Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-05-23

of the same street. much less the grading or
The paving OF a different street or q newly
opened street; and ~ even such construe-
tion were allowable, where do the Commits
sioners get the authority 20 pay Tor This
modification" or "extension" la the bonds
Increase The debt OF tue District because they
had no cash resources with which TO pay fer
this work, and that, therefore, Congress must
pressly limited 70 the funding OF existins in
deoiedness TO discharge and satisfy a newly
created obllgation2
There IL no doubt that they had authority.
and 10 was their duty % preserve and protect
the improvements OF the District. but We
deny that it results from this admitted
for the payment OF the Iaborexpended An the
preservation and protection OF these inn
proVements In the bonds OF the District. On
,ee contrary; the absence OF any sIcn
sive o. the intention OF Congress. They
could only use the revenues OF the
p pnIT and such sPPropristious a.
pose. Nor do we see any reason or pro-
priety IN the attempt OF the Commissioners
tsching to those contract Extensions 1non
the engineer OF the District. he seems 10
have acted in all this matter under their
control and supervision. lt IN the Commits
sioners, and not the engineer, who make and
sign these contracts. IL is they who Contract
as 10 the character aud kind OF work aud the
responsible for the measurement of the
work, and determines whether the contrac-
tor complies with the contract made by the
Commissioners, but the responsibility OF
authorizing the work aud fixing the terms
mode OF the paw ment belong % the Cosnmis-
sionerS. The engineer may have failed 10
see That proper aud suitable materials were
used. and HIS measurements and estimates
may have been Incorrect, but this does not
meet tie objection that the Commissioners
had no authority 10 contract Tor these exteo-
- Fs.
District.
Another large item OF expenditure during
the wear iSl5 Is tue Aum OF $50 sea o. made
on account OF repairs 10 wood and concrete
pavements. The authority TO aid this sum
10 the Cebt OF The District is derived from
section OF the contracts OF the board of nm h.
lie works This section Is In these words:
Ninth. II il further agreed that AZ at any
time, during the period OF - years from
the completion OF this contract, any part or
parts thereof shall become detective, frorn
Improper material or construction. and In
the opinion OF the SAID party OF the nrst part
part will, on being notified thereof, imme-
diately Commence and complete the same 20
me SUBTRACTION OF the party of the nrst
psrt and In case OF failure or neglect of the
said party OF the second party 20 so do the
same shall be done under the direction and
orders OF the party OF the FIRST part, az the
expense OF the party OF the second part
The construction by which this large ex-
penditure is now Jus1aed seems never 10
haNe Occurred 20 ne commissioners until
the contrary, there is very Convincing eyf.
dence, in the report OF the engsaear accom-
sea ma sRs sn esF q
such sum 10 make the repairs of wo>d and
concrete pavements, and that they Mel
upon the revenues OF the District aud appso-
priations by Congress 90 pay for the repair
needed for the year 1886. In this report OF
the engineer, made q part Of the report OF
the Commissions, among bis estimates FOR
Repairs OF wood pavements, which
are TO be charged To contractors
and requiring a cash advance by
District government........... S3l ,629.42
Repairs OF concretes TO be charged
10 contractors, requiring a cash
advance bysDistrict government l6,l6s.7e
Repairs OF wood pavements, on
which the term OF three years has
expired, or will expire, during rs
r me Sear is The sum Of .,es ~ 81
is estimated 10 be necessary, 10 be expended
for the same purpose, and with the same
statement that IL was cash advance by the
District ito be charged 10 contractors.n In
the statement heretofore referred to. sent by
the Commissioners 10 the chairman OF the
District committee OF the House, and 70 be
found in the Congressional Record OF February
priation OF sl.07i,sl3, and among the items
OF this sum is slO9, IA 50 "for repairs TO wood
and concrete prvements per est est, OF en-
SlOt;0 600 instead OF the SUM asked, not spe-
cincally, but for general purposes.
Your committee are OF toe opinion mat
these facts afford convincing evidence that,
as late as February, 1875, the Commissioners
construed their powers, as 70 repairs OF these
pavements, as the committee 90, and THAT
they could only be paid for In cash aud out
OF their own funds. Instead OF using the
money thus appropriated on their own eeti-
mate and at their instance, they seem TO
have discovered that they contract for the
payment OF these repairs in Sos bonds, and
instead Of expendiDg Sl09, 2lI %, the amount
estimated ard demanded. they have made
repairs exceeding $500 coo In amount, and
paid for these repairs in 365 bonds. Your
committee are at loss TO comprehend
where they have found authority for this
large exper diture for this purpose In bonds.
We repeat, that we do not question their
power and duty TO make these repairs, under
the authority Ito protect and preserve i'm
provements, complete aud Incomplete but
The work OF repair must be paid for In cash
and not 10 bonds. But IL is said by the
Commissions that the ninth section Of the
contract, as quoted above, contained the OBJ
legation OF the contractor 10 keep his Work
In repair for a term OF years, aud on failure
and notice they bad the power TO make the
repairs and charge the cost thereof 70 the
contractor; and inasmuch as the econd seq
ton of the act OF June ~; 1874, gave them the
power TO execute existing legal obligations,
they could do this work for the CONTRACTOR
sSs the contractor for fnde-nnii icai nSsn
Conceding for the mornent the cor
rectness OF this construction of the
law. Wnere 90 Iney OBTAIN the authority 20
issue the bonds OF the District In pay xient
for these repairs? But obviously there Is no
ground for this construction.
II the obligation is between the District
and the contractor, that obligation is that
that the contractor shall keep the streets
improved by him in repair, and the Commits
sioners would enforce the contract on the
part OF the District by suing the contractor
Tor his failure and obtaining judgment
against him. But, according 10 their con-
struction, the District must, on the failure
OF the contractor TO do his duty, execute apr
obligation on It's part that had no existence
until such failure, and the District must
pay for the cost OF repairing first before
there is any obligation 10 be executed or
enforced. We think before the Commits
siopers undertook 70 increase the debt Of the
District $500, 900 by such q construction OF
this act, they should have taken the opinion
OF the Attorney General or some eminent
attorney, especially as IL was evidently an
afterthought with them that the statute
gave them this power. But there IL good
reason TO believe that much OF this repair
WORK has cost the District from 30 70 40 per
cent. more than IL was worth.
There is much testimony (see testimony OF
John Grant, 8. r. Scharf, and 3. 8. Dant) ac-
cOnnnQnVfnQ this reuorf IN the aflorf that