National Republican., 1876-04-12

luri.s which tn. original contractor was obliged

during which the original contractor was obliged
to repair his work.
question, asking whether any. improvements have
been made, either Of streets or sewers, or any
money expended on or about roads, streets, SC.
the legal obligations or contracts existing at.the
time the commission was created, or to the pro-
lection or preservation of improvements.
The seventh interrogatory asks whether any
contract had been made for the purchase Of ma
terials for improvement Of the Streets avenues,
sc. The answer explains that two contracts
were made for a limited quantity Of sewer pipe
to be furnished TO the contractors at the cost
price, the amounts drawn being charged to the
accounts Of me M S and the am T
proyal of the board Of audit TO secure uniformity
and good quality in the material.
formation whether the Commissioners have en-
tered into any contract whereby they have agreed
to make payment in a65 bonds Of the District at
their market value, the Commissioners stated that
In some instances, where
CONTRACTORS HAVE PAILED
to make repairs within the time specified by the
contract, there has been immediate necessity for
Tepnrng and sma portion 81 Isn u mas tSs Geen Pad
cost Of the work being ascertained and twenty per
cent. being allowed for profit OF the total cost Of
manner ard paid for in bonds at their market
value being the opinion Of the engineer that 1t
would not be practicable to get this work done ex
cept by cash or its equivalent.
IN answer to, the question whetherivorks re-
ported to Congress In December, 1874, as to be
done with cash payments have since been paid in
3.65 bonds, the Commissioners reply that since
the estimate was made IL had been decided that
one Of the items in the estimate for expenses Of
repairs of pavements TO be charged to contractors
was still included within the contracts OF the
Board of Public Works for original work. Under
the other contracts no 365 bonds had been issued.
the 10 qepg
including three extensions, Of the Board OF Public
Works, recognized by them as existing, legal OBJ
made, between February y and June 20, 1874. An
examination Of the contracts was made by the
Commissioners with view to determining
THE VALIDITY OF THE OBLIGATIONS,
and they had refused to recognize as valid certain
In reply to the tenth question, the Commis-
sioners state that committee from the Tax-pay
ers' Association presented to them paper which
might have been in the character Of protest.
against the recognition of many contracts; being
unlawful, for the reason that they exceeded the
prescribed limit, u, 900 900, which had been an
swered in writing by the Commissioners. The
Commissioners had obtained the advice Of legal
counsel in regard to the validity of the contracts
In certain actions at law against the District the
defense of absence of antecedent appropriation
has been ayailed Of. The attorney for, the Dr.
trict, who is defending these suits, concurred In
the opinion regarding the validity of contracts Of
the Board of Public Works.
In answer to the eleventh interrogatory, II is
stated that the engineer had selected two pave
ments for repair work, and the bidding was con-
fined to these No offer was made to the Commls-
sioners by responsible parties to do this work at
less than the contract rates. This replir work
has been paid for in 3.65 bonds, and none Of the
contractors were paid any sum whatever in cash;
The twelfth answer states that this repair work
was contracted for in pursuance Of the NTH and
Public Works, the authority of the Commissioners
under these sections having been sustained in
court and by the opinion Of counsel.
In reply to the thirteenth question, the Com
missioners state that they had brought the mat
ter Of contracting rrepairwork before the board
of audit as question Of law, and understood from
them that their decision was to issue certificates
for work done on such repairs. The claims for
the work were necessarily presented after the
expi ration of the time for repairing in the con-
tracts, as the repairs were made subsequent to
that time.
In the fourteenth answer the Commissioners
state that the statement made to Congress as to
amount needed in
REPAIRING THE WOODEN PAvENENrs
was based upon an estimate of November 20, 1874.
The pavements had afterwards rapidly fallen into
decay and 1t was found that the cash resources
Of the District were not adequate to meet the ex-
class of work fell under incomplete contracts, and
was hence payable in board Of audit certificates.
Only very small amount of the work was paid
The fiteenth answer explains the workings of
the engineer and his assistants and the process Of
measurement.
The sixteenth answer states that the condition
Of the wood pavement on Pennsylvania avenue
east had required immediate repairing, and for
that reason the order had been issued.
The original contractors, DeGOlyer and Nc
Clellan. had not been sued because the bills of
expenditure for repairing had only recently been
made out. The matter Of obtaining possession Of
the chattel mortgage, the security for the per-
formance of the work, was in the hands of the Dis
trict Attorney.
The seventeenth answer in relation to the
Evans Concrete Company stated that the Com
mfssiOners were unable to say whether Evans
bond was good, or whether they would be able to
collect Judgment when obtained. The Commis-
sioners hold as collateral security board Of audit
certificates awarded TO Evans amounting to $53,-
:29.S2. The whole amount Of Evans claim is
$3.50, 600.
In answer to the remaining three questions the
Commissioners state that the repair work was