Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1885-01-13

The District Commissioners ArGae
Against 1t Before the House Com.
mitsec.

The District Com missioner ArGoo
Against 1t Before the House Com.
mittec.
The Commissioners were before the House Dis
trict committee to-day upon the bill providing for
the adjustment OF claims growing out OF the Old
board OF public works contracts, otherwise known
as the SIX million bill. The counsel present were
Gen. Eppa Hunton, Judge c. c. Cole, OF Iowa; Gen.
W. H. Armstrong. Col John Hancock. 8 c. yeale,
Col Robert Christy, V. B. Edwards and Reginald
Fendan. The Commissioners were accompanied
by MI. Fay and Mr.. Miller, attorneys
Judge Edmonds said that In the opinion Of the
Commissioners no more legislation should be had
upon the claims 1t would probably take more
money than all the property In the District was
these cases no work had been done. Mr. Edmords
cited an instance. When he bought property In the
CITY t was made an item In the sale that there
this sewer. the sewer had been paid for, and was
very expensive one but on digging Ii was not
''Do you mean to say asked Gen Hunton, .'that
for that fraud?"
81 do not know about that should not say so.
claims"
.'You should not use the example"
Mr.. Barr. OF the committee, thought the example
right as one OF class
MIR. Edmonds then said that the first section
NaiAdtcu AicShi c0DtEaCbS Inab unQef IL any con-
tract, oral or written which hd been wholly or In
part executed. shall be deemed valid All the ille-
gal cases would be given legal status and the Dis
Mr. funfon controverted this statement.
MI Spfiggs wanted to know what the clause did
Both Commissioner West and Commissioner Ed
monds stated that the gentlemen who appeared
before them Saturday declared the purpose OF the
clause to be to cover just such cases
rms Mr.. Hunton denied.
ha M nail
confederation.
he said he had been misunderstood. He then In
stanced the case or Mr.. Jones, who had verbal
contract for 5000 yards OF block pavement, and
W W had had not been allowed to lay It. He said that
himself in readiness to execute the contract that
he had bought all his material and then had not
oeen gwen the work to do. This was the class the
MrEdmonis contended that any case OF this sort IL
IL mad Just grounds would be adjusted In the courts
Mr. Edmonds then referred to the second section
OF the bill He said this gives the claims not only
q legal status, when they had none in themselves,
but gaze them all the benefits OF differences as In
tne value OF District paper, and Involves the Dis
trict In a prodigious expense. What the Commits
stoners recommended was that no legislation on
the subject be passed. but that any individual
that Should be presented and found meritorious
should be settled.
He referred to the case OF Strong, who was
awarded $500 by The board OF audit on flnal
hearing but who afterwards got into the courts
and kept increasing the claim until board OF arbi-
tration awarded him 100000
Gen. Hunton. at the close OF Mr.. Edmonds' state
ment. spoke for the claimants. He said that he
Cid not represent sharp contractors but poor men.
These men had spent their own money to improve
tniS city, ana While the tax payers rolled over the
finely paved streets in their carriages, the con-
tractors In many cases were paupers. In one
case, he said man was In the poor house who had
spent $3.50 600 of his own money In the Improvement.
He said that most OF the trouble of the Contractors
had grown ouJ OF the fact that the board OF public
works violated the contract In not paying for the
work in gold or silver, as agreed TO- The Jones
case was made the basis OF the argument Mr.
Hunton said that the only object OF the bill was to
pay for work actually performed.
"Why don't the bill say so. them" asked Mr.
West.
"Yes,n said Mr. sprlggs. "the bill is too broad.n
e. Amendments to limit it to such cases were In
formally suggested.
Mr: Hutton was willing that the bill should be
amended.
Mr.. Ednonds said that there was belief that
1t was said this very case of Jones was one in
which Mr.. Brown, a relation OF MI. Jones, was
thinking there might be money made by it bought
a lot of lumber. But having disagreement with
MI shepherd he was not allowed to use the lum-
Der. Thus arose the claim, it Is said 1t was also
said. probably untruthfully, that money was used
to get the contract.
Commissioner West opposed pleading the statute
OF limitation. All cases where 1t could be proven
that work had been done should be settled. But 1t
was notorious fact that the board OF public works
S4,0000OO provided for, sos 600 900 to 900
had been expended.
Mr.. Armstrong was heard for the claimants. He
held that there was need OF legislation; that the
reason the claimants had not gone into court be-
fore The limitation had expired was that they were
kept out by technicalities He held that there was
no danger Of the District suffering injustice at the
hands OF the courts lie said that more than three
quarters Of the work done in the District was under
was recognition as contracts by the courts
Mt. Christy took the grounds that all work done
should be paid for and said he did not ask for DIFF
Mr.. Armstrong then continued his argument In
support OF the bill He said that the presence OF
the commissioners there to-day was to enforce
upon the committee the duty OF cheating the con-
tractors.
In the third section providing "that no claim
Shall pc presented to or considered by the Court Of
Claims or any court OF the District Of Columbia
which was rejected upon its merits by the board Of
audit Of said District after full hearing OF the par
ea ana and son Or
District for or on account OF any claim heretofore
settled and paid by the District unless 1t shall be
shown that the amount thus paid has been pro-
cured by fraud or Misrepresentation" provoked
considerable discussion.
Mr.: McComas and Mr.: spriggs held that this
would make the District pay In full In cases where
part MISUNDERSTANDING been made. Mr. Nc
ComaS said that 1t looks as IL the District might be
allowed the benefit OF any fraudulent payments
they may have here made, but not OF any honest
DustneSS-l,ke payments.
This caused laugh, and Mr. Barr suggested that
1t was just such English as this that gave the
courts such trouble
Mr.. Armstrong said he believed these were all
the sections that mad been criticised
"They are TIE only sections that have been
reached" said Mr. Spriggs. 81 should like to ask
You about section A.
The chairman {Mr. Barooup then suggested that,
as it was very late the hearing better be continued
at some other time.
Mr.. Armstrong continued further. however, asd
explained that section 4, which provided that for
mer judgments should not affect the claims meant
that those cases which had been defeated hereto
fore through the want or this bill should not be
debarred from its benefits account OF the 1udg-
ment.
Mr.. Spriggs thought the effect Of the clause
would be to lay aside all judgments II the claim
ant so chose.
At this point u:15 o'clock the committee ad-
journed until Thursday AT 1890 O'clock when fur
Their hearing will be had.
District Government Affairs,
ELECTRIC LIGHTS FOR THE AVENUE.
Mr.. A. NJ. RenShaw, general manager OF the
United states Electric Lighting company, writes to
the Commissioners to ask permission to lay an
underground electric conduit on Pennsylvania ave-
nue., from lst to 18th streets. Also, permission to
erect ornamental iron lamp posts They propose
to lay the conduit first from 1St to eth street as
speedily as the weather will permit, meanwhile