National Republican., 1876-02-24
THE INVEsrIGATIoE.
Taken YsarsrdaY.

PUTtpsnt TO Adjournment, the eEouseCOmmittee
On District Fairs resumed their labor Of investi-
KsiEng the affairs o: the District gIvernmept and
the board Of audit Yesterday morning. The fret
"ltDess was Dr. John B. Blake, who testified that
be Hss member Of the Hoard Of Public Works
when the new government came IN; don't knOw
whether was present at the meeting Of the board
Cn the last day OF its existence
4. Were you there when the claim Of MessrS.
| NattiUgly, Stanton and HsrriG2ton va. present
ci3 A. signed three bills myself efter mature
reflection. thought the board had r!sh, to
Ge!end Itself as board and not as individuals; !;
hence 1RpprOy ed the bills.
.. Was bill allowed to Mr.. CIephane for TAX
ing ttsrimeDy? A. Il was he was a par: and
parcel Of the cOLcern.
q Was CIephane employed by the board or by
enc Of the editors here In town? A. thought
the board employed him If had not should
never have approved his bill.
witness was shown 8 copy of the recorded pro-
| ceedings OF the board of June 20 On which day
the clam Of Ciephane came up.
q Were you present when the attorneys for
tiepEsne were appointed? A. l was consulted
about the attorneys; don't reeOIect anything
about CIepbRne.
EMPLOYMENT OF COUNSEL.
q. who employed Judge Blsck? A. don't
Know. Stantnn, Mattingly and Harrington were
employed after consultation with members OF
the board. ldOn't Know snythtng about Gle
phape's emp o ment by the blard. l always W.
Gersteod CIephane was employed by the Board OF
PUblio WORKS; taking that view OF it approved
bis claim. There was an ARRANGEMENT 10 pay
THE RrruBLiCAE for printing the reposs - GER
theG to his bill after went out OF otiics,s The
bill was rent in, aud it was necessary tohave q
certificate that the work was dOno. After the
board was exiting; certified to the fact that the
proceedings had been printed 10 The REPUBLI-
Ck4Esuspaper. dOa's rocolleot the amount Of
tie etaim- expect It was pretty considerable
anatnnt. have no recollection Of any coutrlc:
being made with the propresor of THE REPUaLI-
CAN for print51e tbs report The attorneys were
TO defend thsfBoard OF Public Works.
q ntAttep NJ A Ha hona
prosecuting witness: weBt On the other slds; of
course, they dIdns defend him: he iRvAlidated his
testimony.
q. Had The DistrIc: any authorised attorney
when the irveslisa atien hogan2 A. zee, sir; Mr.
CCoE WAS be attorney. Harrington, II: the tIms
the Investigation was proceeding, was an offi,er
Of the District goyernmsnt. He was also
employed to defend the B0srd OF PuDlic
Wuks. Tho last investigation covered slrnlst
the entire session. AZ the same tipe the lnyesti
REtIOp wGs gOnR en- harrington had the reuuta-
lion Of being Assistant District Attorney; l sup.
pose lie NaE.
q. " hen your board talked about employing
att'rnCys bad you noy consIltaiton about On
pIG! ing fhuTt hand Trp0Tier? A; No, sir.
by fudge BHckner: Clophsne's claim ia flr
s:,:0n. and was allowed on the day the Presideat
ssbcd The act for the nc" government.
THU hoard RECORD.
q Did yop Eecp record Of your board pro-
cc,dDrI? A. Wen, We kept II Kind of u lJurbal.
l didn't consider that /: was u complete record;
have 10 recDllcclions Of any entry authorizing
Clephanc,s appointment.
q. Don't you know that Clephnne EN-.
plUJ ed by tbe uiitOr OF tho NATIONAL RErUBLI-
'Ah: A. do NOi; always considered that Ole
pbare was employed BY the hoard.
q Were the reports furnished to you In PAM
phlet form or in any way other than 10 tho news.
