % ain.
Guilty in the settlement Of accounts, which re-
suited in the rule being changed so as to allow
certain exceptions which he proceeded TO explain
II they knew that the work had all been done dur.
ing the existence OF the former rule, that rule
q. why did the board make this increaseP A.
! cannot say as to that only that It was under.
stood that the original price was not sufficient
compensation TO the contractors.
q. Was this extra price paid TO all contractors.
or 70 only some Of them? A. Toall, so far as i
q. Were any contracts given out aftsr Janu
q. Were these contracts given out by bid ? A
No, SIR; the board had established q schedule 0i
q. Were any Of the contractors allowed thi!
extra compensation for hauling whose work had
been done prior to such increase? A. There
ths; such work was done prior to that date. wit
allowed; but when their accounts had been set
tied under the old rule they were fnal, and NJ
such extra allowance was made to them. Witness
here went on to explain the rule OF the Board o.
Public Works relating 10 the settlement OF &C
counts. ....- $50
q. What has been your occupation since you
LETT the Board Of Public Works? A. Prosecuting
claims against the District, in the firm Of J. O
Lay i 90.
The committee adjourned until 10 o'clock thii
morning.
THE coLoRED SCHOOLS.