The Washington herald., 1908-05-17

tres IN AFF@EWtHE ~VNtSttNtS 1CuAGus
In spits OF an apparent disposition on
the part Of the authorities to minimize
the disclosures, the investigation of the
charges made by p ]. Brennan. of the
Brennan Construction Company, affecting
the engineering department of the Dis
trict. is assuming more important pro-
portions day by day. The fact has been
brought out clearly that other contract
ling firms sought to have the whole matter
dropped, and that serious apprehension
was felt as TO the residt OF the proposed
investigation.
An intimation that the corporation coun-
sci of the District is appearing in the
role OF a defender Of Charles Fornald,
former assistant engineer of highways,
who accepted a gift OF Sl000 from a con-
tractor, and as prosecutor of Mr.. Bren-
nan, was made al the third days hearing
before the Commissioners.
asked for an Excuse.
This statement was brought out when
Corporation Counsel Thomas, In ques-
tioning Capt. Edwin Markham. assistant
engineer commissioner. regarding a loan
of $500 by Brennan TO Fernald, asked
what excuse was given by Brennan for
the loan.
Mr. Douglas arose Immediately with
the declaration that his client is not ap-
pearing as the defendant, but as the
one who preferred the charges now under
investigation. I do not like the attitude
the investigation is assuming" sad he.
Instead Of inquiring into the charges of
favoritism, the hearing is developing into
a defense Of Fernald.
Commission Macfarland closed the n
cident with the assurance that 1t was
his desire that justice be meted out
TO all.
II developed later in Capt Markhams
testimony that Fernald had frankly ad-
mitted receiving the loan from Brennan.
Attorney Douglas cross-examined Capt.
Markham throughout the entire session.
now and then allowing the corporation
counsel 10 interpose a question.
All in all. the days hearing tended 10
throw light upon the methods Of award
ing District contracts.
Capt Markham at one time testified
that bids had, In certain instances, been
opened IN an informal manner and not
In the presence Of bidders Il later de-
veloped from his testimony that Fernald
declined 70 open bids involving a contract
Of $1,000. which was awarded to the Gran
ford Paving Company and which was
later protested by the r. j. Eeall Con-
struction Company.
interrupted the Hearing.
Attorney Douglas interrupted the hear
ing at this point by saying: We are not
interested in Fernald's past history What
We want 10 show Is that Fernald dis
eliminated against the Brennan Company
in the specific instance now Under con
sideraHon."
Mr.. Douglas then asked the witness If
the Commissioners had not divided the
contract for street Taving between the
Crawford and Brennan companies 10 en-
courage competition in this city and to
give the Crawford company an assurance
Of future maintenance OF a competing
asphalt plant.
To this Capt. Markham replied that
that was not the reason for the Commits
sioners' action in dividing the contract
as they did But II l had been given
the recommending cf the contract in
question I would have given considerable
asphalt plant" said he.
Competition IN this line of work" the
witness said. 'is vitally important to the
District It Will mean a great saving of
money TO the District in the future
work
Attorney Douglas then produced rec
ords 10 show the Brennan company was
the lowest bidder on the entirety OF the
work under contract Of March 81, 1907,
for street paving work, which resulted
in the charges now being considered. He
stopped the examination OF the witness,
and said It was his contention that the
District could have saved money by
awarding the contract to the Brennan
Construction Company. He explained
that because the cost Of inspection In
connection with the Crawford plant. the
Brennan company could have done the
work for 500 less than the amount paid
Crawford. Addressing himself TO the
Commissioners. he said:
"As representatives of the District you
should consider what is right and just.
and at the same time consider what viii
prove to be the greatest saving 10 the
city"
This statement caused Mai. Morrow TO
remark that as long as he was Engineer
consider contracts because it is shown
they would save money in the cost Of
inspection.
Award of the Contract.
Just before adjournment, Capt Mark
ham, in response 20 question from
Attorney Douglas, said the desirability
of maintaining the two asphalt plants
IN the District entered largely into the
award Of the contract. which is now de-
clared by Brennan 10 have been given
through favoritism. =
The hearing closed when Capt Mark
ham had finished mis- testimony, shortly
after ! o'clock, TO convene again to-
morrow morning at 10 o'clock.
It Is expected Engineer of Highways
Hunt and Charles Fernald, employees of
the engineering department, and more
than a dozen witnesses whose names