Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-01-10
Opinion Of Attorney Riddle.

In reply TO the Commissioners, who referred
House bill 7.4S9, known the contractors BILL to
him, Mr.. Riddle says ne has examined it. ats
purpose seems to be to secure re-trial Of certain
cases as also trials Of cases pending in the Court OF
Claims upon rules unknown to the law of the land,
and on conditions that will secure consideration
favorable to the plaintiffs This of itself should
forbid It's passage on general principles The re-
port accompanying the bill was made in miscon-
ceptlOn or the decisions and the grounds they rest
upon by the Court OF Claims as 1t appears to me
Ihat court was guarded by the well-known princi-
pies and rules which have ever governed and rujed
all courts In adJudicatIng the rights of ali mar
ties Some special objections arres my attention A
prominent 0ne1s that which gives to the act OF any
single member OF the late board of public works OF
The District, who assumed to act on behalf Of the
board, the enect OF the action OF The board ITSELF
and past the power OF the board to nuify such act
so far as the bill is concerned think know what
purpose this provision is intended to advance
whether do or not 1t should never reach the form
ton, and show up the effects of the passage OF this
bill on the District debt, and says: II remember no
Dill SO Objectionable as this"
THE VIEWS OF AN ATTORNEY.
The District commissioners recently obtained
from an attorney, and to Congress- the follow
ing views concerning the bill under consideration
"In relation to the report made by the committee
on the District OF Columbia July I'd, 1884, and ac-
companying House bill 74s9 to define duties and
Liabilities OF the District OF Columbia under certain
executed contracts, 1t is said by able ATTORNEYS
that the statement OF facts contained therein are
faulty. IL IS UnaJ alV claim for
work actually performed has been defeated by any
technical objection. such invalidty Of the con-
tract or the want OF an appropriation. No juig-
ment has ever been rendered In which there was
not included work not embraced in the contract
and which had been done the court drew the line
pei between sl WORK actually performed and damages
in the words wholly or in part executed case
is cited in reference to the Ballard Pavement com
said to Be ts aaher Of p OF
tary or the board OF public works wrote a letter
awarding the company $1,000 yards of wood pave
The company entered into several written contracts
to pave seven or eight Streets these contracts this
attorney fheys Claims are only OF work
fornancs OF she 5000 yards awarded a1s e ana
balance, 10000 yards not laid. which they say was
So yard, or $4,000 The rest OF the claim is for
loss loss on the certificates. The company received
contract with a member OF the board OF public
works, they pledged so as to realize only fifty
cents on me dollar showing loss Of $50 OOo total
drawn to cover that case. 1t is said by the Dis
tret authorities that the prices paid. promised
above whaa snod be rec
ognlzsd by the court as as standard prices cess
that III .n in many instances prices loaded
ficates, and that cash contracts were let at
board prices less 80 per cent; that to give board
prices now and discount cannot be fair, and in
number Of board prices are vague and INDEFINITE
The report, 1t is said, misconstrues the decisions
OH Oh the Court OF Claims, and don't come
which would come upon the District
Inc enect OF the bill, 1t Is said, is to validate
every claim arising out OF any contract made by
any memoer OF the board Of public works. which
would include all claims for alleged difference,
amounting, according to suits fied In the court OF
Inns Glass; 10 upwards OF ve million. It reviveS all
claims ior damages arising out OF alleged awards
lor WOOD pavements. This would add, according TO
claims nled In the court, 600 more. How much
more IL lncuoes 1t Is impossible TO form any esti-
mate InS Dill would unSettle all settlements
heretofore mace, and increases the prices, which
WOuid PROBABLY involve claims to upwards Of half
mlinOn III also justtfieS the action OF the board
OF AUDIT, which was so emphatically condemned by
congress and for which that board was abolished.
Inc ni II was claimed, practically revives the re-
Jected claims OF the board OF audit for no proof or
Ielecuon such as those contemplated could now
possibly De ootained It revveS and retries all the
cases settled by the Court OF Claims On the subject
Oh oinerence or damages; IL revives cases ten or
Twelve years Old; II requires the supreme Court
10 review the facts OF a case, and imposes duty
on that appellate court unknown to common law
jurisdiction; makes the claimant an incompetent
witness, but is very poor protection against
trumpe0-up claimRn
THE CLASS OF CLAIMS AFFECTED.
The class OF claims to be affected by the bill are,
as explained by an attorney connected with the
cases In the Court OF Claims. those u which The