Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-20

THE COMMISSIONERS WERE UNwIsE AND ISJU-
p1cIoUs AND SAVIOR OF FAvoRITIsM.
Mr.. Taulbees report upon the school site in
vestigation. in which he takes an entirely diff
ferent view from that presented by the majority
OF the committee, was completed late yester-
day afternoon. The report, as outlined in yes
| terdays STAR, is a sober and serious criticism
of the methods of the Commissioners, based
upon the testimony and adhering closely to it
throughout. The fact that the testimony SUBJ
mitted with the majority report is not true
| transcript of the record. but changes the char
| acter of some of the sworn answers, is pointed
out in detail without further comment. Fol-
lowing is the full text of the report:
| The undersigned does not favor the views
expressed in the foregoing report and submits
the following conclusions:
| The testimony taken before the committee
as sworn to by the witnesses is relied upon to
substantiate the conclusions hereinafter sub
mitted But the testimony as submitted with
the majority has, since it was taken, been SO
| changed and modified as to admit of posi-
| BILE doubt of the conclusions of the minority
| For instance the testimony as given by J. +.
| Cox, touching the relationship which he bore
| in the matter of purchases of real estate for
I the District of Columbia. tends to establish
| the conviction that he acted as agent for the
| Commissioners, but the testimony submitted
| leaves room for possible doubt on this subject.
] For instance, in his testimony concerning his
purchase of square of 796, the following ques-
/ ton asked him:
| did you always submit it to him?'' (meaning
! Mr.. Webb. His answer was always to him."
| but as the testimony reads which the majority
/ of the committee submit with their report the
answer reads: always in the case of school
] sites" In this connection the further question
| Is asked. Did you do it in the case of police
! station sites?" His answer as sworn to was: Il
| think SO. After that Mr.. Webb was in the
| habit of getting Mr.. Entwisle. the Inspector of
| buildings, to consult with me as to the reason
ableness of the price of property offered. and
| in addition to that he would also call upon the
| trustees in that particular district" The an
| swer gwen in the testimony as submitted with
! the majority report Is: Not to Mr.. Wheatley.
After that the commissioners were in q habit
| of getting Mr. Entwisle TO consult with me as
! to the reasonableness of the price of the prop
| erty offered and in addition to that they would
also cali upon the trustees in that particular
| district"
Touching the same matter, the following
question asked Mr.. Cox: Ibid you pay
the money to the persons from whom the pur-
chase was made, or did the Commissioners pay
it," To which he gave the following answer:
The Commissioners paid it," But the test-
mony, as submitted. makes him answer: The
Commissioners did not pay it," In this same
connection, touching the matter of the pur-
chase of this property, as to time the following
question was asked Mr. Cox: WAS that
(meaning his purchase of the property before
or after you had been called upon by the Com
missiOners of the District TO purchase property
for the District?' His answer on oath was:
1T after" In the proof submitted by the
majority Of the committee. Cox is represented
as giving the following answer: 1T was
before" Many other changes materially
affecting the issues raised by the investigation
have been made in the testimony without the
consent of the committee. The testimony as
detailed before the committee establishes the
fact that Cox was not a real-estate agent at the
time of making these purchases, but that his
services were, in some way not fully explained
/ by the testimony, procured by the Commission
ers in the matter of purchases of real estate
| The fact, however. that he acted as the agent
of the Commissioners in these purchases, and
that they fully relied ON his conduct as such
agent i'll the negotiations without ever ques-
tlonlng his methods or the prices submitted TO
them through him, cannot be doubted by any
one who Will read the testimony even in its
modified form submitted by the majority
| Whether his agency absolute or in the
nature of a quasi-agency. rs stated by one of
the Commissioners in his testimony, it is i'm
material to the views here submitted.
The further fact is established by the testi-
mony of divers persons, from whom the pur-
chases We're made, that Cox acted also as their
agent in selling the property to the District
| This dual agency enabled Cox to purchase
to sell it to the District at a greater price the
profits thus realized being greatly in excess of
the ordinary and usual commissions paid to
regular dealers in real estate. For example. in
the purchase of the property known as the
ninth precinct station, COX's testimony as given
before the committee clearly establishes the
fact that after the site was agreed upon as a de-
sirable one for this purpose, and personal in
spection of the premises had been given By Mr.
Cox, Commissioner Wheatley and the chief
nF p 1ad 10
the property for himself. But for reasons
which have not been explained to the satisfac-
ton of the minority of the committee. the pur-
chase was had in the name of a third party
who Is shown to have had no real interest in
the transaction from which third party diff
! ferent and higher price was submitted to the
Commissioners and by them accepted. the diff
ference in the two prices going to Cox, the
Commissioners paying the price accepted by
them to the third party, per G.. Repetti. attor-
ney, which attorney is shown to have been an
interested party in the original ownership of
the property, and member of the firm of
Weller x Repetti, who had the property for
sale as agents of real estate SO also III many of
| the purchases, parties wholly disinterested in
the transaction We're used Intermediates
through whom the purchase and conveyances
were made when Cox was the real party i'm
interest and the party to whom the profits
Injured. The testimony established the further
fact that in most of the cases in which Cox
acted as purchaser or vender or whatever rela-
tionship he may have sustained both to the
Commissioners and to the original owners it
Is shown that the names of disinterested parties
were used In the conveyances the profits in
each case having Injured to Cox. The fact that
the Commissioners knew or that they in any
event could have known by the exercise of rea-
sOnable diligence or even a casual observation
OF the affairs OF their office. the full nature of
Cox's connection with these transactions in the
beginning of his operations and prior to his
opening negotiations for subsequent purchases
cannot be reasonably questioned by any one
who will read the testimony
The minority of the committee does not agree
with the conclusion of the majority, to the
effect that but two questions raised by
the investigation. viz: Was any wrong or fraud
perpetrated in the several purchases in ques-
ton or any of them, and, second, were the
Commissioners, or either of them. guilty of any
disposition to Cooperate In any way in the ac-
QUESTION of said sites, any of them at prices
above their real yalue," and that -. to each of
these questions unhesitating answers in the
negative should be given" But in the opinion
of the minority the questions to be determined
are Did the Commissioners exercise proper
diligence and caution in the purchase of
property for the District did they purchase
the property as cheaply as they could
have done by negotiation directly with the
owners. and did they exercise reasonable
and ordinary diligence in preventing a waste
OF money belonging to the District" On these
points the minority of the committee believes
that the testimony establishes beyond question
the fact that III most OF the cases in which Cox
acted as intermediary the purchase could have