Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-12
ALLEGES FAVOR|T|SM
Charges Filed by the Brennan
Construction Company.
EVIDENCE HEARD TODAY
District Engineer Department Ac-
cused of Unjust Discrimination.
THE FERNALD RESIGNATION
Engineer of Highways Regarded by
Complaining Company as Re
EVIDENCE HEARD TODAY
THE FERNALD RESIGNATION

Complaining Company as Re
sponsible for Injustice.
CHARGES of Injustice at the hands of the
Commissioners and that officials of the
District highway department have shown
favoritism to certain contractors engaged
in doing street work, which charges
made by p. ]. Brennan of the Brennan
Construction Company. are being official
Nv investigated by the Commissioners,
we're the subject of public hearing In
The board room at the District building
1odav Several contractors Interested in
the case were present, as We're number
of citizens Mr.. Brennan was represented
by Attorney Charles A. Douglas.
Mr. Brennan claims that the Crawford
company has been continually favored by
officials of the highway department. and
that his company has been grossly dis
eliminated against. a few weeks ago
charges were made by Brennan to the
effect that Charles Fernald. then assist
ant engineer OF highways. had been re-
Ceiving money from contractors. which
charge substantiated sufficiently to
warrant the Commissioners requesting
the resignation of Fernald
The Commissioners requested Mr.. Bren-
nan to furnish facts in connection with
his charges, and he presented the same
in the form of written statement, pre-
pared he stated, from the files and rec
ords of the Commissioners office. In
submitting the charges the Brennan COM
pany said ii cannot state its protest too
strongly against a condition in the en-
gineer department which permits favor
itiSm.
Mr.. Brennan charges C. B. Hunt. en-
gineer of highways. with being chiefly
responsible for the alleged discrimination
saying that the division of the contract
mentioned and the increasing of the work
allotted to the Crawford company. which
was an ingenious scheme as he puts II.
originated with Mr.. Hunt. He also claims
that the Commissioners In affixing their
signatures to the awards were not thor
oughly cognizant with the conditions.
If they had BEEN, Mr.. Brennan
claims they would not have taken a
hand in such discrimination
Statement by Mr.. Mcfarland.
In opening the hearing Commissioner
mcfarland. who presided, said:
The Commissioners have appointed this
hearing in order that the Brennan Con-
struction Company may formally present
its charges and that we may hear what
ever is to be said about them. with a
view to doing justice to all concerned.
The Commissioners several weeks ago of
tion of the Engineer Commissioner. as a
result of an informal investigation made
by him, separated Mr.. Fernald- assistant
engineer of highways, from the service.
one else from the District service the
Commissioners want to know it. and
whatever the facts may be they want
them publicly brought out and will take
appgoprfate action. The Commissioners
have always done business with open
doors, and expect to continue to do So. -
Attorney G. L. Baker, of counsel for
MIR. Brennan, made the opening state
ment for the Brennan company. He read
the specification of the contract men
toned. and empha sized the fact that his
client was the lowest bidder for all the
work and that the contract should not
have been divided.
Mr.. Baker made brief outline of what
Mr.. Brennan proposes to show the Com
missioners in connection with the charges
He said 1t Is not the intention of Mr.
Brennan to assam any one but simply
conf1ne himself TO the documentary evil
dence.
Attorney A. A. Hoehling. for the Gran
ford Paving Company. who next ad-
dressed the Commissioners. said his eli
ents welcome any investigation. He add
ed that 1t is not proper at this time to
go back of the contract of last spring
which was divided between Brennan and
Crawford, which division is said to be the
original cause for Mr.. Brennans pro-
tests
Harold Davis, general manager of the
Brennan Construction Company, next took
the stand and testified to his knowledge of
the contract under question and in con-
nection with the alleged favoritism He
said he made up the bid of the Brennan
company for the contract, and that the
bid of his company was the lowest. He
also sd that the District in awarding
the contract for the vitrified block gut
jers, lost $500 because it was necessary to
employ an additional inspector
Brennan Company's Statement.
In the statement presented TO the Com
missioners the Brennan Company ex-
pressed the belief that the board of Com
missioners of the District and the officials
of the engineer department should be
above criticism, particularly the criticism
Of favoritism. which charge this COM
pany states II IS forced to make.
The Commissioners were requested to
consider and pass on what was termed to
be facts. all OF which the Brennan Com
Commissioners records and all of which it
proposes TO prove. The statement sets
forth:
First, That you have violated by a
vote OF TWO 10 one the letter and spirit
OF the specifications of March 30. 1907, by
dividing the contract for street and gutter
paving in spite of the clearly expressed
terms of the specifications and in spite OF
president of the board of Commissioners
in accepting the statement of the Engi-
neer Commissioner as entirely correct re-
garding this contract was in error in
doing so.
Second. That we were no. treated Just
ly in that while IL is clearly stated In
the specifications of March 20 1907 that
the approximate amount of work to be
done would consist OF 45,G1 square yards
of asphalt surface and 2.;ID square yards
OF vitrified block. which would amount
in money TO approximately $4,000. you
have ordered under these same specifica-
tons approximately $3.50 coo worth of
work. all of which was given to our COM
petitor except that amount which was
originally awarded us; that Is to say the
Crawford Paving Company has been
awarded practically S91O06O worth OF
work under these specifications and the
Brennan Construction Company has only
been awarded $1,000 worth of work
In this connection We wish to call Your
attention TO the fact that the assistant
engineer commissioner, who has since be-
come Engineer Commissioner. during the
discussion OF the division of this CONTRACT
did in unmstakable terms and uneuuivo-
cal language assure the president vice
president and general manager of the
Brennan Company that while possibly
12no yards of work might be awarded in
edition to the amount mentioned in the
specifications these amounts taken TO-
Sether, would constitute the maximum
amount OF work to be ordered under this
contract.