National Republican., 1876-05-19
BOARD OF AUDIT,
The Alleged overraid Contractors.

Inc Alleged SV6fIhlo Vontractors.
The board of audit has submitted to the Com
mittee on the District copies Of the various meas
urements and vouchers relating to the work upon
which 1t is alleged that there was an overpayment
Of some 900 to ]. o. Evans and Sos 1872 to Albert
Gleason with q substantial restatement Of the
case, as follows:
1t will be seen that the measurements to
Evans on Twelfth and Fourteenth streets
do not cover any grading or excavation
either fer surface or sewer, while the In
dorsemcnt on the last certificate to Gleason indi-
Gates that it for excavation, and upon none Of
these papers will be found anything tending to
show that the Evans measurements carried any
of the work done by Gleason. After the last pay
ment 10 Gleason, July !, 1878, Evans received
from the auditor of the Board Of Public Works
certificates for work done on Twelfth and Four
teenth streets from north to B south, amount
ing to sgs,67O, but upon none Of the vouchers Is
there any entry or memorandum that the amount
previously paid to Gleason was TO be deducted,
nor was any such deduction made.
the sum of ss5.762 was paid to Gleason by the
Board of Public Works for work done in square
2l2, E street southwest, street southwest and
street southwest, and that the board OF AUDIT
failed to deduct 1t from the amounts found due to
Gleason, so that he was overpaid that sum.
There is not, and has not been at any time bIE any
came to the board of audit that such payment was
made, but there is some evidence to the contrary.
T. 1873 and included the work in square 2l2 and
street above referred to, and also Q and Tenth
streets. The answer Of the Governor made to the
Joint committee February q, 1874; states that the
work then done under that contract amounted 70
2 g4s to that date, and the work suspended. On
copy of the report made by the Board Of Public
the auditor of the Board Of Public Works, the
whole amount paid for work done Is stated IN
Chief clerk. as on @ street ~, ,s25 and on Tenth
street s1,e2s, making s2,9is Nothing is shown to
have been done on either square ~ or street;
grading of E street southwest and other work,
with nothing reported by the Governor as done
or paid February IS, 1874, except what may be
inferred from the following statement: work
not done; paid for in excavation of other Streets
which latter clause cannot refer to street, as
that was excavated the fll Of street being the
only thing paid by the excavation OF anotner
street.
Contract 1872 embraces the graveling Of H street
southwest, and bears date July Is, 1873. The
memoranda upon the report Of 1873, apparently
made by Mr. Morris, shows no work done, as does
also the Governors answer. This contract, bears
date subsequent to the payment OF SiO,Io OF the
se5, ,762 alleged to have been paid.
The committee already understand that the
statement of work done by Gleason, as printed
on pag g47 and AS of the testimony, was never
before the board of audit, and that the certif-
Gates of the Board of Public Works for S35,I52
show that they were given for filling the canal,
and on three Of them amounting to $40 io2 was the
Endorsement that they were ISSUED for work
around Government reservations" which TOOK
them away altogether from the square and streets
to which it is now alleged the work pertained.
The SOS, TG2 exceeded the entire amount OF work
which the report alleges was reported by Mr..
Oertley On this square and these streets by more
than 81 100.
1t is not our purpose to go further than to say
that the action OF the board of audit is and was
justified by the evidence they have. If any wrong
was done il was before the board Of audit had ex-
istence, and was purposely concealed by the form
in which the certificates were drawn and entries
made upon the accounts, and by the abstraction
ofpapers from the office of the auditor Of the
Board of Public Works.