Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-02-23
TIE DISTRICT INVESTfGA TIOy,
The Testimony To-day.

dit was resumed this morning at half past
ten o'clock.
| THE LATE BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS
Or. j. b. Blake recaled:-Was member OF
the board Of public works when the new gov
| eminent came in: don't know whether was
present at the meeting of the board on the
q. Were you there when the claim OF
Messrs Maitlngly, Stanton and Harrington
| A. 1 signed three bills myself after mature
rejection. thought the board had right TO
defend Itself as board and not as indi-
vidpals, hence l approved the bills.
| @ Was bill allowed to Mr.. Clephane for
taking testimony?
A. 1t was; he was part and parcel of the
q. Was Clephane employed by the board
or by ore Of the editors here in town?
y. thought the board employed him, il
had not should never have approved his
Witness was shown a copy of the recorded
proceedings of the board of June 10th, on
which day
The CLAIM OF cLEPHANE
came up.
@. Were you present when the attorneys
or Clephane were appointed?
y. was consulted about the attorneys; /
don't recollect anything about Clephane.
9. Who employed Judge Black?
A. don't Know. Stanton, Mattingly and
Harrington were employed after consuIta-
ton with members OF the board. l don't
know anything about Clephanes employ
ment by the board. / signed his bill. l al
ways understood Clephaue was employed
by the board OF public works; taking that
view OF II approved his claim. There was
an arrangement to pay the Republican for
printing the report. L certified 20 bis bill
after I went out of office. The bill was sent
in, and ii was necessary TO have a certificate
mat the work was done. After the board
was extinct l certified TO the fact that the
proceedings had been printed in the ReBltb-
ticdn newspaper. dOn'trecOllect the amount
OF the claim. / expect it was pretty con-
siderable amount. L have no recollection OF
any contract being made with the prOprie-
tor of the Republican for printing the report.
The attorneys were TO defend the board Of
public works.
THE COUNSEL FOR TIE BOARD.
O Did they defend Mr.. CluSs?
a. He became q prosecuting witness; went
on the other side; OF course they didn't de-
lend him; he invalidated his testimony.
q, Had the District any authorized attor-
rcy when the investigation began?
A. Yes, sir; Mr.. Cook was the attorney.
Harrington, ut the time the investigation
was proceeding, was an officer of the Dis
trict government. He was also employed to
defend the board of public WORKS. The last
investigation covered almost the entire SeS-
was going on Harrington had the reputation
OF being assistant district attorney. l sup
pose ne was.
@. When your board talked about employ
ing attorneys lad yOu any cnnsulJ3 lion
about employing shorthand reporter!
a. No. sir.
By Judge Bucl1ner: CIephane's claim is for
- 500, and was allowed on the day the Pres
ident 81 gned the act for the new government.
WEo EMPLOYED CLEPHANE?
q Did you keep record Of your board
proceedings?
A. Well, we kept kind or journal. 1
didn't consider that 1t was conn., lete record;
have no recollection of any entry authOrlz-
ing Clephare'S appointment.
q. Don't you know that Clephane was en-
pioyed by the editor OF the National Repu1l-
cam
4. do not; always considered that CIe-
plane was employed by the board.
q. Were the rPpOTtS furnished II Won in
pamphlet form or In any way otaer ln,sn IN
the newspaper?
n. Oh, yes; we got pamphlets.
q. Wasn't that the governments report!
a. don't know anything about that. |
don't know whether the government en-
plOy ed n shorthand reporter or not. tliuk
it did; think his name was Bradley.
Mr.. Johns, the shorthand reporter, state
that Mr.. Bradley was the shorthand reporter
of the Joint Committee, and, as he reme-n-
btred ii, the National Republican: printed the
proceedings each day.
By Mr.. Taylor:-I approved the bills OF The
attorneys who defended the board. 1 don't
recOllecG OF any resolution by Congress
authorizing the board TO appear by COUNSEL.
Judge Buckner directed Mr.. Taylor % fur
ni ,l - the committee with the voucher upon
By Judge Buckner:-W Whatever | certified
to at the time know was correct; / don't
know whether my certificate set forth that
the proceedings had been published in the
Republican, or that the bill as presented was
a just one.
u. our attorneys ulQ hot Qe16n1 CluSS?
A. OF course by defending the board they
defended him, but don't think they specif-
cally defended any of his actions.
THE 18TH STREET COSTRACr.
James Fitzpatrick recalled Witness was
shown letter written by him to the District
Commissioners, which he identified. IL set
forth that Mr., Blow had awarded him a con-
tract for 11tn street, and that he understood
the action OF Mr.. Blow had been repudiated
He desired to know if such was the fact, SO
that he might seek legal redress.
a nlwF tn nfrfa rxug1a a
engineers office, stating that the attorney
had decided that the former contractor must
60 on with the wOrK, and that no new con-
tractor cOnld be employed.
q. Who had the contract formerly?
A. Michael Sinner; he was the original
contractor; Shiuerdtd no work upon the con-
tract 1O9, which was 70 grade a portion of 1lth
street east.
Q. When the board refused to give you the
contract Mr.. Blow promised you, who was it
A. TO w. NJ. Hussey. He got it from
Walsh. Walsh never did any work Oh the
contract except to sift gravel out of some of
the gravel banks. Hussey did not get an as
signment from Sinner, but from Walsh.
Mr.. Birney, representing the District Com
missiOners, then read full history OF the
Ilth street contract, going to show that
Walsh had not abandoned II, as alleged, bat
had assigned it 10 Hussey, which transfer
was approved by Mr. Stanton, the attorney,
and that FitZpatr rick was wrong in his inn
preston that Walsh had abandoned the
work when he made application TO Mr.. Blow
to getit
PROTEST OF TIE TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION
Dr. WH u. Johnston, sworn Was connect
eli with the taxpayers association in 1874 In
August, 1874, a letter was written to the Dis
trict Commissioners protesting IN the name
OF the taxpayers against the payment of
the attorneys who defended the board, aud
against the payment of ClephaUe as a short
hand reporter. On August 2Sth, 1874, an an
swer was received stating that the commu-
nication had been referred 20 the board of
audit; had no knowledge at the time that the
National Republican had claim against the
District.
THE COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PUBLIC
WORKS.
Judge Buckner requested that Mr.. BIrney
bring any transcript he could find from the
proceedings of the late board Of pu bile works
showing the authority for the employment
of Messrs. Mattingly, Stanton and Harring-
ton and James Clephane; and also the au-
thority given 10 the National Republican to
print officially the report OF the inVestiga.
ton, II any had been given.
The claim OF Mattlngly and Stanton for
legal services was then read, from which il
appears that the former claimed 81 500 aud
the latter $1,000 They state that they
thought the investigation would last only
two weeks, and had they known that it was
going last q long 9 IN did her "a