Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-01-10
THE SIX MILLION INyOLVED.
The Hearing at the District Commits
SiOners, Office To-day.
WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE JEFFoRD's BILL TO PAT
CONTRACTORS CLAIMS


sioners' Office To-day.
WHAT WAS SAID ABOUT THE JEFFoRD's BILL TO PAl
CONTRACTORS CLAIMS.
Judge Cole, OF Iowa; Colonel John Hancock, s
c. Neale, V. B. Edwards, Robert Christy and other
attorneys interested In the so-called Jenords bill
now pending before the House, appeared by invi.
tation before the District Commissioners to-day al
one o'clock. This is the bill providing for
the adjudication OF claims OF contractors
under the board of public works by
the Court of Claims and which 1t has been
alleged by the Commissioners would Involve OPEN
ing claims aggregating 100000 more or less
Major Lydecker was not present Commissioners
Edmonds and West listened to the statements
made, and discussed the bill Mr.. John c. Fay was
also present, and gave information concerning the
eases before the Court OF Claims. Commissioner
West having made remark that the Commission
ers had known nothing OF the bill for six months
AFTER Its Introduction, Mr. Neale said that the bill
mad been introduced on the eighth OF January last
at his request and that there had been three sepa-
rate hearings concerning the subject
MI ar. Robert Christy made the opening remarks
before the Commissioners to-day. Following is the
substance OF his remarks:
Mr.. CHRIsTY's REMARKS
Notwithstanding some very strong equities have
always been careful not to commit myself to the
proposition that the difference between the amount
realized on the securities contractors received and
their face value should be refunded to them as
the District ultimately paid these securities In full
10 wit: the three StXty-five bonds into which these
securities were converted. AS to the bill in contro-
versy popularity known as the Jerord's bil
Ineyer saw 1t and had no knowledge OF its exist
ence until long after 1t was reported. Wishing to
deal frankly, concede, II It embrace the payment
OF the so-caed differences, it would Involve s.six
millions scheme;" but after somewhat careful
reading am satisfied that Mr.: Jefrord succeeded
doubtedly intended to do, excluded any
possibility OF providing for the payment OF
these differences l am further very well salts
ned that the subject matters of the bill can in no
event Involve the District or the government in
judgments aggregating more than two'or three hun
dred thousand dollars. AS understand it. the bill is
only Intended to confer upon the Court OF Claims
the equitable powers 1t being court or law In the
Strictest sense OF the terms.
lone OF the principal objects of the bill was to in
corporate In contracts certain general orders OF the
board OF public works that should have been In
corporatei In the written contracts, but were not
by negligence Or mistake. This court has no power
10 reform contracts so as to correspond with the
agreement OF the parties however strong the eQui-
ties may be. In fact this is the only feature of the
bill In which am interested"
The question having arisen, Mr.. Fay stated that
5he Court OF Claims had always, under the present
law, allowed claims oral contracts where It was
shown that the work was done.
Mt West inquired If the court now recognized
contracts made by individual members OF the board
OF public works.
Mr.. Fay said that wherever 1t was shown that
the work had been done and the District had re-
ceved the benefit of 1t the court allowed the
claims.
Mt. West inquired then II the court did not now
take cognizance OF everything which is proposed
In the pending bill.
Mr.. Fay SAID that the pending bill would validate
oral contracts, under which only a part Of the
work was performed, and render the District liable
Ior lhe non-perfoimance OF the remainder OF the
contract thus validated.
Judge Edtnonds said If man had 40 such con-
tracts and performed the work under one OF them
under that one, but not In paying him the profits
ne would have made on the other SO II he had per-
formed the work under them.
Mr.. Chr1Sty said that, excluding all claims for
and so amending the bill as to prevent
recovery from DAMAGES under unperformed con-
Claims would exceed $500, 600.
Mt Neale said that they were willing to limit the
amount to $500 600.
tanned for 81 0Oo, 900, and only S3U0OO0 was avaa
Ole 10 pay them, there would be an application
made to Congress at once for the remaining
$1,000
Judge c. c. Cole, Of Iowa, followed Mr. Chrfsty.
he insisted that the Court OF Claims had held under
Cne law OF 1851 that unless the contract was in
writing 1t was not valid. After reviewing the bill
and the preceding efforts at legislation in the same
1lrectlon, Judge Cole said that he was confident
the commissioners, upon making careful fnvesti-
CATION or this matter, would themselves ask the
passage OF TINS measure as an act OF justice.
during the discussion, Judge Cole having made
remark to the effect that the amounts thus
claimed would not be chargeable against the cur
rent expenses of the District. Mr.. Edmonds said
only as taxpayer, as the District government was
'un on the theory that the government owned one
la OF the property here and the citizens the other
lalf.
Judge Cole said that this bill merely proposed
o put these claimants upon the same ground as
hey would stand II their claims were against any
'ther municipality or any other individual He
that these claims could be enforced
lgainst any other city government or any other
Judge Edmonds said that II they wanted simply
! Dill TO pay for work which the District has had
ne enent OF, the Commissioners could appreciate
he equity OF the case. II they would show such
aSe they would be the plaintiffs before Congress
nd ask an appropriation TO pay such contractors.
Ihelr experience, however, was that they should
'e exceedingly cautious about settling principles
the consultation was in progress when our re-
,ort closed.