Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-02-21

V
this District, and pending therein prior TO the
passage OF said act OF Congress" and declares
tnat 'the effect Of the said act of June 10. 1875,
as construed by the Supreme Court of the
United States, will be to dismiss the bill of con.
plant and validate and legallze these assess
ments" He therefore pray Congress to grant
relief. Congress granted no relief and the
record OF the court shows that no action was
taken on the bill of complaint between the dare
OF memorial and that Of the so called ''compro-
mise" Yet, although the attorney for the
compla1nans had admitted that the decision of
the court would be against him, and although
congress had refused to grant any relief, the
Con missioners OF the District the defendants
In the suit, accepted tender OF one eighth OF
the sum due as compromise of the case.
But this is not the worst aspect OF the cas-.
The president Of the commission testified (p 1891
that ''in this particular case, they tthe former
commissioners not only extended the con-
tract from 1st street Ia Washington to Wafer
street In Georgetown. but, after they had done
the work on Water street they went back aud
finished the contract on 1st street from Vlr-
gln1a avenue TO n street south. as origin ally
contracted, SO that both works were done"
The Impression conveyed by this statement Is
that after the contract had been unlawfully
Jumped" from lst street to Water street it
was unawfuliy Jumped" back again to ist
street, and that the same contractors did both
jobs. just the reverse OF this Is true. The eyi-
dence taken In former investigation shows
that George Neitzey had contract with the
Board or Public Works. dated July II, 1873, for
grading aud paving 1st street west, between
Maryland avenue and n street south: tne estt-
mated cost OF the work was sIS, Ss1.32 {H. r.,
Fourty- fourth Congress, first session. Mis- Doe
1903, Part g.. p. 194.) Birch q Fletcher had con-
tract, dated June12. 1913, for certan work on
v ater street, Georgetown. ibid. .2l4.) Neitzey,
af,er performing work amounting 10
S35, 1885 under his contract, relinqutShed the
remainder OF the work on 1St street. and in lieu
thereof was awarded, on November 80. 1874, the
work on " ater street on which the assessment
under discussion was based, and for which he
received 81, 81. The remainder Of the trans
action Is explained In the commissioners re-
port for 1915, pageS 4l2, 49, This transfer OF
tNettZey's} work." the report SAYS s.WaS subse-
quently found to be an encroachment upon an
oral contract with Henry Birch OF which the
latter produced satisfactory written evidence,
Tie work on lst street was therefore given TO
Mr. Birch IN pidce OF that tdkP1l from httL."
The estimated cost OF the new work thus
awarded was 5I,59I.9l, precisely the amount
received by Nettzy for tne work done On Water
street So 1t appears that this was not case
OF a ''junped' contract at all, in the sense 10
which hat expression has been used. There
were valid contracts for both. the work on 1St
street. and the work on Water street. The sole
effect OF the former Commissioners action was
an exchange OF work between the contractors
by which neither theIrights northe liabilities or
the property-holders We're in anywiSe affected.
The result was precisely the same as II each
contractor had worked out his contract on the
street which it originally coYered-Neitzey on
lst street, and Birch on Water street.
PUBLIC sENTIMENT ON PAyMENT OF TAXES.
In the opinion of your committee the dispo-
District to postpone and resist the payment OF
taxes has been fostered If not created. by the
mistaken len1eHcy OF the Commissioners In
watving the penalties for non-payment, and in
holding out the hope that continued delinquen-
cy would result in continued legislative relief.
Had the laws been firmly and impartially en-
forced, and their penalties promptly applied.
the amount or taxes In arrears would have been
much less. and the condition Of public sent
nlent On the subject far more healthy.
LCCsENESS OF THE MANAGEMENT OF REVISION OF
ASSESSMENTS
The general conclusions OF the committee are
summed up as follows: Testimony was taken
by the committee concerning numerous alege1
frauds and irregularities In the offices OF the
District, not covered by the treasurer's charges.
" hile the evidence taken was not sufficiently
conclusive to justify the committee In report
1Lg that any corrupt or fraudulent acts had
been committed by any persons now connecre1
With the government of the District, it was
de- med sufficient TO demand an investigation
by the proper legal authorities. The evidence
On these points was accordingly referred by the
committee to the United States attorney tor
the District, for such action as he might thIuk
proper. and has since been made the subject or
a report by the grand jury. But as to the gen.
eral looseness OF the management OF the revi-
sion OF assessments, the testimony was conclu-
sive. OF this a few instances out of many teS-
titled to, must suffice.
The acts authorizing the revision provide
that the Commissioners shall Issue dra wpack
certificates for the amount of the erroneous or
excessive charges found on revision. NotWtth-
standing this requirement OF law and the fact
that the duty Is one which, according to the
best authorities, cannot be delegated, q Dillon
on Municipal corporations, 1S0-1; Cooley's Con-
stitutional Limitations, 284 the Commissioners
intrusted the entire preparation and issue OF
these draw back certificates to one OF their
clerks and allowed thOm TO be ISSUED under his
signature. 1t also appears that no other officer
OF the District government than the one who
signs them, approves, auditS, looks over or
che ckS Off the certificates and that neither the
collector Of the District nor the collector of
special taxes. by both OF whom they are re-
amount OF the drawback certificates issued.
P. 63)
THE CHARGES, IN THE OPINION OF THE COMMITTEE.
SUSTAINED.
The evidence requires your committee TO
report, as their conclusion, that the charges OF
the Treasurer OF the United States against the
Commissioners of the District of Columbia
have been fully proved. the evidence In most
instances reaching far beyond the allegation;
that the revision OF assessments has been con-
Quoted In loose and irresponsible manner,
Without proper supervision Dy the Commission
eTs; that the commissioners have, by their
acts and omissions, deprived the District OF
large amounts OF revenue Justly due TO IL: that
they have improperly Disseminated in favor Of
the delinquent taxpayer to the deuimenr OF
| the Interests of the District and OF the con-
scientious tax payer; that they have disobeyed
| the requirements or the law, ana have SET up
| evasive preteXts for that disobedience. and
that, On the plea OF constituting the acts of Con-
gresS as measures Of relief, they have perverted
| them from their true intent In order to relieve
| property holders from taxes and penalties
! lawfully due; in all OF which various acts and
omissions they have been guilty OF grave dere-
| nctiOn Of duty deserving OF censure.
INBFFICIBECY OF A PLURAL EXECUTIVE.
While not disposed to relieve the members Of
the Board OF Commissioners from their just
share Of responsibility fol their acts, your com
mittee feel bound to record their opinion that
1neffcency and lack OF responsibility are In
herent in the present form OF government OF
the District. A plural executive is fatal 10
efficiency and responsibility. History abOuLd
In examples of the failures of forms OF govern
ment in which executive power is vested In
al handS-by whatever name they may be
knOWn. A government OF this kind rarely
becomes efficient, except when some master
spirit usurpS supreme control Ordinarily,
responsibility is not merely divided; 1U Is CON-
pleIely lOSt-a truth of which this investigation
has given abundant evidence. When the re-
sponsibility for all acts is distributed among
several, keen sense OF it is felt by none.
COMMISSIONERS SHOULD NOT NECESSARILY BE
RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT.
Your committee also regard the requirement
of the act of June II, 1878, that the Commits
sioners shall have been actual residents of the
District for three years prior to their appoint
meDt, as an unnecessary and unW1Se reStr1c-
tion on the appointing power. The people of
the United States contribute one-half OF the
amount appropriated for the expenses OF the
TSsN~ {nrE@v