Psperi A. Oh, yes; We got pa nphiets.
q Wasn't that the Governments report: A.
] don't know anything abOut that. don't know
whether the Government employed o short aud
reporter or not. think it did; think his name
Nj Johns, the short hand reporter, stated that
AIR. Braiey was the short hand reporter of the
gFp- .TosbsfTF Il h. hara IL
NATIONAL kErrELiCAN printed the proceedings
each day.
tornsys who defended the board. don't recIl-
lect of any resolution by Congress hOrZing the
board 10 appear by counsel.
Judge Buckner directed Mr.. Taylor to furnish
the committee with the voucher upon which the
NATIONAL REPUBLICAN, was paid.
by Judge Buckner; Whatever l certified TO
at the time l Know was correct; l dOn'C know
whether my certificate set forth that the pro-
ceedugs had ben published in the NATIOSAL
RErt BLICAN, or that the bill as presented was
Just one.
q. Your attorneys did not defend Cluss: A.
q! course by defending the board they defended
him. but don't think they specifically defended
any Of his actions.
ELEVENTH STREET CONTRACT.
lanes Fitzpatrick recalled: Witness was shown
letter written bJ him to the District Commits
sioners which he Identified. 1t Sc. forth that
Mr.. Elow had awarded hiEl contract on Eleventh
street, md that he understood the action of
Nr. Blew had been repudiatcd. He desired to
know il such was the tact, so that be might seek
reply to Mr.. Fitzpatrick was read from the
engineers cftice, stating that the attorney bad
decided that the former contractor must 20 on
with the work, and that no new contractor could
be employed.
a. who had tie contract formerly? \
Michael Sinner; he was the Orig igtnal contractor:
Sinner did no work upon tile contract. mo. .i5I%)
hut he cid work under contract 100, which was 10
grade portion OF Eleventh street east
q. when the board refused to give the con-
tract Mr.. Blow promised you, who was It given
to: A. To VIM. Eussey. lie got i: from Walsh.
Walsh ever did any work on the contract ex-
ccpt to si gravel out of some of the gravel banks.
Hussey did not get an assignment from Sinner,
but from Walsh.
Mr.. Brrey representing the District Commis-
si0rers. then read full history af the Eleventh.
street contract, going to show that Walsh had
to Husscy. which transfer was approved by Mr.
Stanton, the attorney, and that Fitzpatrick was
wrong in his impression tina: Walsh had aban-
doned The work when he made application to SIR.
Blow 10 get it.
TAXPAYrEs PROTEST.
Dir. Wm. p. Johnston sworn: Was c1une;;ed
witA the Taxpayers Association iG 1874. .In Au-
gust. 1874. letter written to the District
Commissioners protesting in the name OF the tax
payers against he payment of the attorneys who
defended the board, aai aEatns. the payment of |
CIephane as short hand reporter. GA August |
S, 1874, an answer was received stating that the
communication had hscG TeisIrc TO the board of |
audit; had no knOTiedge at the tino that the |
district !
Judge Buekner requested that Mr.. Birney |
bring any transcript he could li1d from the pro |
ceetirgs Of the late Bpard ot Public Works
showing the authority f5T the employment Of |
Messrs. MattiDgly, Stanton and Harrington and |
James CIepharc. and a lso the authority given to
the NATIOSAL EEru EtICA:' to pria: officially |
the report OF The invsstig 4ten, il any had been
given.
Tie claim Of Mstting1y and Stanton for legal
services was then read, from which it appears
that the iO-mer claimed &. 800 and the latter
5000. They state that they thought the inyesti.
gation would last only two weeks, and had they
Known that it was going to last as long as II did
neither would have entered into it. They cay.
further that they think the amOUat claimed is
inadequate TO the service ren iered
hStJ5gly settled ut sj.U00, Stanton $1,000 and
Harrington &:,g0O.
a. l. S'gI9ck he committee adjourned until 10
O'Clock this morning.