National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-07-24
DISTRICT AFFAIRS.
The Boa, d Of AudittO rudge A. H. Buekae,.


speech last May, which he had intended as the
majority report of the House Committee on
the District, of which he was chairman, and
his speech WIS surreptitiously printed, the
board of audit pref AIRED ard transmitted to the
Judge the following dignifed and caustic criti-
cism of the parts of his speech which referred
to the conduct OF that board. AS the majority
of the conSmittee failed to inderse the Judges
views, and the report or speech consequently
was properly accouched, the Judge did not con-
slider it necessary to print this rejoinder OF the
board:
WASHINGTON, May q, 1876.
Hor. H. H. Buckncr, ehstrrsan Of the House Com
mitt,s on the District Of Columbia:
Sir In the Evening Star of the sd instant
was published what purports to be n report OF
the House Committee on the District of Co.
lumbia on the proceedings of the Commission
ers of the District and of the board of audit,
which comments on those proceedings with
some severity.
The surprise with which that report was read
was somewhat weakened by "a statement of the
Star that it contained the views of majority
of the committee only-a majority so consti-
tuted as to induce the opinion that its action
originated in partisan political views, rather
than in desire to secure public justice and
advance public interests. Go.
The facts since stated and published show
that the paper plnporting to be report of
the committee contained the views of only
the member by whom it had been prepared,
which he had in that form submitted to the
committee for future consideration, and which
had been surreptitiously obtained and pub
lished.
The chief grounds of censure of the Com
missioners and of the board of audit, as set
forth in the published report, are in the differ
ent views of the law taken in the committee
from those entertained by the District authori-
ties.
The consti uction given to the board of audit
is stated in their answers to the questions
s, Q, and 10 OF the committee, published on
pages 8, &c, of the same as printed by direc-
ton of the committee, which need not be here
repeated, but to which reference is made.
That construction was concurred in by both
the Commissioners and the board OF audit.
These officers having thus construed the law,
and given effect to il on that construction un-
der their ofcialresponsihility, and without any
motive except to discharge their official duties
according to their Judgment, without alleged
political or partisan wishes to govern them,
without i'll will or cnmity toward the District
or its people, the presumption naturally arises
that the action of those officers was proper and
should be sustained. And the result must be
the same, Though the committee should be of
the opinion that, as an original proposition, a
more restricted construction would have been
Justified ard been preferable. Neither the
Commissioners nor the board of audit can con-
sent that their iudg ment of the law is so absurd
as tote censurable; and it is maintained that
where either of two constructions might have
tlaa Of
the public authorities and was the foundation
of Il cir action 10 degree from which no back
wards steps can be taken, must be assumed to
he the correct ore, even by those who would in
the Cutset have given another construction.
This is necessary that controversy may have an
end, and especially so as human judgments
vary, and in many things never are alike.
The Commissioners and the members
of the board OF audit were not with
out experience in both public and pri-
vate affairs. Some of them had been for
many years accustomed to the transaction
of public business and to constituting laws; and
some of them were lawyers of many years
experience in public rs well as private affairs.
They had known courts to be oVerruled and
reversed by their superiors, and at times by
themselves; but they had not learned, and
have not learned, that superior court, in
reversing an inferior, made it the occasion for
unfr:endly criticism, much less of censure.
The Commissioners and the board of audit
are Lot without support in their views of the
law. The answer OF the ioard of audit shows
that before any action had been taken by them
the opinion of an eminent lawyer, who was
without prejudice in favor of the late Board of
Public Works or their action, and who had
been member of the joint committee which
reported the act of June 20, 1874, was taken,
and that the action of the board of audit con-
formed to his opinion.
Three other lawyers who were also members
Of the same Joint committee, have, in writing,
sustained the same views; and the members of
the hoard of audit do not doubt that the pro-
fession generally would, on examination, CON
cur in them.
Not only this, but the board of audit showed
in their answer that the Congress which
passed the act of June 20, 1874, affirmed their
views, and 1t is also shown that the attorneys
of the Commissioners concrrred.
On page IA of the report quite large num-
Der of accounts are stated which, 1t is alleged,
are illee al, and which it is stated are "pay-
ments made to contractors and others by the
bo-rd OF audit colla:ed from report of testi-
mony," which amount to over $500 900. OF
all this sum only one item of SS,495.15 was a
wrong allowance by the board of audit, as was
stated to the committee by the accountant
who examined the account. As in the item of
IS, AS 40 in the name of Albert Gleason, the
lowed of this sum only S45S.49, and that on
the engineers allowance, the residue having
been paid by the late Board of Public Works.
But it is not proposed to re-examine those
acco lnts here. The board of audit believed
and still believe their allowances were right,
and il the District authorities should, through
the recommendation or direction of Congress,
be induced to sue for the recovery of these
sums, it is more than probable that loss will
result from ~ -NrOspnutiOn nj "A
claims to the District. So far the impression
is strong that the committee have not thor
ougbly examined the claims In question.
The members of the board of audit have
had no interest or desire except to discharge
their duties faithfully towards the public and
'owaid DIS claimants upon pablo justice, IFey
have not been governed by the Cry OF en- "over-
t-xnd community, for that was not true.
No ci in the United States of the population
OF Washington is as lightly taxed as Wash
in. or. Real estate has been taxed at less
ia.e than in other cities, and personal prop
erty, with slight occasional exceptions, has
not been taxed at all. The cry of over-taX-
alton is false and fraudulent, and is made by
Ten who are daily growing richer and richer.
Their eel estate is worth to-day, under the
depression of all kinds of business which pre-
walls throughout the world, vastly more than
it was five years ago. There is no city in the
country, probably no one in the world, so
well paved, so beautiful or so delightful as
Washington. Notwithstanding the pre'ence
of burthensome taxation, buildings of i'm
proved character are being constantly erected,
and the population is constantly and rapidly
increasing. The future is bright if politicians
ard fault finders will permit it; it is bright in
spite Of them. Very respectfully,
K. W. TAYLER,
J. M. BRoDHEAD.