The morning times., 1896-12-05
FINANCES OF THE DISTRICT
Auditor Petty Submits Annual
Review of His Department.
CONTRACTORS OLD CLAIMS
Litigation Arising From Actions of
Defunct Board of Public Works
Discussed-Repeal of the Act of
February 13, 1895, Necessary
Penalty Upon Tax Arrearages.

District Auditor Petty's annual report
for the year ending June 30, Il SS6, sub
mtted to the Commissioners yesterday,
makes Il complete showing, accompanied
by comprehensive tabular statements, of
the District finances, giving receipts and
expenditures in detail, the balances of the
several funds remaining 10 the credit Of
the Commissioners at the close of the year,
Including revenue account, the various
trust funds, and the appropriations madeby
Congress fqg support OF the local gov
ernment.
The total amount to the credit of the
District is S3,963, ,594fS. A statement
OF classified appropriations accompanies
the report, giving an aggregate or 81, ,346,-
T2l o..
Mr.. Petty takes up and discusses at some
length the old question OF contractors
claims against the derunct board or public
works, in respect to their adjudication, and
says:
II feel constrained to invite your at
tention To the act of February l3, 1895,
providing for the pa aymcnt to contractors
operating under the late board OF public
works, or the difference between the
rates stipulated in their contracts and the
schedule of prices afterw ards adopted
and known as beard rates. which Is sin
gulariy lacking in precautions for safe
guarding the interests or the government.
CONTRACTORS CLAIMS
efforts Of the Commissioners to ensraft
upon the bill, while it was on its way
through Congress, such restrlctio ions as,
had they been enacted, would have dis
armed 1t of much of its power FOR evil,
anC then quotes from the bill u provision
which requires that in the adjudication Of
claims brought under the provisions of
the act entitled ''an act to provide for
the settlement of all outstanding claims
| against the District, and conferring Jurls-
| diction on the court of claims to hear the
an l.
| low the rates established and paid by
the board of public works"
1t is inconceivable, Mr.. Petty says,
that the spirit of this law cuntemplates
more than securing to those who cDven-
| anted with the government to work al
certain prices, as written in their con-
| afterward granted by the board Of public
| works to subsequent contractors, and
| known as board rates. for this alone is
| an undisguised and most extraordinary
| gratuity; but its letter allows much
broader Interpretation, and claims are
being urged with its technical sanction
| which are without the slightest founda
| ton in justice or equity
He mentions two cases in point, which
| briefly stated. are as follows: The bDarC
| of public works fixed the prices and from
| time to time apportiOned the work to be
| done among the various contractors, in
| stead of letting to the lowest bidder. A
| contractor for certain class of improve
| nIent, not satisfied with his allotment
| represented that, having more extensive
plant and greatly superior facilities, he
could afford to work for lower prices
that If the board would give him all oi
the work he would willingly take the con
tract at less than board rates"
ALLOWED THE DIFFERENCE.
He got the work. Years aTtcrward he
set up claim, Mr. Petty says, for the diff
ference between the agreed prices anC
board rates. The court of claims de
| cided against him in 1887, holding tina,
| tS for
the understanding and intention OF botl
parties.
..In the light of these facts" the auditor
| adds, lit may seem incredible, and yet II
is true, that this contractor now claims the
| difference between the prices he agreed Il
take a nd board rates and the referee ap
| pointed by the court has recently allowed
him $40. .272. 80, amounting with interest
| to nearly S122 600, because the act o
| February 13, 1895, requires that in ad
Indicating ciaims which were prosecuted
under the act of June 16, 1880, abov,
quoted, the court OF claims shall allow
| board rates "
The second case is that OF contractor
| who having completed his work, received
| a full and final settlement therefor.
Years afterward, averring that the Ger
| tificates in which he was paid were solo
| by him at less tina n their face value, he
brought suit under the act of June 16, 1880
| to recover the difference.
| He, like the other claimant, was turned
down by the court. IL being held that TIN
sale was his own voluntary act for whici
| the District was in no wise responsible
The question of board rates. the audito
asserts, did not enter into the case, 70
the reason that the contractor had receive
his quittance long before such rates wer
esta blished.
AWARDED BOARD RATES"
Under the act of June L. 1880, pro
ceeds the auditor, this contractor, regard
less of She fact that his suit had no rela
ton whatever To these rates, set up ;
claim. based Oh the provision that "boar,
rates" shall be allowed, and has beel
awarded D y the referee Sc. .665 10, amount