Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1897-11-27
Annual Statement of District Finances
by Mr.. ]. T. Petty.
OPERATIONS OF his DEPARTMENT
Showing Of Receipts and Expendi-
lures for Fiscal Year.
THE AIMS ADJUSTED

Auditor ]. T. Petty today submitted to
the Commissioners the annual report of
| the operations of bis department during
The East fiscal year. After reference to
several exhibits, showing cash surplus on
hand July 1. 1896, together with receipts
during the year, a general statement of
appropriations and appropriations CLASH
fled, summary of the account which the
Commissioners, as disbursing officers, keep
with the treasurer of the United States.
the water fund revenue account and water
fund appropriation account and also
summarized statement of the various trust
funds. MIR. Petty says:
In my last annual report 1 invited your
attention to the extraordinary provision
Of the act of February 49, 1895, which
| required the Court of Claims in adjudicat ting
| the claims of contractors of the late board
OF public works to allow what were tech
! nically known as board rates." regard
| less of tie fact that they were from so to
15o per centum higher than the prices at
work for the board.
The correctness of the opinion 1 then
expressed. that this allowance in excess
Oh contract rates was a sheer gratuity,
of the fact that subsequently in a decision
rendered February Is, 1897, in the cases
of George E. johnson, administrator of
Peter Mcnamara, and others, carried up on
appeal from the Court of Claims, the Su-
| preme Court of the United States held
TINS principle to be the embodiment of
the law governing the question at issue.
Opinion of the Court.
In passing upon these cases. one of which
at least is conceded to be among the most
meritorious of any upon the District dock
et.' MI. Justice Peckham, who delivered
the opinion of the court used the following
language:
Under the holdings of the Court of
Claims and of this court, it is perfectly
apparent that the result of the passage
of TIE act of February Il, 1885, was sim
ply to testow pure gratuity to the
amount of the difference between the con-
tract price and the board rates upon those
persons included within its provisions.
There is no element of legal or an equit-
able claim within the proper meaning and
siSniflcation OF these words on the part of
any Of those who will profit by the act of
1850. against the municipal authorities of
the District. That act bestowed pure and
Simple gift
These contractors also demanded interest
upon their claims, some of which dated
back to 1871, and none of which was later
than 1SI5-periods of from twenty to TWEEN
ty-hve years. Special Assistant Attorney
Howard, representing the District in the
Court of Claims and before the Supreme
Court answering this demand, said in his
appeal brief:
These claimants are not entitled to in
tereSt prior to judgment under the act of
February Il, 1895. All their rights
rest upon the act of February Is, 1875,
which is purely donative. 1t directs the
Court OF Claims to make donation of some
thing to which neither in law nor equity
had claimants any right until its passage"
The Contention Sustained.
tention, holding thereon as follows:
The statute of 1895 simply as we have
said, conferred gratuity . and the
reasonable construction of such an act is to
say that the gratuity given becomes due
and payable only from the time when the
act which gave it was passed. To make
the amount of the gratuity thus given due
and payable twenty years before the pas
sage of the act giving it, SO as thereby to
allow interest from that time upon the
amount of such gratuity, requires the clear
est and most certain expression of legisla-
tive will to that effect. We do not find any
such expression in the act here under CON
Sideration."
Before the rendition of this decision GER
tam of these claims had been paid. upon
which, under the holding of the Court of
Claims, interest to the amount of s27 IOs ~
was allowed. Recently, however. as re
suit OF the decision. suit has been instituted
in the Court of Claims, by Attorney How
ara Ior the recovery of the amount thus
allowed for interest.
Action of Congress.
On the Sd of March, 1897, Congress re-
pealed the act of February l3, 1885 yacat
ing all proceedings pending hereunder. and
prohibiting the payment of judgments
previously rendered in pursuance thereof.
Ihls action practically reinstates the law
OF June IL, 1850, under which all claims
ha
originally brought in the Court of Claims
ana IN accordance with which thew must
now be determined
Northern Liberty Market Claims.
by an act approved June 20, 1897, Con-
sress empowered the auditor of the Sill
preme Court of the District of Columbia ito
examine and audit for settlement all claims
LOT property taken, injured or DESTROYED
by reason of the destruction or removal of
the Northern Liberty Market, in the CITY of
Washington. in September, 1872 as also all
c chn lor payments made for the pur-
CHASE. rent or use of any stall or privilege
IN SAID market house ana for license for
conducting any business therein 10 the ex-
tent OF the unexpired term of said pur-
chase. rent, use or license"
In the hearing upon these claims n wide
divergence OF opinion was found to exist
between the auditor and IEe ATTORNEYS for.
the District as to the proper construction
f.
ute This matter coming to the attention
OF congress. was considered by Tie respec-
1--WE committees on appropriations of the
senate and House. with tn, result that IN
amendment was formulated by tlem and
embodied in the deficiency act of July 10
1891, providing that 1.-The aiIowance shall he
limited TO the actual value of the fixtures
TOOLS and stock in trade, SO far as the same
were lost or destroyed. and TO the fair
value OF the stall privileges for the unex
pred term of the fiscal year ending June
~, 1913. and further directing the nav
meht OF the awards in cash instead Of
drawback certificates
Penalties Upon Taxes Overdue.
desire to renew the Recommendation of
my last report with reference to the abate-
ment of penalties upon FAX arrearages. AS
they are fixed by law, the Commissioners
cannot properly remit them. although, as
frequently occurs, it is manifest that their
imposition is a hardship. It is often the
case also that the collection of taxes long
overdue. the enforcement of which, by
legal process. from lapse of time or other
causes, is impracticable, If not impossible.
| might be accomplished if the penalties were
not exacted.
For these and other considerations that
n ard I