Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-03-02

was continued by the House Committee on
the District this morning, commencing at 10
| O'Clock.
Mr.. Birney, counsel for the District, re-
quested the recall OF Mr.. John Grant, who
| was hefn1e the committee yesterday.
| Mr. Tayler, OF the board of audit. pre-
| scented some receipts given by Beckett through
bis attorney, Mr. Stickpey, for certificates
| In sett ement OF the claim OF Beckett and
| Williams with the board, together with
final accounts and measurements OF the
| same.
GRANT. THE CONTRACTOR, RECALLED.
| Mr.. Grant testified that ne never had been
| party TO concreting with the District Com
missioners. He bad done work for Lewis &
| Hewett on 4tn street Mr.. Schsrff and ne
| had IL together. Did the work on 4th street,
| from street to New York avenue. This
work was approved by the Inspector, but he
| never got all his pay for ii. Did not know
that this work was ever disapprovei. Had
| never seen the report Of the inspector, Nr.W.
r. Wallace.
Mr.. Birney here produced the report, which
| stated that the work was badly done.
Witness stated that that report had no
thlng to do with his work, but was the report
OF VESTS WORK. Witness made an appllca-
ton TO the engineer 10 accept his work, dated
| December Il, 1874.
| Mr. Birney here read his application
| The report of the inspector was made sub
| seQuent To tie application, but did not apply
| TO bis work, which was for cash. Had made
| keN eral proposals to the District Commits
| siOners to do work since that time.
| Mr. BIrrey here read the terms of the pro
| position OF witness to repair Pennsylvania
| avenue, using both wood and concrete.
Witness was In control OF the Old Scharff
| pa lent at that time, and still has control OF
II by virtue OF verbal permission of the
/ patentee.
Mr.. Birney read another proposal OF Mr.
/ Grant, dated June 70, 1875, In which he Of
| feIed TO repair old concrete sidewalks at as
1 cents per square yard and lay new cOncrete
! work at SlC9 per square yard, and give bonds
] for the faithful performance OF the work.
| witness testified that the proposals were
| his, and were put in good faith.
! BY Mr.. BGckner:-T The measurements for
| concrete work are usually determined by sur
| face measure. Witness put in Did for tue
repair OF Attn street. This work was re-sur-
| faced last year by Murdoch, Hewe.t, & Co,
| the original contractors, had bsen 10 see
witness ia the meantime, TO treat with
| him 10 It surface this work, they thinking
| that they would be held responsible, but
| nnally Murdoch made the repairs on it Did
| Lot know whether Lewis 4 Hewett had been
sued by the District. Witness never saw
| concrete work, and this was for the Grant
Place. Witness put In bid in goot faith,
but did not get the work.
LIEUT.. HOXIE As A WITNESS.
Lieut.. HOXie, District engineer. was the
reXt witness, he testified that he had very
| little knowledge OF Mr. Grant. His WORK
done on 4th street was condemned on account
of It's miserable character, and he did not
stand well on this account.
Mr.. Birney submitted the application OF
Mr.. Grant 10 DO work, to the witness, VINO
explained mat the WORK bid for had already
been given out To Crawford 4 Hoffman, who
controlled The SChaTff patent themselves
and the fiibert Vulcan patents. The pro
posalS were not in the form which was re
quiTSd by bis Office. Witness here explained
the system OF measuring concrete work, both
Tesurfacing and new work. The reports o;
The oVerseers have TO be relied on TO a con
siderable extent. 1t has been a question
with The Commissioners whether this kind
of work could safely be given out to the low
est bidder. There are few persons who are
competent to do this kind Of work. He had
after a careful examination of ali cOncreLeS
come TO the conclusion that the Scharf and
FilbeTt NulCanite patents were the only
kinds OF concrete that would safely stand
the test and he recommended them accord
iEgly. Witness gave an account OF his ac-
Quaintance with the several contra stOrS
many of whom profesSed to do good work,
but whom he found knew very little about
such work and could not be trusted. Wit
ness thought the advertisement for
REPAIRING OF PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE
was Tor cash, or $50 bonds, for payment OF
same. Some OF the bidders proposed To do
the work with wood, and some with con-
crete.
The bids were handed witness by Mr.. Biz
Eey. when he proceeded TO read them for the
information OF the committee. Also, his re
port and accommodation to the District
Commissioners, which accompanied the
schedule of bids. His judgment was that
Phillips bid should be accepted, as the best,
Mr.. Birney requested witness to turn to
the advertisement for
BIDS FOR WORK on GRANT STREET.
IN 1874, and see what bids were put in.
There were found to be i've of them, which
witness proceeded TO read, and stated that
there were two reports made in this case,
which were also read. The blank forms FOR
the bids were read, showing the work was To
be paid for in cash. Witness was sure the
work was paid for in cash. VIM. L.. Davis
was the contractor, and the price paid was
81 % per square yard. The property-holders
on this street preferred this kind of concrete
pavement, and were willing TO pay for il.
I,
ness in recommending it, and also the rea-
sons governing the Commissioners in award
ing IL to.Davis.
TIE PROPOSALS OF CRAWFORD HoFF-
for doing the general repair work on all con-
crete streets were also read, the terms of
Shlch were s14O per SO uare yard In 800 b1nds
cost for repairs. Also the proposals OF Mur-
dock & Co for repairing and resIrfacing con-
crete streets, the terms being Sl.50 per square
yard in Us bonds, and Is per cent. additional
on net costs for repairs; also the recommen-
datiOn of witness in relation thereto. Wit
less had made careful estimate of the cost.
and found that Crawford q Hofiman's bid
was. all things considered, the lowest, which
be projected TO explain TO the committee.
The contract was made the 2lst May, 1915.
Mr.. Gillen was the overseer for Mr.. Muir
dock, aid Mr.. Phillips for Crawford & Hod-
man.
BY Mr.. Birney:-The standing OF Mr.. Hew-
etJ with the District Commissioners was not
good, for the reason that his former work was
bad, and he declined TO make it good. Lewis
& Hewett had lot been sued by the Commits
siOneIs to his Knowledge.
BY Mr.. Buckner:-Witness had some recol-
lection of a proposition coming from Mr..
bapgdon 10 do all this work OF repairs given
to Hoffman & Crawford and Murdoch & Co,
without cost 10 the District. This PROPOSE
ton came in after Crawford & Hoffman had
got well under way with their work. Lang
don was supposed to be connected with c.
+. Evans & Co.
IN HIS RECOMMENDATIONS
to the Commissioners as 10 making the
awards of bids witness said he was governed
by the integrity of the bidders and their
ability TO do the work. He had first selected
the Scbarff and Filbert vulcan concretes as
the only ores he would recommend on our
streets. Witness could not tell on what
grounds or at what time the District COM
missioners had determined their power to do
this work. Witness saw that the magnitude
of the work of repairs required some action,
and that IS bonds would have To be used in
payment, as the District government had no
other means. In relation TO
THE CONTRACT OF MR. TAYLOR
for repairing Pennsylvania avenue, from Sd
TO 9TH street east, witness had made opposi-
ton to giving 1t to him on the ground that
Taylor had not control Of the kind of patents