Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-04

Assistant Attorney for the District Davis. in
me unsworn statement of assumed facts, dis
guised as a question. with which he initiated
the Commissioners boomerang crusade upon
TIE STAR in the congressional investigation.
alleged that the statements of persons in re-
sPect to real estate purchases published In THE
STAR differed. unfavorably to the Commission
ers, from the subsequent testimony of these
same persons before the committee, intimating
that TIE STAR had in malice falsified the re-
ports of these interviews. and asking from Com
missioner Wheatley an explanation of this
course on the part of the paper. This
insinuation is false and baseless. The testi-
mony of the persons interviewed by The STAR
80 far rs they have been examined by the COM
mittec. agrees in all substantial particulars
with The STARS reports. as a comparison will
show. These alleged differences. if they ex-
listed. would indicate only that the witnesses
used different language to TEE STAR reporter
from that employed in giving testimony under
oath. and not that The STAR maliciously
changed the remarks which they actually made
There is not particle of evidence of such doc
toring of the interviews. and the intimation
that it has been practiced is a deliberate SIAN
der.
Mr.. Webb thinks it is the STAR IS editorials on
the real-estate purchases. and not the published
statements, which indicate animus No man
who reads them without a prior belief of the
existence of i'll will towards the Commissioners
would ever suspect its existence from the pc
rusal of them. They are moderate in tone.
they carefully refrain from going hey ond ad-
mitted or sworn facts and from alleging official
corruption, and they show conclusively that
he r,aatbo1 of king Durabaooc for
the District is an injudicious one and that
IN the interest of the District not
only should the method be changed,
but that examination should be made
to ascertain whether certain money received
in these transactions cannot be recovered for
the District. Both houses of Congress have
recognized that the method of purchasing is
bad. Beyond all controversy there is reason
able ground for believing that the District can
recover part, at least, of the money which has
been paid to the Intermediates. II Messrs
Webb and Wheatley had kept as close to their
published statements in their testimony under
oath as the persons interviewed by The STAR
there would be no doubt at all ON the latter
question, and the writing of The STARS editor
ials and the soundness of their contention
in behalf of a recovery for the District would
DC IuliN III Will De reHefn-
bered that Mr.. Webb, in his written statement
published the day after the first publication in
The STAR. and indorsed by Mr.. wheatley,
admitted the employment of agents to pur-
chase. denying merely that they were paid by
the District for their services. On this and
other admissions Of Mr.. Webb The STARS edi-
torials were based. The admissions of Mr..
Cox on the witness stand, taken in connection
with the prior published admissions Of Messrs
Webb and Wheatley, would establish conclu-
s:yely that Mr.. Cox had received mony from the
District TO which he had no right. According
TO Er. Webs written statement Mr. Cox was
employed as an agent TO purchase for the Dis
t-ct. though he received no compensation
from the Commissioners except confidence.
and according to Mr.. Cox's evidence. after his
relations to the District had been established
he bought. the ninth precinct station
site on his own account and sold at an advance
to the District. By the law if he was the Dis
trict's agent as stated by Nr. Webb, the moment
he bought he purchased for the District and
not for himself. and he would not be entitled
to the increase over the price paid to the
vendor. which he exacted from the District
The testimony already introduced on the
subject Of the relations of Mr. Cox to the Com
missioners goes far to confirm the original i'm
preston of the latter that he was their agent.
The use OF the word engaged" rather than
employed" Of intermediary" rather than
''agent," and of ''negotiate' rather than ..pur-
chase" in describing his functions does not
alter his legal relation. The authorities
hold that the fact that he was to
receive no compensation is of no con-
sequence. Relations which gave him supe-
rior information concerning the proposed loca-
ton Of buildings, the confidence of the Com
missioners in respect to the reasonableness of
prices. and preference over others as a nego-
tiator in these purchases. go far toward
bringing him within the list of those
who may not act adversely 10 the interest
OF the persons who place confidence in them
The superficial examination by the committee
of two or three purchases has thus raised this
interesting point, in which every taxpayer of
the District, including the national govern
ment, is financially interested. THE Srag had
a right to assume that the Commissioners
knew what they were talking about
when they said they had EMPLOYED
agents to purchase, and that they would
testify in accordance with their original
statements A thorough examination by
the committee of all these purchases may
result in substantial verification Of the
accuracy Of the Commissioners original belief
as to their relations with Mr.. Cox. In
this case il would be the duty Of the
Commissioners, acting for the District to
seek to recover from him any moneys
to which, under the Law. he would not be en-
titled In this view of the matter does il not
occur to the Commissioners and the assistant
attorney for the District, whose services are
paid for by the District taxpayers, that il
would be wise I'm this investigatio to content
themselves with showing that the Commits
soners were not personally implicated
in and knew nothing of any depart
ure from his legal duty by their
\ intermediary, and not wise to mix their for
tunes with those Of the latter by their course
before the committee, and by treating pres
criticism of the conduct of this intermediary
as personal attack upon themselves? 1t ia
Just possible that a reasonable man
might find that the Commissioners are blama-
BILE in this matter only for not knowing
what they should have known but that without
the knowledge or consent of the latter the in
termediary has money which he cannot retain
against the Districts claim. In this event il
would be very awkward and embarrassing for