National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1876-02-21
THE INVESTIGATION.
About the Elevsrth-strest Contraet-WhsIs
Nr. Fitzpstriek Made 9 histake-

Nr. Fitzpatrick Made Mistake
Before the House investigating committee dur
| ing the part week DR.. John b. Blake snd Mr..
Fitzpatrick contractor, testified that the latter
had bid for certain work on Eleventh street SOUTH
| cart, and that IL bad been subsequently, awarded
| TO q party at a higher rate. The following Is q
history of the case:
ATTORNEYS OFFICE. NOy -, 1874.
In the matter of contract No. $50 with tmss
". Walsh, the facts now presented t. me differ
very widely from those on which gave 40 Opin-
ion en- the sth of October. g
At that time it appeared, from papers on EsIls
OF the contract ITSELF that the work to have
been doue "wrthin thirty days" although the
vague and meaningless phrase "as SOON as posi-
was usea IN the contract ifss that maj
work abandoned.
This statement of facts was corroborated by the
Governors answer" page S52, where contract
No. So is mentioned as completed"
Now, IL appers from the statement Of Mr.. w lsh,
corroborated by that OF Mr.. Willard, that the
Measurement Of December 3, 1878, was neither
applied for nor made a final; that The certificates
were not accepted as in full OF all work under the
contract; and that the work was not abandoned,
but suspended on account of the weather, and, at
later period, by the non-payment Of contractors,
and the uncertainties incident to the lnyestiga.
ton. 1t appears farther that Mr.. Walsh had
very strong reason for thinking that his assign
msht to MIR: Hussey had the consent of the Board
CT Public Works; also, that he, or Mr.. Hussey for
him, prosecuted the work in good faith In the lat
tsr art Of June and up to the 18th Of uly spend
az the lastuamed date he was ordered by your
honorable board to suspend work.
The chief engineer IN his reply. does not sps-
Walsh, Willard and Shepherd, and this opinion
must, therefore, be on the assumption Of the truth
of the allegations.
1t is clear that Mr.. Walsh was very slothful in
the performance Of his contract That tnstru-
ment Is dated October =, 1873, and the work
early winter Of that year. The Board OF Public
Works might have either ended the contract or
ticle :. No step OF this kind was taken, the
board beng PROBABLY embarrassed by the vague
words, las soon possible, used in the contract
to designate the time liked tor completing the
work.
Measurements were given iI December. If
tAe board haG intended these to signify the
abandonment OF the contract, they should have
cord and notifying Mr.. walsh to that eiTec:. Tho
it Improbable for the District Commissioners
to re6ut the evidence offered by Mr.. Walsh tia:
he did not abandon his contract.
Mr.. Walsh would excuse his delay from De-
cember to June by pleading the weather, the in
vestigation and the inability OF the board TO
msSe any payments and a., on n these points would
In regard TO the assignment, Mr.. Walsh ap-
pears 10 have acted IN good faith, having made
bis application and received the assent oil the
Governor.
While the Commissioners are not bound to re-
cognize the assignment il would be inequitable
in them to insist upon forfeiture because an as
signment was MADE, the contractor having made
no attempt to assign without the knowledge OF
the Board OF Public Works, and having reason
TO believe he had their consent.
/ adhere TO the opinion given October 8, that
there is no privity OF contract between the Com
missioners and Mr.. Hussey, and that Il ts within
the discretion OF the Commissioners TO recognize
or not the assignment. Sut in the absence OF any
testimony to rebuff what can DO produced by Mr..
Walsh think it would not be safe to act on the
theory that the original contract was abandoned
by Mr.. Walsh. In permitting him or his as
sgnee to 20 on. however, the commissioners have
the right aud should exercise iL to limit the time
within which contract No. $50 should he CON-
pleted. WILLIAM BIRSEY,
Assistant Attorney.
CorN: II V. TINnAII SecretarH