Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-07
The Beard or Audit Investigation.
Report Of Expert Norris.
Pay mepts over Consrnes Rates. rte.

fsy meuts over Contract Rates. Ete.
Mr.. John Morris. tie expcrf appointed by
the House Committee on The District OF Co
lUmbis, 10 examine the pspers and records
Of the Board OF Audit and District govern
ment, has prepared n long report ON claims
slloHtd oy the Beard 81 Audit. which report
was read before The committee this morning
TIE EVANS CONCRETE COMPANY.
The nrst case In this report In the claim OF
the Evans Concrete company: on which a
payment of S2o.Go was made March 6, lssI,
To the order OF &. b. & A. n. Reeve. The re.
Port says that the circumstances OF this case
are, that on the 2Oth OF January, Is7s, Mr.. &.
r.. Evans, president Of the Evans Concrete
company, gave this order 10 the Messrs.
Reeve. on the board OF public works, Cor lay
lng bis pavement in this city. IN February,
1874, MI. Evans addressed a letter 20 the
ooard, In which he stated that he had given
tne orcer for payment OF $4,000 I'm favor OF
.ne Reeves, who were his sub-contrsctnrs In
tbls bisuict, and that they had laid the
greater part OF the pavement referred TO In
MI Cluss' report; that the orter had been
had been accepted, and requesiine The hoant
10 suspend payments on the order above
referred 10 until the work be placed IN snch
condition IS would make 10 acceptable.
March 3. fsss. communication relative 10
the pay ment az This order Was scot To the
auditor Of the board OF public works, aud on
March 5th that officer returned a. - the
b'Rrd OF public works with the report that
{. r. Evans had given an order in favor OF
Nessrs. Reeve for SO coo, on account OF work
order had been died by Evans requesting Uhe
board not 10 pay on the S26 O0O order. alleging
that THIS work, on which the engineer hSf
recommended the Withholding % so O01 he'd
been cone by MeSSrS Reeve. that the total
amount due the l.NanS com pany was SSg 600.
from which N SO 600 toe deducted. aud : d coo.
the sum erJoincd by the supreme Court.
making S4l.OuO. would leave "A balance al but
10 600. 20 Of set which there were CT ters GA
file TO the fun amount, ali OF which ante
dated the Reeves order; that apart from any
L. a. n a IN.
10 Messrs. Reeve IN The face OF the restrain.
ing order o. Evans, there was not really any
sum out 81 which 10 pay, without infringing
on the margin withheld by tue engineer GU
had wOIk. On The reception al this report,
which was approved by the board of public
works, Vice President n. A.Willari objected
that no certificate be issued on The order
given 10 Messrs. Reeve. Thus this matter
stood when the board Of public works was
abolished aid tue board OF audit created. Ca
March tth, lss5, certificates q; the board of
audit for the whole amount OF 49, 900 were is
sued, although n does not appear that the
work vas ever put Ia good condition by the
GEOIGE TOlBANSBFE'S EXTRA" ALLOW
ANCE.
The second case is the claim OF George Fol-
lan>bee, which was paid January ~, 1875.
the vouchers showing an allowance IA excess
Of the contract rste> amounting 10 so ~ q.
The work was Gone At rates established BY
TIE engineer and approved by the board. Ia
September the board decided 10 make nav
ment IN sewerage certificates authorized by
act OF legislative assembly, ana allowed an
addition OF IS per cent - the FIRST price 10
cover discount on certificates. Tnis idition
was embodied In The contract. aud allowed
on al payments male by the board OF public
works. In settlement made by the board
OF audit with fOilansOee, In December, 1874.
for all work done under the contract while
the board o. public works existed, a. appears
10 have been doubted whether fOllansbee
was entitled TO the IS per cent on the whole
cost of the work. ard the board of audit
required him To lie an afii isvit that he was
So entitled by reason OF not having beeu paid
Ia cash. In partial payment made iB
August. l.s', Tor work done upGer the Dis
uiCt Comtnl Ss'OEeTS, this principle 81 settle
meDt, as previously C~ta lsilei. wa adhered
20. The final mca>ur' Dlent. approved by b.
Otrtey to- the engineer, January ., 1866,
Including all work from the beginning, was
made Up on 2 basis oi - pr cent. addi-
Ip1al, anfCi nflng ID = ] .--a 40, ont OF total
on 81 ~ ,E,s 80. OF an excess Of .2g443 ia
settled a. per contract. WITH the measure
ment IS letter by Mr.. Osrtiy 80 ne Com
wissiUueTs. stating Lieutenant HDNis was
ul the opinion that the original contract
should be settled at the original rates"
Ia ore 81 the papers appears an Endorsement
IN Mnat see ms L. De the hand writing OF Nj.
