Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-08-03
THE SMITH COURT.MARTIAL.
Testimony for the Defense To-day.

The courtmartial for the trial Of Paymaster
smith, Of the navy, reconvened this morning
and after reading the minutes, Mr. w. b.
Moses, Of this city, was called as the first wit
ness forthe defense. He testified that he had
been in business in Washington near twenty
three years. and had been in the furniture and
uphoisterfng business over thirty years. Mr.
Chandler presented q specification calling for
proposals to supply the Navy department with
mattresses, and setting forth In detail what the
mattresses should consist of, and how they
should be made and asked the witness what
the value of such mattresses were at the time
the bids were called for in October, 1882 The
Wltness replied that at any time within the last
that with two linen covers for each
as called for in the specifications they could not
c oe supplied, provided the specifications were
compi1eo with, for less than $3.50 each, in
large quantities. The specifications called for
mar mattresses of an excellent quality. The
witness said that he would not have been will
ing 70 contract to supply such mattresses with
covers at less than $3.50 each. Upon cross-ex-
animation by Assistant Attorney General
N Ma,ury, Nj Moses repeated his opinion as to the
value of the mattresses. Mr.. Maury spreading
out large paper) said he had before him a tab
uiated statement of all the proposals submitted
under the advertisement through which the
mattress contract was made, and he was SUR.
prlsed to see that none of the bidders had gone
as algh as seven dollars apiece for mattresses in
Mr.. Chandler objected to Mr. Maury making
assertions He was willing that the witness
should be asked any relevant question, but he
objected to assertions. Quite a discussion fol-
lowed upon the question, and finally it was
offered in evidence by the prosecution The
defense objected. The court was cleared for
consideration, and it ruled out the tabulated
statement and all questions based upon 1t, thus
sustaining the objection of the defense.
A bid offered by Mr.. Brown, of Washington
10 furnish mattresses, under the advertise
ment, was the lowest, but it was rejected.
The prosecution charged that the paymaster
general favored Brown by accepting such of his
olds as he could make profit out Of and reject
ing others upon which he could make nothing
The defense maintained that the bid was re-
low TO enable the bidder to furnish mattresses
OF the quality wanted: that the law makes it
incumbent upon government officials to reject
what are termed nominal" bids-that is at
ngureS too low 10 assure such articles and SER
vice as are wanted.
In his testimony, ex-Secretary Chandler testi-
ned that he ordered Gen. smith to- reject
BroWnS Did because it was nominal" one,
BY Mr.. Moses testimony the defense pro-
posed to show that Brown could not have prop
eriy hlled the contract at the figures he pro-
posed, and that it was judicious to have rejected
his bid.
r. w. Smith, president of the Smith and Egg
Manufacturing Co., of Bridgeport, Conn. testi-
ned that he had filled two orders for sditty
boxes for the Navy department.. The first
order, dated April 10Th, 1880, was tor 5000,
ana they were supplied at S1.SO each. The
second order, dated March 18th, 1854, was for
5000 boxes, and he made them at 81 40 each
The witness described the boxes, which are
made under patent Each box is SO arranged
as TO hold the correspondence and other small
be used as writing-desk His firm had never
made any of the boxes except for the govern
ment- On the first contract the firm lost money
at 81 80 apiece for the boxes.