Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-11

",
contract, or ita execution In bad faith by the
original cont actors, ana to charge any ad-
Gltlopa al expense TO the original contractors.
Inc tneory OF the complaint was. that the
reinforced power, given by the terms of the
contract 10 the board OF public works,
ana, moreover. that the exercise of such
power would be in violation of the act Of
June 20, 1874. The case was an important
one, as the section OF the contract under
which the Commissioners had proceeded Is
also contained In other contracts made by
The late board Of public works, and IL pro-
vides An efficient mode OF enforcing the faith
ful performance OF work.
III the exercise OF the power had been en-
disarmed as respects the enforcement Of con-
tracts made by the boagd Of public works.
But after argument, and the tntimatiOns
given by the court at the hearing. the com
plainants voluntarily dismissed their bill as
the NTH and ninth sections shove quoted
were parts OF written contracts made by the
board OF public works. Claims arising out
Of them were properly to be auditei by the
board OF audit and the certificates given by
that board were made by law convertible in
10 $50 BONDS. II was impracticable 10 sep
srste these sections from the other sections
OF those contracts, and 10 say that these
sfoOfd be paid in cash and the others in
bos-d OF audit certificates. We have never
haG any doubt that the Commissioners
by virtue OF the fifth and ninth sections of
such contracts and during the period therein
nsrned, In exercise of their authority as sue
Such contracts, in the execution OF existing
legal obligations and CONTRACTS aud in en-
forcement Of their rights under such con-
tracts had the authority 10 make these re-
pairs by means of contracts arising and
created ont OF contracts origin ally ma1e by
the board of public works. These views as
70 thp Jaw were IN coniormlty with our con-
StructiOn of the act OF June 20, 1874, and par
ncularlv of the second, third, sixth and sew
eDth sections OF said act, and were expressed
70 ms orally by both Mr.. Stanton and
NV 9 =
ant attorney for the District. The
question was also at the outset fully
gndeT T 90 by tse T frst and second c3ntr9
board Of audit, who decided that claims
under such repair contracts came within the
Jurisdiction Of that board and within the
fourth class of claims named in the sixth
section of tine act Of j une 20, 1874. If we had
hesitated TO perform our duty In this re-
spect, the rapid deterioration of the pave
ments and carriageways of the city-im-
prOveTnents OF immense value-wOuld have
caused Just and general condemnation of
our course. IL may be properly added that,
as we now remember. no srch repair work
has been done except under contracts, in
W hich the time limited for notice to the con
tractor to repair expired before the lst of
as. Before you contracted TO do this repair
work did you or either of you have any con-
sultatioD with the board of audit or either OF
SAID board as TO whether said board would
issue certificates for the work done on said
repairs? Did said board agree with you In
opinion that the cost OF this work was a part
of the floating and unfunr cd debt of the Dis
tTict of Columbia or the board of public
works existing at the time OF the passage of
said act of June 10Th, l.. I, or did you or said
board hold that the cost of this repair work
were claims existing at the passage of said
act or created thereafter, and arising out of
contracts made by the board of public works?
Do you know whether all claims for this re-
pair work were presented within the time
prescribed by the sixth section OF said act,
and II not, can you state why said claims
were not SD presenter"
j.. A5tS1ccT.-The answer TO this question
will be found indicated in the answer 10 the
fourth.
We brought this matter TO the notice OF
the board of audit as a question OF law and
understood from them that their decision
was to issue certificates for work done on
such repairs. We have no recollection OF
having presented TO them our opinion in the
manner and form stated In the question. but
understood that the board OF audit held SUBJ
Sfantally the opinion mentioned.
We do not know at what date claims for
this repair work was presented TO the board
OF audit. AS the repairs were made subse-
queDt TO the time prescri bed by the sixth sec
ton Of said act. the claims for the work were
necessarily presented after the expiration of
that time. 1t was understood that the con
strUctiOn of the statute by the board OF audit
did not apply this limitation OF time 10
claims which arose out of contracts made
with The board of public works, but which
were created after the act Of June p, l,14,
al after the time limited in that act for
the presentation ofcertain claims.
III. state whether in the itemized state
mtIt for appropriations made to the second
session Of the last Congress by the Board of
Commissioners any sum was asked for the
repair OF concrete pave nentS, and fOf wood
psyementS, during the fiscal year ending
June 80, leo? II SD, state the sum 50 asked
for; whether the sums so asked for were
based upon estimates made by the engine ar
as 10 the amount OF work necessary To keep
sald wood and concrete pavementS in repair
10 July 50, lSiG? state whether any para OF
the sums asked for has been expeniCi IN said
repairs OF wood pavements or concrete pave
MEETS. II so, how much of said sums has
been so expended; on what streets it has been
30 expended. and to whom paid. II not so
expedited, state why these sums have not
been so expended, instead of issuing 3 -
bonds for the payment OF such repairS?''
IA AHs1cer.-The itemiZed statement made
by us 10 the second session OF the last Con-
gIIs lor appropriations for repairs OF con.
crete and wood pavements during the fiscal
year ending j une 30th, 1876, was based upon
The estimate of tue engineer OF November 20,
1874, and, ante dating in this way by so long
a period the time fixed for the expenditure,
the estimates were necessarily conjectural
and based upon the appearance of the pave
ments at that time. They were subsequently
and OF necessity completely revised when the
rapid change-for the worst-in the condition
OF the pavements indicated that without re-
pairs they would soon become worthless
inns matter is fully explained in the report
OF the engineer OF the District, attached to
the report of the Commissioners for 1915
page "a TO 80 inclusive.) wherein il is shown
mat suddenand rapid disintegration ofthese
pavements took place, making general and
extensive repairs absolutely indispepssbIe
AT the time of making the first estimate IL
was contemplated to perform this work of
repair for cash; but when the magnitude OF
the work became apparent, making plain
the iDadequacy OF the cash resources of the
District TO meet the expenditure, an exami-
nation OF the whole subject ensued which
resulted IN the conclusion that this was
properly incomplete contract work of the
BOARD OF public works and therefore payable
In certificates OF the board OF audit. In con-
sequence OF this decision only a small amount
was expended in cash upon the repairs OF
these pavements up to the date of our annual
report for lss5, namely eight thousand four
hundred and siXty.dOllarS and ninety cents
& =, 10000 in repairing concrete pavements
and seven teen hundred and fOrty-One dollars
and twenty-five cents Isl, al % in repairing
WOOd pavemeDts. This was scattered in small
fragments over various streets upon VIII ich
The COZ tractor was no longer responsible for
the repair Of this work. This wifi fully ap-
pear IN the statement of expenditures aud
estimates IN the printed report of the eugI-
peer attached TO the Annual Report of the
commissioners or lSIj page 25j
CTS. State the name ofthe officer or officers
who made the measurements for this repair
Work. W ere measurements made by the en-
gineer OF the District OF Columbia or by one
or both OF his asSIs ants, and are one or both
OF these assistants the same persons who
made any or all OF the measurements OF
Work done under the board of public works.
10 AHStCeT.-The officers who were engaged