Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-03-01

was continued by the House Committee on
the ID istrict this morning.
BEcKkTTs AFFIDAVIT.
Judge BuckI er read the DO ser OF attorney
given by Beckett To II. j. Mclaughlin on be-
half of the firm of Beckett & Williams IL is
dated December Fl, 1873 The money received
by Mclaughlin was paid on the sth OF Jsuu-
THE CONCRETE REsURFAcING CONTRACTS.
John Grant, sworn:-Am a foreman aud
superintendent of concrete street paving.
Was last employed by Mr.. Murdock; have
been engaged In the concrete business since
1s6si don't think mat the board Of public
sIeets that were Tesurfaced; don't thin X
street was advertised for. 1 bid to do X
get the contract. If had got it could have
made ten cents square yard profit. / saw
Ketchsm Ia reference to my bid. He said IL
was out OF his hands, as Crawford and Hoff-
man had contract TO do all of C. E. Evans
work. i understand that Crawford aud
Holman got 81 10 per square yard. Ny bid
was not Tor the carTiageways but for the
sidewalks. In my judgment the work OF
Crawford and Hoffman was worth about IS
cents yard. would like To have had il at
bid TO do the work at SIS cents a square yard
Crawford and Hoffman had the contract TO
do the 1esurlacing OF all OF c. E. Evans &
| Co.. WORK; the firm didn't care anything
about the sidewalks. and a. Crawford's re-
| quest bid for the sidewalks.
| q. Why didn't Crawford give you the work
| TO DO, 1nasmuch as his firm had the contract?
| A. Well. he was only one OF the firm aud
i suppose he was overruled.
The examination OF the witness was far
| Their continued as TO the manner of reSur-
facing street pavements as done under the
supervision OF witness for Mr.. Murdoch.
Judge Buekner directed that Lieut.. HoxIe
! De requested TO attend TO morrow in refer
| ence TO the Crawford & Hoffman contract.
| MR.. sCHARFF AS A WITNESS.
| o. r. SctdrG sworu:-- Came To Washington
| IN the spring of 1873. In the fall of 1874 or
| 1875 there was sn advertisement for the re-
| PAIRS OF concrete; there was no advertise
| ment last spring by the District Commits
| sioners. There was an advertisement about
| year ago for work on Grant place. Last
| year made proposition to resurfsce the
concrete work according TO specifications, at
| SIG per cubic yard; that would be about SIS
| cents In cash per square yard. Under my
| bid received two small orders from Lieut..
| Hoxle, for which received my pay I'm cash.
| was the highest bidder; the next Lowest
| bid TO me was for Sl0 per cubic yard. and
| there We're bids even lower than that. The
| only interest had in the Murdock contract
| was q royalty received on account of the
| patent, In which held a half interest; the
other half was owned Dy Frank Smith, but
| John u Evans paid me the royalty because
he had lease for the pateut. The amount of
royalty received from Murdoch was about
| $1,000.
Q. Do you know why you didn't get the
contract rather Than Murdock or Crawford
| Hoffman for concrete repairs?
A. had no right TO work the patent, be-
| cause Evfns had the lease and had sold IL TO
Murdoch. Again, had no machinery to do
4
| chased the machinery from Evans.
| THE EXTRA ALLOWANCE FOR HAULING.
ChGftes A. Appel, sworn:-Am clerk in the
oOalo OF audlt, In Charge or contractors ac-
| counts witness then explained that the
| price for hauling earth was established at 4
cents per cubic yard on and after June LIST,
1916. copy OF letter dated September q,
| lo'S, written by j. c. Lay, auditor OF the
| board of public works. was read, recomr~en
ing an allowance OF : cents for haul to con-
tractors who have open accounts. The letter
core the favorable endorsement OF Adolf
Ciuss, engineer, to whom il was referred by
The board OF public works. 1t was approved,
1ot 10 date before January LIST, 1873. On tue
9Th OF September. 1873, the board ordered II
ceLts ner cubic yard over the first two hun
dred feet TO be allowed in the settlement of
Contractors accounts. Witness then read a
Dumber OF settlements made with contrac-
tors for the extra haul. Much of the work
cited was done in 1872
@ Judge Buckner to Mr.. Keys, counsel
for the board OF audit) What are you trying
10 prove Uy those documents?
A. They go TO show that the board OF pub
nc WORKS allowed for the extra haul for work
@. Then you think because the board of
public works was liberal with the peoples
money, that the board Of audit also should
a. NO sir; am lot defending the board
OF audit AT ali. am only showing that the
allowance for extra haul was made by the
board of public works In 1872.
q. To Mr.. Appel:-You 70 lowed the same
rule then that the board OF public works did?
@ Now as to measurement, did you follow
the same rule? Did the board OF audit make
any announcements?
@. Where?
A. On + street.
q. Where else?
A. 1 don't know; if had the accounts
could tell; it is impossible To measure grad
Ing after II is DONE you must follow the Old
q. The extra allowance for haul previous
10 the time the board increased the price Was
In violation OF its own order, wasn'ti IL?
A. don't know; the ruling OF the late au-
dltor OF the board OF public works for work
done in 1915, was TO allow the extra haul.
q. Do you think because the board of pub
lie works allowed the extra haul for work
done In 1872 that IL gave the board of auiit
the authority 10 make the extra allowance?
A. Certainly.
THE CANAL FILLING.
Witness said that all dirt that was dufnDal
in the canal in 1872 was paid for AZ cents a
cart load, or Is cents yard, without refer
eDce to where il came from.
q. Where did you get authority for thar
A. Got it from MI Shepherd.
A letter from Alex. x. Shepherd TO the
board OF audit was read, increasing the price
allowed ii. j. Mclaughlin for dumping earth
from n street INTO the canal.
q. You always took the certificate OF Mr.
shepherd as evidence OF work done?
A Evidence to show that there was an
agreement TO do IL. 80 -.
Q. Not in the form of an afidavit-msrely
a statement.
dumped IN the canal was always ascsrtaiuei
from An officer Of the board Of public works
superintendent at the canal for Tn pur-
pose.
Q. Have you found many instances where
the board of public works have overpaid con-
tractors?
A. Yes, sir; found some Whenever I
discovered IL, and a contractor had further
money due him., deducted IL from his ac
count.
Q. But when there was no further money
due a contractor, aud you found him over
paid, you did not enter suit TO recover, did
you?
A. had nothing to do with suits.
AT ten minutes after twelve the committee
adjourned until to- morrow al 10 O'Clock.
CHRIsTIANcY's MARRIAGE-I like the
way old Christtancy married. We make too
much OF marriage anyway as grand part
OF Life, and by xaggerating Its responsibility
increase the delicacy or the relation and
consequent disturbance and unhappiness
Marriage ought to be prompt and beautifuI
accident, with money somewhere on the
premises, in which case bad health is not
dangerous and one can pay, his fare to run
away from bad temper. Christiarey had the
Iox 81