National Republican., 1876-03-03
pIsfIIar rHyEaIIaArroN.
Furtbsr r,stiuopr rsirsn YsstsrdaY.

The House Committee OF the District Fsiter-
| day morning resumed their ird fsry Into the
Affairs Of the board Of IUtit AID the d strict
| govsrnmsnt
| some receipts given By Becket through his At.
torneY Mr.. Stickuey. for certificates In settle
1 ment Of the claim Of Bscket and Williams with
the board, together with nnsi accounts and
| Mr.. Grant testihed that be never had been
party to eoncreting with the District Commits.
/ sicners. He hsd done work tor Lewis aud
| Hewett on Fourth street. Mr. Soharf and be
bsd ft together. Did the work on Fourth street,
was approved by the Inspector, but he never eot
all his pay for IL. Did not know that sthis work
was ever disapprosed; Had never seer the re-
MIR. BarneF produced the report, which stated
that the work was badly done
Witness stated that that report had nothing TO
do with his work. but was the report Of VESTS
work. Witness made an application TO tbs eu-
gineer to accept his work, dated December II.
1874.
Mr.. Birney here read his application.
The report OF the inspector was made subse-
qEent the application, bat did not apply TO his
work. which was for cash; had made several pro-
posals to the District Commissioners TO do work
Mr.. Birney here read the terms Of the proposi.
tion Of witness to repair Pennsyivania avenue,
using both wood and concrete.
Witness was In control OF the old Soharff psteat
at that time, and still has control OF IL by virtue
of q verbal permission Of the pstentee.
MI; Brney read smother proposal OF Mr. Grant,
dated June Is, lsis, in which he offered to repair
and lay new concrete work at 81 80 per square
yard, and give bonds for the faithful performances
witness testinsd that the proposals were his,
and were put in In good faith.
By Mr.. Buckner: The measurements for con-
crete work are usually determined by surface
measure; witness put 10 bid for the repair OF
Fourth street; this work was resurfaced last year
tractors, had been to see witness IN ths mean. eS
time, to treat with him TO resurface this work.
they thinking that they would be held respon-
stble, but nnally Murdock made the repairs on It;
did not know whether Lewis HeNett had been
sued by the District; witness never saw but one
advertisement for proposals TO do concrete work,
and this was for the Grant place; witness put In
bid In good faith, but did not get the work.
LIEUTENArT HoxIE AS WITNESS.
Lieutenant Hoxie, District engineer, was the
next witness. He testified that he had very little
Fourth street was condemned on account of its
this account.
Grant to do the work to the witness, who ex-
planned that the work bid for had already been
he SebarS @ n nsfsnt ,bsn1eiyes. and the FIibsrt
Yulcsn patents. The proposals were not in the
form which was required by his office Witness
here explained the system Of measuring concrete
work, both resuriaclng and new work. The re-
ports Of tie overseers have to be relied on TO
considerable extent. 1t has been a question with
the Com missioners whether this Kind of work
could safely be given out TO the lowest bidder.
There are few persons who are competent 70 do
instion Of all kinds Of coucretes come 70 the con-
clueion that the Schard and Fnoert Nulcanite
patents were the only kinds Q, nS SonSseIs snn
mended them accordingly. Witnss: gave an
account of his acquatntanoe with the several
work but whom he found knew very little about
such work and could not be trusted. Witness
thought the advertisement for
REPAIRINo OF PznSsYvANIA AVENUE
same. Some of the bidders proposed to do the
work with wood, and some with concrete. The
bids were handed witness By Mr.. Birney, when
the committee. Also, his report and recommen-
dation to the District Commissioners, which ac-
companied the schedule Of bids. His Judgment
was that Phillips bid should be accepted.as the
best, all things considered.
Mr. Birney requested witness to turn to the ad.
vertisementf for
BIDS FOR THE WORK on GRANT STREET,
In 1874 and see what bids were put in
There were found TO be i've of them, which Wit
ness proceeded TO read, and stated that there
were two reports made In this case, which were
read, showing the work was to be paid for in
cash. Witness was sure the work was paid for in
essh. William L. Davis was the contractor, and
the price paid was S4.25 per square yard. The
property holders this street preferred this Kind
Of concrete pavement and were willing to pay for
pes. p @ n ans dh,is aIso Ss
governing the Commissioners In awarding Il to
Davis.
THE PROPOSALS OF CRAWFORD AND HOFFMAN
for doing the general repair work on all concrete
81 40 per square yard IN 3.s5 bonds for resurfao-
ing, and 20 per cent on the net cost for repairs.
Also the proposals Of Murdock & 90. for repair |
ing and resurfacing concrete streets, the terms
being Sl.5o per square yard In 3.65 bonds and l8
per cent. additional net costs for repairs: also
TO- Witness had made a careful estimate Of the !
cost and found that Crawford & Hofmans bid /
was, all things considered, the lowest, which he |
tract was made the 2lst Of May, 1875. Mr. Gilieu
was the overseer for MIR. Murdoch, and Mr.. Phil. |
lips for Crawford & Hoffman.
with the District Commissioners was not good, |
for the reason that his former work was bad, and |
had not been sued BY the Commissioners to his |
knowledge.
BY MI. Buckner: Witness had some rscOIIsc.
tion Of proposition coming from Mr. Langdon /
TO do all this work of repairs given to Hoffman s. /
Crawford and murdock & Co., without cost to the /
ford * Hoffman had got well under way With /
their work. Langdon was supposed TO be con- /
nected with q. E. Evans Co.
IN HIS RECOMMENDATIONS
to the Commissioners as to making the awards |
tegrity Of the bidders ana their ability to do the
work He had first selected the Scharh and FIJI. L
rscommend on our streets. Witness could not
tell on Whist ground or at what time the District
Commissioners had determined their power TO do /
this work. Witness saw that the magnitude Of /
work of repairs required some action, and that |
3 G5 bonds would have TO be used in payment, as
the District goVernment had no other means. In |
relation to
THE CONTRACT OF NE. TAYLOR
for repairing PsnnsyiTauia aTenue. from Third /
TO Seventh streets east witness had made opposi-
tion 10 giviog Il TO him the ground that Taylor
had not control OF the kind Of patents which he l
(witness) approved. The contract, however, was |
given to Taylor. The Avenue was previously
paved with the DeGolyer wood block. Witness |
had had control of Tayior's work aud had ap-
proved Of *. and Tsylo had been settled with.
At l. o'clock the committee adjourned the in-
vestIgation TO 10 O'Clock Monday morning.