Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-05-23
DISTRICT INVESTIGATION
Continued from First Page.I

lied TO issue their certificates for the sums
found due in each OF the said classes, and
year bond, bearing 3 65 per cent. interest, to
be issued by the board of sin king fund COM
missloners. All claims were required to be
presented within ninety days after publica-
lion of notice. So that no claim could be
examined and audited by this board that
was cot included within one or the other OF
these classes, and was not presented as pre-.
serb ed by this section.
The amounts allowed in each OF these
estimate OF The Joint committee of the two
Houses, except those allowed in the fourth
class, and In the class for damages done to
real estate. The amount estimated by that
committee of the fourth class, as we have
before stated, was 81 $4,000, while the
amount allowed and certified is s7,156, 17s13.
The phraseOlOgy of the statute descriOi
the claims of this class leaves no doubt thai
1t was intended TO include the claims
growing ont of the incomplete contracts
of the board OF public works. They
must be claims for work done, or claims
hereafter created, that Is, for work to be
done, but arising out OF contracts already
made by the board of public works. The ne
eessary elements OF these claims are, first, a
contract with the board OF public works, ex-
already done or to be done under 1t; and
third, no written evidence of the claim. 1t
was In fact an unliquidated demand, uncer.
tanned when the work was fnished. But an
indispensable condition was that the de-
mand must arise out of contract In exist
Of presentation 10 the board of audit in some
form, within the ninety days prescribed by
the sixth section.
That all claims for work done under in
complete legal contracts OF the board of pub
lie works, where no evidence of INDEBTED
ness has been issued, are within the terms
of this fourth class, cannot be doubted; and
The duty and right of the board OF audit to
examine and certify these claims is unQues-
ti0nasi , And your committee have as little
o. disallowed all claims arising out of con-
tracts for work that had no existence on the
10th June, 1874. In no sense were such claims
a part of the unfunded and floating debt of
The District or the board of public works at
that date; nor was Ii possible that q claim
subsequent TO the passage OF the act, could
have made the presentation of his claim as
required by the statute.
The extensions OF contracts or the con-
tracts for new work made by the Commits
siOners, as well as the contracts for repair
ing wood and concrete pavements, were
and esItsed any p conSsrieS ,1 70 De Snas
appears that the board OF audit knew that
the Commissioners were making these ex
tensions and contracting for new work as
well as repairing old work, and still they
audited claims arising out of this new work,
and thus became accessory with the Com
missioners in increasing the debt of the Dis
trict in violation of the law. III they had re-
Used to allow all claims arising out of con.
tracts entered into by the Commissioners
subsequent to the act defining their powers
and duties, the District debt would be less
than IL now Is by from three TO i've millions
II Is not claimed that they had any power
payment of anything but Indebtedness 5,
Iqu1dated or unliquidated, existing June
20, 1874, but the result OF their action has
been that these certificates have been
issued for a large amount of indebte iness
that has accrued on contracts for work that
have come into being since that date. And
II the board OF audit had complied with the
requirements of the section Investing ths.u
with authority to examine and certify these
claims, IL would have cut off no incOnsidera-
groundless, allowances. They gave notice,
as required by the statute, that all claims
must be presented TO them within ninety
days after the first publication OF notice.
But, strange to say, they made an order that
al claims against the board of public works
should be deemed and considered presented,
without requiring the claimant to make
any memorandum or statement in writing
as 10 the nature, character or amount OF his
demsnd against the board OF public works,
WITHIN me ninety days. The consequence
was that claims were allowed year after
the limitation expired that would never
have been thought of or presented, and
which are believed to have been wholly
WITHOUT merit. (See testimony of Morris
Murphy, Delaware Hudnall, Williams and
Beckett, reports OF John Morris, ex-
Pert, SCI This notification Of the
The door TO a set OF improvised claim
agents, who, with the aid Of subordinates in
tie board OF audit or OF the District govern
trict and the contractor. We do not impute
any Intentional wrong TO the officers COM
POSING the board OF audit In the matter, but
we cannot but condemn their disregard OF a
legal provision the object OF which was to
protect the District against fabricated
claims, and TO guard It's treasury against the
claim agents. Fit had been complied with
In all the classes of claims enumerated
above, II would have stood as an absolute
oar and Pronioiticn against their auditing
and certifying any of the claims growing out
or extension or repair work, because there
could in the nature OF things have been no
presentation OF any claim arising out of
work done on contracts that had no exist
ence until after the expiration OF the ninety
days Limitation. II they could not have
1oreseen what would be the consequences of
their action, they ought at least 70 have
yielded obedience to the law without con-
sidering the Inconvenience TO themselves or
10 others OF such obedience.
To the board Of audit alone was instructed
the duty OF deciding what claims were in
eluded within either or all OF these classes. II
Is the fourth class, within which were en-
braced claims growing out of WORK on the
Improvements OF the board OF public works:
but how the repairing of the concrete and
wood pavements can be brought within the
definition OF claims 70 be allowed in this
class, is more than we can Comprehend
They must De claims existing "or hereafter
created arising out of contracts
made by the board of public
WORKS." In the case OF the repairs OF these
pavements, there is a contract, 1t is true,
public works, which required the former TO
make these repairs, but was there any claim
existing AT the passage OF this act or there
slter created against the board of public
works In favor OF the contractor He had no
claim existing or created afterward against
The board OF public works growing out of the
provisions OF the ninth section Of these con-
tracts.
There was no claim existing or created
afterward, until the Commissioners ordered
The repairs TO be done, and labor and money
had been expended thereon by the con-
tractor. He was a debtor to the board of
public works under the ninth section after his
failure 10 make repairs, instead OF his hav-
Ing any claim against the District or the
board of public works. II, instead OF suing
The contractor for damages for his failure
10 repair, as the Commissioners have right
To co, they made the repairs, their cost could
not be made claim against the District, for
the reasons above given, and for the addi-
tioDal reason that when the claim accrued
II was long after IL could be presented so as
10 become part OF the bonded debt. II was
a Gross peTversion of the statutes to audit
and certify the cost of this repair work as a
part OF the existing debt OF the District on
The 10Th OF June, 1874; and 10 is an Insult To
In q rNTN NaNn