The evening times., 1896-03-23
lI1Ian W nllLI0h
Claims Go to the attorney Geg-
eraI for a Decision.
EXPENSE TO TIE DISTRICT
II the Test Case Is Allowed 1t VIII
Paving conrracts-SOme Given Out
at Thirty Centsa Yard-What They
Are.

There are number of claims Ucnding
| before the Court of Claims against the
district. for the difference between the
contract rate and the rate established by
the old Board OF Public Works, for con
tracts for street Improvement let out by
| the board. If all are allowed IL win in
voive an aggregate expense to the Dis-
trict of over Ealf a million dollars.
The most recent one or these claims flied
before the court is the case of Barnes GA inst
the District. and it is understood that the
Commissioners have madc an unfayor.ffjie
report, based upon the adverse recommeD-
dation OF the auditor for the District
upon it. Both OF these reports will prob
aDIy be submitted 10 the Attorney General
today. ---..I-.- --ss- --.
The claims are based upon the fact that
the boa rd or pubic works in letting out the
original contracts fixed the rate for street
grading at 40 cents yard. Subse-
quently certain contractors o offercd, it is
understood, to do the work for 30 cents
a yard. provided large contracts were
u awarded them. A number OF such contracts
were let, thus forcing the other contractors
down, but afterward the price was again
raised to 40 cents. The claims are for the
difference in price That accrued while the
work was done for 80 cents.
AhI "Ohh oT hS.
In 1880 Congress passed an act refer
ring these unpaid claims TO the Court of
Claims for adjudication. The claimants
had made representations to the board of
pubic works complaining ,ttat'On account
OF the depreciation in the market value of
the certificates given them in pa yrrent for
the work the fulfiilment OF their contracts
involved loss and hardship. Upon these
representations the board at different Pc
lac. n h.. III for
material and work.
Where there were existing contracts
however, rs there were in many casts.
specifying the rates at which the work was
20 be done, I lie court refused 10 allow any
increased amounts. Tbey also refused, al
though in certain cases the Commissioners
lad already done so, TO recognize the
right of the District officials TO issue Ger
tificates for a larger amount than WIS
called for in pa yment at par, ard the con-
tractors We're then pa id upon that tbaSis.
In 1895, however, Congress was induced
to pass an act. by which IL was provided
that in the adjudication. the court of
claims should allow the rates established
and paid by the beard of public works.
and wherever said rates had not been al
lowed, the claimant or his representatives
should be entitled TO have a new trial be-
fore the court of claims, and to recover the
difference between the price stated in bis
contract and the Increased amount estab-
Iished by the board OF public works.
WHAT 1T is BASED ON.
Messrs. Douglas. Sbehbarser and Wilson
are attorneys for the claimant in the Barnes
case. and it was upon this case. it is alleged,
that the remedial legislation of last year
was largely based. The attorneys were un-
willing To discuss 1t. but say that 1t is just
claim, and one that should be allowed.
Barnes was not one Of the contra ctors who
underbid the rates established by the board.
The claimants who have filed their
claims for readiudication contend that
the enactment OF Congress emitting them
to a new hearing, also allows them to in
troduce additional items that were not
included in the original adjustment Upon
this contention the commissioners and
the auditor, it is understood, base their
unfavorable report.
While the District officials are willing to
concede the Justness or the claims, they are
OF the opinion that those contractors who
deliberately agreed to cut the rate estab-
lished by the board OF public works. are not
entitled to the increased rate. The re-
ports OF the Commissioners and Auditor
Petty will be referred to Judge Howard of
the Department OF Justice, in whose hands
the claims now are.