National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-03-15


power 10 make such contracts and In
cur such oblis stiops as might be necessary 70
the execution or existing legal obligations and
improvements existing or commenced and not
completed At the time Of the passage Of the act
Of June 20 1874 The question, therefore, was 9,
to the extent Of the duties Of the board Of audit
In relation TO the claims against the District
which might be "tbereaiter crested' BY the fur
ther performances, under the administration OF the
missioners, Of contracts Of the Board Of Pub
lie Works not completed whom the act WAS passed.
And in this connection IL was suggested that such
claims could not probably DO presented within
the time limited in section sir. namely, NINETY
days after the first publication OF such notice. IS
was prescribed by that section.
To this Senstor Thurman said IN substance
that the committee which had examined into the
affairs Of the District, and had prepared and re-
ported the act Of June 20, 1874, did not intend
that the uneompleted contracts OF the Board OF
tend to provide means for completing the same
in order that the unfinished work on the streets
and sewers night be completed; that this COM
Specially necessary in the case OF the sewers but
the provisions Of law we're general, and related
20 unfinished contracts for work on the streets as
well as the sewers; that while II was designed,
and in the case Of sewer contracts was absolutely
necessary to continue the prosecution OF work un-
der unfinished contracts, the COMMITTEES had not
intended that the contractors In such should
be paid in money, for the contract prices had
generally been fixed with the expectation that
contractors would receive securities below par,
them in 3.65 bonds would be fair compensation for
future work under unfinished contracts as we'll as
for the past debts Of the Board OF Public Works;
inissed contracts had bsen provided, and that
Limitation OF ninety days for presentation Of
claims had reference only 70 those which existed
those te be thereafter created, Of which Congress
had authorized settlement and payment. In this
construction OF the law as given BY Senator Thur
In This statement of me vfews of Senator
Thurman We do not assume TO use his words, but
to state the conclusions and intimate the course
and still believe were correct, and we acted upon
them. We found that all existing executive
powers, including those OF the Governor and the
Board Of Public Works had, under certain limi-
tations, been conferred upon the Commissioners,
with specific powers In relation to certain con-
tracts and improvements then not completed in
proceed with them; that section three Of the &C:
required the President 10 detail an ofticer Of the
engineer corps of the army, who should, subject
TO the general supervision and direction OF the
Commissioners, have the control and charge OF
the work Of repair and Improvement of streets
and sewers, and who was by law empowered and
required to perform the duties theretofore de:
yolviDg upon the chief engineer OF the Board Of
Public Works; that the prosecution OF work Of
repair and Improvement under competent and
skilliul management was thus contemplated by
the act; that no money then in possession or to
be derived from authorizedtaxationc could be used
for this purpose; that the only means avail
able for this purpose were bands 10 be Issued on
the certificates OF the board Of audit, and that
the board was authorized to audit and certify
claims thereafter created arising out Of contracts,
Works.
Cnder the second section of the act of June %,
1874, the Commissioners OF the District wero
vested with the former power and authority OF
the Board OF Public Works, except so far as
limited BY the said act Of June 20, 1874. Thls,
within the Limitations prescribed by that enact
ment, the Commissioners succeeded to the control
contracts entered into by the latter board. Ex-
sept so far as restricted in their power to mako
contracts and incur obligations, the Commit
tracts with the Board OF Public Works The re-
striction upon the powers of the Commissioners is
4 gainst the making Of contracts or the mourning
obligations as may be necessary to the faithful
OF the valid laws enacted for the
government OF said District, to the execution -es
existing legal OBLIGATIONS anc so1tEacts, and to
existtr z or corinenced and not completed at the
time Of me passage Of this sct.n Such modifca-
Public Works as might be necessary to the faith
Iul admin tTation of the valid laws enacted for
the government of said District, to the execution
81 existing legal obligations and contracts, and
to the protection or preservation of improvements
existing or commenced and not completed at the
time of the passage Of the act of June %, 1874,
might be made by the Commissioners. The &C!
