National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1884-05-27
THE DISTRICT BILL.
What no Certain OF Its Provisions
McRnI-Look Out for n bad Precedent.


BisRnG-LooIS Out for bad Precedent.
7ome Editor.
notice in tho district bill as IL passed the
house some features that seem to call for OK
PLANTATION.
In the first place, the amount for street
improvements has been reduced some 100000
below tho estimates. Why? Can anybody
tellp Mr.. Follett whom explaining the bill
gave no reason for it, and so long as tho
revenues furnish the money, why should we
not have it2
Second, notice in lines 1874 to 1888 pro.
vision authorizing the officers of the treasury
to settle the accounts of the commissioners
since July l, 1873, for materials 80 purchased"
for street improvements.
Now, IL 1t be true, as recently stated by
Commissioner Edmonds, that there is no
possibility of tho commissioners mourning
any liability or increasing the expenses of
the district except in pursuance Of specific
laws, what necessity for this provisions The
law has been the same since 1873 as it is to-
day. Section 3 of the act of 1878 expressly
provides that the commissioners "sball make
no contract nor incur any obligation other
than such contracts and obligations as ore
hereinafter provided for, and shall be ap-
proved by congress-" This same section
| further provides that the commissioners
shall submit annually 20 statement showing
in detail the work proposed to DO undevtake on
during the fiscal year ensuing, aud the esti-
mated cost thereofp
Now repeat it this law has been complied
with, as Mr.. Edmonds tries to mako congress
and the public believe it must be-, and OF
course has been, then why this provision
Tho fact is-and he knows IL perfectly we'll
the law has not been complied with, The
commissioners incurred obligations in open
violation Of these provisions to the amount
of 100000. BY little sentence which thoy
got inserted in tho act Of July 10, 1882, they
got themselves and their bondsmen relieved
Of $4,000 of it. They tried hard to induce
the accounting officers Of the treasury to
relieyn them of the balance, and failing In
that, they induced the President to submit
the matter to the attorney general, hopiag ia
get from him an opinion that would compel
the officers of tho treasury to settle their &C.
counts in such manner as to relieve them
but he decided in July last that it could moi
BIO done,
Now, again, by little Innocent looking
provision they seek to be relieved from theii
maiteasance. presume 10 will be done Of
course, but senators shall not vote for it il
ignorance of the facts. If the law can b,
thus violated with IMMUNITY by the commits
sioners in one case, why not in another? i
laws are not to be enforced, what is the ust
of having them2 If congress relieves thu
former commissioners from the effects O
their violation of tho law, what is it Blu
saying to the present commissioners, "Yot
can do the same, and future congress will
relieve you We will establish preceden
for them to act on when your case comes up.
l have no doubt the high social position o
the parties" in this case, as in that of thu
Patterson estate, will secure tho passage o
this provision; but, nevertheless, l say Il
senators now that it, like that, is an infamou
outrage upon the Taxpayers OF the district
That is not by any means the only case IL
which the commissioners have knowingl,
and willfully violated the law, and 1 submit
that, inasmuch as congress has taken iron
the citizens all control of these matters, botl
as to making the laws and selecting the mel
to carry them out, it ought at least to see tina
the laws are complied with, and not to winl
at their violation. A TAXPAYER.
| MAY % 1894