The morning times., 1896-05-24
within sixty days after the pas age of this
act, TO new trial OF suCn cause
WHAT CONGRESS INTENDED.

THE utmost intention OF Congress in
this enactment was, L doubt not, to give
TO those who had agreed with the District
TO do work at certain prices, us expressed
III their contracts, the benefit OF the higher
rates afterward allowed by the board OF
public works to subsequent contractors,
for this alone, as the beStowal of an
outright gratuity, was an unwonted eXer-
else of legislative authority. But while
this, as stated, would seem to bound the
plain intent and spirit of the law, it's
letter admits of a wider meaning, and
claims are being prosecuted under its
sanction which violate all the ethics of
equity and fair dealing in so far as they
relate to the government.
Il cite a case or two in Illustration:
''It was the custom Of the board OF
public works to fix the prices and then
apportion the work among the variC..
contractors of the city instead of letting
to the lowest bidder. as now required by
law.
"A certain contractor. however, is said
to have represented to the board that
having superior facilities he could afford
to work for less than his competitors,
and agreed. if given a large contract, to
take less than board rates His offer
was accepted and he was awarded work
which bat for the fact of his bid being
ltSS JudH lIt tstiDilSItG IdltS, NbuiG ave
been divided among several contractors.
Years afterward. under the act of June
16. 1880. he sued the government for the
difference between the prices written in
his contract and board rates.
1.-THE court OF claims in 1887 gave iudg-
ment against him. holding that the con-
tract between the claimant and the de-
fendant referred to in claimants petit
ton correctly and truly set forth
EsNN- -
parties. and had not by accident, mad
vertence. mistake or clerical error failed
to set forth the same, and ought not to be
reformed.
RESTORED TO DOCKET.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. this clear and well
understood agreement betw cen the govern
ment and the contractor, the former to
pay and the latter to accept prices less
than boa rd rates. this cause is now on the
docket uDon the demand of the contra Ctor
to hc paid board rates with a confident
expectation on his part of favorable iGdg-
ment, because the law OF February l3
1895. requires that in the adjudication OF
claims which were brought under the
act of June IS. 1850. the court OF claims
shall allow said rates.
'In another instance a contract was ex.
ecuted the work hereunder done and pay.
ment made therefor in full by the District
The contractor thereafter claimed that rs
the certificates which he received from the
board were sold by him at a discount he
ought to be reimbursed for the loss. He
brought suit for his allowance under the
act of June 16. 1850, but failed to recover
the court holding thatthe sale of the Certifi
Gates was his own voluntary act and that
he, and not the government, must lose the
discount.
mo demand was made or contemplated
for board rates as the contra ctor had beer
settled with before their establishment
Now however. because the act of February
13, 1895, provides that board rates shal
be allo wed to all contractors who sued under
the act of June 16s 1880, this contractor
notwithstanding the fact that his suit hat
no relation to these rates. sets up claim
for their allowance and the letter of thi!
loosely written statute sustains his con
tention If allowed, as seems almost in
evitable. the sum of $1,000 will thereby bs
taken from the public treasury without an!
justification other than the countenanct
| of an ill-advised law.
''StiN another contractor claimed. under
| the act of June 16S1sS0. the allowance O
| board rates. and, iniaddition thereto. a larg'
| sum for work which the contemporary of
ficials OF the District centended he did no