81 June 20, 1874, certainly authorized the settle
nent of clsims which should be created" after
the passage Of the act arising out Of contracts,
written or oral, msde by tho Board Of Public
GOULD after the passage of that act only be Gre
ated by the continued prose of work under
1nconpleted contracts Of the Board Of Public
with the concurrence Of the con.
tr9ctors, over the terms Of such contracts. And
only under such contracts and by the creation of
Slams BY the board Of audit, could the duties Of
he Commissioners with reference to the improve
nents Indicated in section two Of the act be per-
and the Gfe creations and 2. Soo Of
claims hereunder, could that work be carried
On, the prosecution of which was N anIfestly de.
signed by section three of the act whereby fithe
control and charge Of the work Of repair and i'm.
provement OF all streets, avenues, alleys, sewers,
roads and bridges Of the District of Columbia,
Iublset to the general supervision Of the said
of the engineer corps of the army Of the United
States to be detailed for such duty by the Presi.
lent.
The construction given to the law BY Senator
Thurman seemed to US fairly within the rules
applicable to the construction Of statutes, and
so with reference to statutes concern
ng public affairs.
The view OF the case is still farther sustained
oy the provisions OF section three of the act of
une 20, 1874, which authorized the President to
of the United States, who should, subject to the
general supervision and direction of the Commits
'ioners, "have control and charge of the work Of
alleys, sewers. roads and bridges of the District
)f Coum b1a, and vested such officer OF engineers
with all the power and authority Heretofore de.
Volved upon the chief engineer Of the Board of
Public Works. He was also authorised, with the
advice and consent OF the Commissioners, to ap-
point TWO assistant engineers from civil life. It
employ ed would not be needed had not Con-
gress contemplated the fultllment Of existing
)blig stiops and contracts and the protection and
ofimprovements existing or com
M nf
their cost through certificates of the board Of
audit.
II may here be observed that the powers of the
Commissioners included "the execution OF exist
ing legal obligations and contracts" while those
Of the board Of audit, SO far as concerned existing
claims, embraced all "arising out Of contracts,
works. The distinction is here apparent that
while the Commissioners in the execution OF their
powers were TO fulfill legal obligations aud con-
TSieh thew tbeustt pecessarv IN p pTSeP 10 sssel.
tain their legality and decide the question OF va
lidity. the board of audit was not empowered thus
committee and the act Of Congress were prensred
TO carry out their views based upon the opinion
that cts, both written and oral, were made
WerFs but ths. the Claims ns arising out Of tbem
ought nevertheless to be recognized and paid.
The board OF audit was not, therefore, to SIT in
Of Public Works, the exesativs autborIty' but
was simply authorized TO ascertain whether
had been made, and the sum due upon
il, and to certify such sum as might be found due
If the contract were not in itself fraudulent. So
in the execution OF the powers Of the Commits
sicners they, and not the board OF audit, were
vested with authority to decide what were sex
isttng legal obligations and contracts" what
u contracts and obligations" were necessary TO
their execution" land to the protection or
MERGED and not completed" and their decision
the board Of audit. We refer here to
the case Of the United States vs.. Jones, usth
Howard Rep,) in which the Supreme Court
N aintsin that an accounting oficer cannot dis
allow acts done By executive authority or inquire
into their legality.
Early in August, 1874, q committee of the "tsx.
pa yers association the District called upon the
and presented to that body "their
earnest protest against the continuance OF any Of
the contracts for improvements made with the
Bosrd Of Public Works, and with It substantially
the came arguments which are now made on that
side. The Commissioners answered the commit
tee and the substance of what was said was pub
lisbed In the Evening Star Of August 10, 1874.
A formal answer In writing was addressed by
the COMMITTEES, and was published in the Star Of
August Is, 1874. These dates we obtain from the
Erening Star Of the 18th OF February, 1875, In
which the papers are republished.
From the written answer We take the following:
"That the defects In contracts II they existed,
ton. or those involving the making OF the debt Of
the District to exceed $40 900 600, were all known
TO the Investigating committee and to Congress
and were covered By the acs Of June % 1874 under
which the commission was Organized.
the commissioners therefore hold that the
OF any or all the contracts of the Board
Of Public Works to completion Is for them alone
TO decide. Under their authority they suspended
all the contracts, amounting, as represented by
Nba afn AF 49, H.