The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-05-28
THOUSANDS SPENT
IN FERNALD CASE
Hearing of Fraud Charges
Expensive to the
4E District.
DECISION EXPECTED
IN SEVERAL WEEKS
Brief Submitted by Coatending
Lawyers, With Stenosraphic
Notes, Sent District Attorney.

Ihat the FernaId- Brennan hearing.
NAlch was closed yesterday. cost the
Dis'rlcJ several thousand dollars. is the
opiiloh OF the officials OF the District.
since May y, the date on which the in
Fssusation began. the work I'm the En-
eIheer Department necessarily has suf-
lered as the presence of those in direct
charge was demanded in the board
room.
Inc stenograpniC report OF the pro-
ceedlngs cost the District approximately
N'oOO. The entire transcript Of the hear
Ing has been forwarded 10 the United
states district attorney, and for such
action as he may determine.
II probably will be several weeks be-
fore the Commissioners arrive at a de-
cision as 10 whether the charges of Ia
Voritism in the giving Of District con-
tracts have been proved, The decision is
left entirely TO Commissioners Macfar-
land and West, Maj. Morrow, Engineer
COMMISSIONS, having announced his IN
Iention OF leaving the matter entirely IN
the hands Of his colleagues.
Douglas Sums Up.
Declaring that the division Of tho
contract OF March 80. 1907. for street
paving work. was against the manifest
interests OF the District, and IN viola
tion OF the rights Of its citizens and
taxpayers. Attorney Charles A Doug
las, brought to a close the investiga-
ton by the Commissioners of the
charge OF favoritism IN the giving Of
contracts.
The investigation will not be officially
closed, however. until June 0. in order
TO give Charles NcDermott, the con-
tractor from whom Fernald is alleged
10 have said he received $500, an op-
pOrtuntty 10 testify. McDermott, il was
testified, left Washington the day after
the investigation began.
Mr. Douglas reviewed at length the
testimony relating TO the division OF
the street paving COMPANY his cOnten-
ton being that II could be awarded only
as an entirety, and 90 only one bidder.
our proposition said Mr.. Douglas,
rs that even II the Commissioners had
the power 10 divide the contract, the
manner and method of dividing It was
utterly and obviously unfair, and that
Il was conceived in favorltism and not
IN corruption.
Charges Subordinate.
We claim that work was assigned 10
the Cranfords months and months
ahead of time when IT could be done.
and that It was done for the express
purpose, upon the part OF some sub
ordinate in the engineer office, for the
purpose Of comforting benefits upon the
Crawford Company"
Mr.. Douglas declared that Brennan
had brought no charge, either directly
or indirectly, against the members OF
The Board of Commissioners.
1T surely would be a curious situa-
ton for Mr.. Brennan he said ITO
prefer charges affecting the integrity
ana honor of any member Of this board,
and then come here and spend two
weeks in trying the case before them,
when they were 10 sit in judgment upon
* them selves II that were the sltua-
Iion, ] would be ready 10 swear out
2 wr.- de lunatico inCuirendo against
M. Brennan, ana have him committed
- s.. EuzaborL-- AID think ! sho-Ld
&C G--l him