Evening star., 1896-12-04
DISTRICT FINANCES
Auditor Petty Makes Some Important
Recommendations.
OPPOSED TO The CONTRACT Law.
Startling Statement as to Claims
Under a Recent Law.
REVENUES AND EXPENSES

rke annual report of Mr.. ]. T. Petty the
auditor Of the District, submitted today to
the District Commissioners contains liz adj
dtion to the usual comprehensive suu-
mary of the financial .fairs of the Dis
triCt some rather interesting and import
ant recommendations. He urges. with
much emphasis, the repeal Of the act Of
February IL, 1885. providing for the pay
ment tC contractors under the late board
of public works of the difference between
the rates stipulated in their contracts and
the sche edule of prices adopted board
rates, and points out that the claims al
ready filed under this law aggregate with
interest. $l,:au,uDo He makes d strong ar
Sument also based or recent experience
witt contractors for the modification or
repeal OF the law requiring that all public
works exceeding $1,000 in cost shall he
don: by contract.
The report says in regard to the ac; of
February Is, 1855, providing tor the pay
ment 10 contractors, unGer the late board
OF public works, of the difference bet Ell
the rates stipulated in their contracts and
the schedule OF Prices afterward aduptt Il
and kr own as board Idtes, that IL lis
singularly lacking in precautions for saf.-
isuai ding tie interest of the government -
The Commissioners. he adds, will doubt
less recall Their own earnest, but uuava.l-
ing efforts 20 SneIaf; upon il, while on its
way through Cor gress. such restrictions as
had they been enacted. would have dis
armed ii OF much of its power for evIl.
An Extraordinary Gratuity.
1t Is inconceiNabie. he says. That Ine
spirit of this law contemplates more thar
securing I" these who covenanted with lhc
government 10 work at certain prices. as
Written i'll their contracts, the adyanta 4 z.
CT the higher rates afierwaru granted by
lie board oi public works 10 subscqu a;
contractors, ANA ki.owu board rates,
Tor this aione is an UiidisIuised and mos,
extraordinary Sratli,y, bat It's letter a.
lows a much broader Interpretation. and
claims are being urged with Its tecnnIcal
sanction which are without Tie slightest
louHGs ton in justice OF equity.
The act Of JCne 80, 1874. authorizing the
80, bonds, the auditor observes "lrri;.-,l
liie!1 issue 1" Slo.voen,. Only Sies1 II
thtsc bonds iciG!din. aid if the ju,enlents :
heretofore and hereafter rendered unds 7
ihe ;tci OF february IL, 1856. are TO be paiI
ii VIII Be necessary 10 increase the District
4ebt hen his act Was under cons!dera-
liol 1ohSfeSS WAS advised that The claim
ANTS were few. and the amount involved
about Si",GHi, but the docket OF The CouT;
ol Claims shows nine,y-eiSht petitioners
whose claims aggregate $40. 80. -. amount
ins, with interest. to xl,..b;tsl. Thsse fig
Tres are startling. but they are also Off
clal, and bring us face to face with an
issue ihat must soon be met For myscle
10 not hesitate 10 say that the only
proper solution of The question is tn,
ronIpi and unconditional repeal Of the law
TX Is always a question fer grave ard ina-
tUre consideration when taxpayers are Ia
be b!rdehod with debt for improvement :
or other legitimate enterprises of govern
inent: hui when We asked 10 Issue
Bonds or dep.ete the treasury in order "a
lay claims " i.ich no court save one, bcuud
eN CONGRESSIONAL mandate. would consid.r I
faNorably for moment. there should be
40 difilcuity in reaching a summary ami
adverse conclusion