Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-01-15


THE cAsE-wHAT THE FRIENDS OF THE BILL SAY.
1ne nearing before the House District committee
concerning the bill to define the duties and iabil-
les tne Dlstrct OF Columbia under the old board
OF puonc works contracts was resumed to-day.
ATTORNEY MILLER, FOR THE DISTRICT, AGAINST THE
BILL.
Attorney Miller, on the part OF the District. made
statement, first going briefly into the history of
1ne Dlstrlct government, stating what led to the
ESTABLISHMENT OF the board Of public works, and
the work OF that body and its 1nal dissolution He
explained that the power of the board had been
limited by the territorial act, as it was known so
tnan would represent five per cent of the value OF
the property; but in utter disregard OF this, they
93penaeo - sS per cent OF the value Of the entire
plOpeIty or the District in three years, and left
deot OF $s' 600. Contracts were made Illegally
ana without authority, and the people OF the Dis
trct, whose interests were well represented by Mr
Cnristy, succeeded in disrupting the board or the
DlStrict would have been ruined. The committee
was now asked TO- validate claims growing out OF
contracts which were made In direct and Deryerse
VIOLATION OF the provisions OF the law
AIter q long explanation OF these matters he
0Ook up tne Dill, and said with relation to the first
section that it provided that the claimants under
these Illegal contracts shall recover the profits they
might have made out OF legal contracts II these
contracts mad been made, he said, in violation OF
all tne safeguards that Congress and the District
!eglslatlve assembly had thrown around them for
nns prooectoa OF the people and now II the COM
tne BOARD OF public works. like those OF Tweed
Wouid become widespread, and be felt In every city
In the country.
With relation to the second section, he explained
ina! Ior certain time the board Of public works
paid 1or work In money, but when this money was
deprecated In value, and In making contracts in
7S and "a this depreciation was taken into consid-
eIas.on contracts which thus would have been
bonds ~-0N'O'0 -11
,aeN Me SAID aid that section changed the practice
not question the right to change the practice here
tS. DuG why IN these cases especially. Why make
them Ia the most favored OF claimants against the
UlStiicl He said further that tie last section of
me Dl practically estopped all just claims and was
entirely Yin N the interest OF fraudulent claims.
hurry through his statement. but he begged that
tne committee would not add to the many disad-
,vantages and 1nJustices the District had suffered
Ny Imposing upon 1t these claims
IN FAVOR OF THE BILL.
MI. Armstrong then made an argument in be-
haif OF the bill he claimed that the purpose of
the Dill was simply to place these claimants upon
the same footing as other citizens. SIT has been
said" }" he added, "that the bill would enable the
claimants to recover profits or something of that
SORT so NOW, say, 1t does nothing Of the sort; but
TO provide against this beyond peradventure.
would suggest that an amendment be added pro-
wong wong tnat the claimants shall recover actual
damages only He read the original bill in contrast
with the one reported by the committee to show
that the first did contaiD some OF the obfections
put these were corrected in the second. He re-
lefred 10 the case OF NeitZey to show that when
Ine same rules now enforced against the claimants
operated against the District they had been set
aside He wanted, he said, to have the cases tried
upon the facts, legal and equitable. The bill was
waver OF all technicaties by the District SO that
tne cases might be heard upon their merits He
neld that the board OF audit was not legal body
ana their action on case did settle It; 1t was
merely an accounting board and had no standing
IN court II we were to be bound by old laws the
LEGISLATORS, avOcaton would be gone. The object of
sending them here was legitimate and correct; to
make new laws and set aside the old. He said that
section provides that when a claimants case had
peen thrown out OF court, because the contract not
Deing In writing, he might have new hearing.
WHY MR.. sPRIGos OBJECTS.
Mr. Spriggs said he objected to this clause be-
cause 1t violated judgments.
Gr. Miller said 1t was violation of the Constf-
tuition, which made Judgment final
Mr. Armstrong, IN closing, said that the bill did
not appropriate money; did not settle the claims,
but merely referred them to the courts
OTHER ARGUMENTS.
Mr.. Chr1Sty was given five minutes, and spoke In
refutat1on OF the statement that the claimants had
had their day in court, saying the Districts in
solvency prevented the prosecution OF the claims
ne held also that the act OF 1880 intended to give
the court equitable power, and this bill was to en-
force this intention.
Edward Barnes, one OF the contractors. was
nearo and presented his individual case
Mr.. Whitaker was heard for the taxpayers This
closed the hearing
An opinion prepared by the District Commission
ers respecting the Jefords bill, and forwarded to
the committee quotes the act of June 20. 1874, Gre
ating the board OF audit, under which, 1t is held.
contractors had opportunity during seven months
to present their claims against the District and the
ACT OF June 16, $780, giving the Court of Claims
legal and equitable jurisdiction OF claims against
the Dlstr1ct arising out OF contracts made by the
Doaru OF puonc works, &C., or based upon measure
work done under contracts since February. 1871.
Section provided that all laws applicable to
Claims against the United States should apply to
these cases. and that claimants might be witnesses
IN tnelr own behalf "Thus 1t Will be Seen," the
Commissioners continue, "that the ordinary courts
OF the District with common law and equitable
jurisdiction have been open to the claimants all
the time and that three special acts Of relief have
been granted-tWo OF them providing for sum-
mary settlement by the board of audit and giving
Court of Claims, which has applied to these cases
the same rules that are applied to all cases against
the United States. II Congress now shall deter
mine tnat such rules are wrong In one class and
command new trial with new rules, we do not see
why, upon principle, they should not open up all
cases against the United States that have been de-
term1ned by that court, and give all claimants the
benent OF the new law II 1t is considered that the
taxpayers have rights to be regarded; that they
have already paid Immense sums for which they
have received no consideration; that many Of the
Improvements (Sewer5 and pavements) were so
poorly cOnStruc ed as to be Of account: that the
contractors began with contracts we'll known to be
utterly reckless and illegal, and yet have gained
gress, 1t will be appreciated that to open up the
subject anew at this late date would cause greater
injustice than 10 deny further act of grace even
II there are few who claim unfortunately to have
peated invitations to assert them"