The Washington herald., 1908-05-19
MORROW'S METHOD
Anglers DOUGLAS
Continued from Page One.

Contracts without Appropriation.
That the Engineering Department enter
ed into agreements with contractors for
work when there was no money on hand
to pay for 1t was a development at the
hearing
1t also developed that Charles Fernald,
former assistant engineer OF highways.
had characterized Col. John Biddle, for
mer Engineering Commissioner. as "a
weakened Individual
Capt Markham's testimony was large
ly confined 10 the explanation Of award
ing certain contracts to the Crawford Paw
ing Company, which Brennan alleges has
been favored Mr. Stewart told OF the
conversation with FeTnald. IN which he
referred to Col. Biddle as told above.
Mr. Stewart was on the stand for more
than two hours.
No Pay for His Work.
He aided in the excavation OF the site
for the Office building for the House Of
Representatives with the Brennan Con-
struction Company, and also did part
OF the hlling-in for the plaza at Union
Station Mr. Stewart said that after
completing the illing-in work on the plaza
he was in formed by Col Biddle, then
Engineer Commissioner. that he would
not be paid
He said he went 10 Mr. Fernald, the
assistant engineer OF highways, and asked
him why the company was not 20 be
paid, He said Fernaid replied:
THAT is not Col Biddle's fault He is
weak-kneed. Hunt Is the man who is
doing IT,
Hunt is sore on Brennan. have told
Pat Brennan he was making & mistake
in hosging everything in sight and that
he ought TO let the Crawford Company
get some work. Hunt and tho Gram
fords are warm personal friends and
go around together. Brennan makes
mistake In wanting II ALL
Witness explained he told Fernald he,
Stewart, was not a District contractor.
nor was Brennan. He said Fernald in
formed him he need not expect any
favors while associated with Brennan.
Brennan Cost Him Money.
TT has since been intimated TO me"
continued the witness, that had I not
been associated with Brennan I would
have received $1,000 as payment for the
q
that I would"
Responding 10 a question from Com
missioner Afacfarland, Mr. Stewart said
he had no written contract with the Dis
trict regarding the gork, but that prior
to starting IN he had talked 10 Fernaid
and the latter had informed him he would
get a portion Of the work. and the Nc
Mullen & McDermott Construction Co.
the other part.
He testified that he asked Fernald how
much the District would pay for the ILL
in work, and the latter informed him
he did not know exactly, but II would
not be less than 10 cents a yard. and
he would be paid as much as McDermott
FernaId Assured Pay.
Fernald. witness said. furnished him
with the figures for the filing aud a per-
nit to do the work He was under i'm
preston, until told differently later. that
whatever Fernald said went. It was in
view Of this that he proceeded.
Maj. Morrow. Engineer Commissioner,
brought 20 the attention Of ;he witness.
the contract with the MeDermott COM
papy, in which the latter was 10 receive
no pay for the fll. only on dirt hauled
from Eckingtoa. Mr.. Stewart said he
was not aware Of that contract.
Then" said Mai Morrow. If you have
any crouch it is not against the Dis
trict. You say Fernald said you were to
get the same payment as McDermott,
when the fact Of the matter was Nc
Dermott did not receive one cent for
the dirt hauled from the House Of Rep
resentatives site. the work for which
you claimed payment"
In response TO a question from Mai Nor
row, Mr.. Stewart said that at no time
was there the slightest intimation on the
part OF Fernald that he expected to re-
eeive any money from the contractor.
Douglas CriticiseS Morrow.
While Mai. Morrow was endeavoring TO
have the witness FIX the date Of the
conversation regarding the f1ll-in with
Fernald. Attorney Douglas interrupted
the proceedings. He called Maj Morrow
to task for the manner in which he was
handling the witness. He said Maj Nor
row was endeavoring TO call into ques-
ton the veracity OF the witness: that
the charges OF favOritism only were 10
be considered, and that witnesses called
BY him should not be placed in the light
of defendants.
Capt. Markham was called to the stand.
He detailed various contracts awarded
by the District 10 the Crawford company.
Attorney Baker asked whether a de-
iciency appropriation Of $4,000 was not
made necessary by the fact that $4,000
worth of paving work had been previ-
ously awarded to the Crawford company.
Capt Markham said it was not, but that
the money was used TO improve South
west Washington.
1t was then the statement that the Dis
trict had made contracts when there was
no appropriation came out.
Commissioner West leaned forward and
remarked;
These facts are new 10 me.
He said he was under the impression
that Il was Illegal for the District to
enter into contracts in excess of avail
able appropriations. Commissioners Nor
row and Macfarland both explained that
II was customary to order the work in
advance, but that work is never actually
begun until the necessary appropriations
have been made.
Mr. West was apparently not satisfied
with the explanation and asked that the
law prohibiting the District from becom.
ing involved in contracts be embodied in
the record.
Capt, Markham then referred to several
other contracts of no importance.
The hearing adjourned until 10 o'clock
this morning.
NIGHT MARCH AND SURPRISE.