Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-03-15
TIRE DISTRICT INVESTIGATION
Reply Of the Beard OF Audas 60 CUES
items Of the ii. strics Committee

House Committee on the District OF Colum,
bis a long reply to the queries recently pro-
pounded by the committee.
The certificates issued by the board amount
70 sli sol Ass S. The amount OF clsims dis
allowed ~, approximately, al, 0Si, 3sLS7 in
class =; Sisi ,oZl 60 In class 5-nc: Including
question and In the answer 10 It.
THE TRANSLATION OF CLAIMS LEFT TO
The CLERKS.
A full and complete dischsrge of the duties
OF their government offices demanded the
whole time and attention of Messrs, Tayler
and BrOdhead, aud To the added duties me-
cesssrily took precedence, and therefore a
personal examination of claims by the mem
Ders OF tne board OF audit, or either OF them
10 any considerable extent, was impossi BILE,
but all questions arising In the settlement
Of CLAIMS were decided By the board. After
detailing the manner 4n which claims we're
s-ttieu and giving The names OF the clerks
employ ed on each class, Mr.. Tayler, for him
SELL says:
sIGNISG CERTIFICATES IN BLANK.
That certificates " claims were rot signed
by him Ia blank, with the exception Of three,
NficD the CLERK was ABOUT 10 NIL, having co.
tered the class, numbers, amount and
OF The cia maDts On the marginal stubs. His
presence being required Immediately at tie
Treasury az pertmeDt, he signed these three,
ard lett them ~ be fited up under such ~
serVaIion OF Others a. qua Tted against error,
For himself, Mr.. Brodhead sys that a a
n after of Convenience, from which 10 posi-
bic barn could arise, he signed near y al { ie
certificates in blank rs he hsd opportunity
and time, the amount found Cue IN each case
being inserted and compared with the sc
count before the certificate was signed 10y
MI Tayler.
THE QUESTION OF PERSONAL INTEREST IN
CLAIMS
Mr.. Tayler says he is not nor has he been
interested directly in any claim before the
board. Mi BrOdhead say he owned & ,Tne
certificates before ne became u mem Der OF
| tie board; that the certificates were CON
| veTted INTO 65 bonds, which he now holds;
that be has never sold nor been interes ted in
the sale of any certificates or 1855 bonds but
/ as purchased such bonds in M a. No
bis means would permit, believing them to
be a desirable Investment.
\ The board have no reason to believe that
any Of their employees were 1nterested 10 any
claims presented. IN many instances the
/ board, through the District Commissioners,
caused a Temeasuremeut of work u be ma lie
! by the engineer OF the District. They say
that a. d general rule unim proved properly
was lot considered as damaged beyond the
benefits accrued TO il from the Improvement
/ of The streets upon which IL was located,
III lees some special cause of damage existed,
| ages allowed were what was deemed the
| excess over the accrued benefits. The pur-
pose iOr which "A building was erected aud To
| VIII. ch IL was adapted was a subject of con
| siGeTatiOn. The board appointed a commits
kiOn-L. A. FOllansbee and John Collins ID
make examinations and report, and in some
Instances personally inspected for thenI-
selves
SETTLEMENT OF CLAIMS.
Notice OF The presentation of claims was
published for two weeks In one weekly and
three daily paper of Washington. IL was
adopted as q rule that claims pending and
! unsettled at the passage of the act of June 90
1874, should be deemed and held to be pend
ing before the board of audit. the same as If
the form of newly presenting what was
already among the lies and records which
had come TO the custody OF the board of audit
were insisted upon aud complied with. The
rules also embraced claims in favor OF tue
District, as well az against 1t, and seemed to
the board clearly within the discretion CON
ferred upon them a. To the form and manner
of giving notice and of presenting claims. 1t
waS Dlftstly just, and could work no
wrong. The boaId was not aware that "any
claims Of the first and second classes or
Claims Tor rebuilding sewer taxes that were
not presented until since July l. 1915" have
| been allowed. All claims of these ella .ses
which were so pre>e ated were declined, il
| subs Quently present Led, as the board be-
should be.
The hoard say that soon after their organi-
| ZatiOn they were invited TO hold
! CUNFERENCE WITH THE DISTRICT COMMITS
SiONERS
| as TO their powers, al the Arlington. Sena-
| tor Thurman was present, and the main
| question discussed was as TO the extent OF
the GuiieS OF the board of audit in relation to
/ the claims against the District which might
be thereafter created" by the further per
fOrmaDce. under the administration of the
| Commissioners, OF contracts of the board OF
public WORKS not completed when the act
/ AS passed. And in this connection IL was
| suggested that such claims could not proba-
By be presented within the time limited in
section six, namely, NINETY days after the
mr. pu hlicatiOn of such notice. as was pre-
scribed by that section. Senator Thurman
expressed the opinion that the committee
| which had examined into the affairs of the
| District, and had prepared and reported the
| act Of June 20, 1874, did not intend that the
| UncOmp'eied contracts OF the board of public
works should be abrogated, but did intend 10
provide means for completing the same in
| orCer that The unfinished WORK on the streets
ard sewers might be completed. He further
| expressed the opinion, in which Mr.. Stanton
| concurred, that the limitation of ninety days
fTr tot falgaf
10 those " hich existed at the passage OF the
act, and did not relate TO those to be there
after created, of which Congress had author
lZed settlement and payment. These con-
clus ions the board believed correct and con-
sequently acted upon them.
THROWING THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE
DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS
In the execution OF the powers of the Com
missioners they, and not the board of audit
were vested with authority to decide what
were "existing legal obligations aud con-
tracts" what CONTRACTS and obIigatioHs',
were necessary" TO their execution, land
10 The protection or preservation of improve
ments existing or commenced and not COM
pleted,' and their decision concluded the
board OF audit. The board refer to the case
OF the United States VS.. Jones, QSth Howard
Rep.Inn which the SupremeCOurt maintains
that an accounting officer cannot disaIiow
acts done by executive authority, or inquire
into their legality.
Early in August, 1874, a committee of the
"TaX-Payers' association" OF the District
called upon the Commissioners, and present.
against the continuance of any of the con-
tracts made for Improvements made with
The board OF public works. and with Ii sub
stantially the same arguments which are
now made on that side. The Commissioners
answered the Committee, and the substance
OF what was said was published in THE EVE
MING STAR, OF August 10. 1874. The Com
missioners also finally address the commit.
tee August, Is 1874, holding that the prose-
cut'On OF any or all the contracts OF the board
of public works TO completion was for them
alone TO decide. Under their authority they
suspended all the contracts, amounting, as
represented by the engineer, 10 H. and upon
inv estigation, revoked the suspension of 81 or
Them, leaving the legal status Of each and
all the contracts the same as when made. In
tee report of the Commissioners, December
;, 1914, they state the amount Of work done
The cost to complete contracts resumed, &c.
In the engineers report, constituting q
part OF the report of the Commissioners, the
following is stated: Whenever il has been
TO authorize necessary extra work under Il
contract, in order To properly complete the
work required under ", the express stipula-
has Hn hist ,fec..