r. W. IaE isr "ti j. dOuDtful whether the
additional allowance OF r. per cent. went
back 50 as tO cover WORK done before tue pas
sage CT the sewerage act, but the equity is
quite A. @reat on That pOrtiol. las clear
that toe n pr cent. covered other work "a
well as the Items on which a. IL allowed by
tie eHgl These and other things stated
In TIE papers induce tie belief that the bal
snCo allowed does not exceed what is euuIta-
hly Gre" rs iais IN no way refers 70 an at
ciiIoLSl allowance OF = per cent. 90 The first
amount, or l' per cent more thaa the terms
OF The contract ca led Tor, az becomes a proper
subject OF inquiry VIII at SIR TayleTs under
standing az the matter was. Lieutenant
hONie in his IcIort for 49, page .t1l says
1.-The board rates are the rates AT which work
Las been done under contracts aud extensions
Of contracts AID the pTecautiOa has been
taken ID every case OF continuing work
under tie Commissioners To stipuiRte that
the contractors shall accept payment IN SITS
boLds Al par Tais being so, IL becomes
clesr that Nj FCllansbee vas not entitled 10
tie allowance Oh work under the COmmls-
FiureTS, which makes an excess OF ~i.6Jg 81
given ~ the board o. audit; and this after
paying nm u per cent. on an work done
uureT the hoard Oi public works. bpth prior
and after thepassage OF the sewerage act
GASTZ's CLAIM.
The third case j. a settlement wig, Eslry
CAN'T, Nov. -. l>,5. for work Ga extension
Of contract ass igued 10y Geo. Follansbee IL
CAN'T, in which there appears the fOllOWlng
allowance, Main sewer rates on Items T.
b, & and j., al ~ &c, or 32h per cent on the
amount thereof, viz: s35, 1855. Item "a" Is
brick masonry; r. excavating; &c" rub
bic stone ana laying; I'D" snoring. By the
contract CAN'T was to receive eStabIishef
board rates, ps yment in - bonds, at par
value. The board rates for sewer were s2g
PER thousand Cor furnishing aud laying
ton in and over lJ feet; So 50 per perch for
furnishing and laying hubble stone In
NtUttlks anu - " llltdl 1901 TOT knCTlugs
In The engineers measurement OF GantZ's
work these prices were allowed and 81 per
cent additional, amounting 70 Sll.is-76.
There appears 10 be no provision In this con-
tract FOR such allowance.
GEEGG's ENTRA ALLowASCE-NEARLY
$1,000.
The fourth case j. The settlement OF J.. r.
Gregg's claim per w. II. Colt. attorney.
which was paid February H., $50. Amount
OF extra allowance on outstanding contracts.
the same being I'm full fOT al claims thereof
as per report OF the engineer. approves by
the District Commissioners, - 81 or. This
is an allowance Of a. cents per square yard
on 1855 square yards OF wood pavement,
and is intended TO cover the prof - which
might have accrued had the contractor been
allowed 10 continue work under his contract
10 lag wood gaNcmenJs on IA and 18th streets
west, and II based on an estimate OF b
peIGy, February ~, LIS, aud approved by
The District .Omnl toner's same date.
Lieutenant EOEie addressed a letter 10 the
CCmmi siUl'Ts rH this subject, inciosing re-
port OF OvcISeyr Cuu8ins lam concerning the
tad condition Of pavements laid by Gregg,
and requested tnatlt be fled with the claim
for damages made by Gregg, ana suggesting
that the cOnritiO 81 the work was ample
reason Tor SbrDeatirg the contract. Mr..
cunningham report is Appended, sn1 shows
a shameful State a. boin streets. Under sec