The Washington times., 1908-07-09
Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page.)
directly or indirectly. II is admitted
that the man in question. Mr.. Fernald
took $1,000 as a gift from John Vain
wright. Jr. local superintendent Of tn,
Drake & Stratton Company, contractor
with the Pennsylvania Railroad Com
pRny, and $500 in a loan from p. J
Brennan, president Of the Brennan Con.
struction Company. contractors with
the District OF Columbia, which acts
alone had been previously considered
by the Commissioners as reasons
enough 10 warrant them in requesting
his resignation.
Fernald's Bank Account Grew.
The evidence Indicates that Fernald
received at least $3.50 more from Vain
wright and that his bank account was
7lGaccOuntably Increased to a large
amount. aggregating over $4,000 in
three and a half years. although II
was not proved that he had received
$500 which It was said he had ad-
mitted receiving from another contrac-
tor with the District OF Columbia, Nc
DermOtt Of the McMulfen g. McDer-
mott Company.
10 these transactions, the Commission
ers referred his case together with the
testimony taken in the inquiry TO the
United states Attorney, and MCDeruott
having failed 10 answer tire subpoena
or the Commissioners 10 appear, the
Commissioners Informed the United
States Attorney II ought 20 be thor
Oughly understood that no other evil
dence Of alleged corruption on the part
OF any employe Of the Engineer Depart
ment was given.
There was not the slightest intima-
ton that there was any system Of
grating such as has been discovered
in other municipalities in similar in
designations. The allegations were con-
hned 10 one man, and indicated no
cOHuSiOn or cooperation with him on
the part Of anyone else in the con
sideration of graft In any form At
worst II was a sporadic case OF dis
honesty such as might occur in any
private corporation.
LAS to the second class Of charges:
beyond what was involved in the ale
cations against Fernald. there was no
warrant In the testimony for the asser-
ton that any official employee of the
Engineer Department had been guilty
Of favoring one contractor over an
other; or Of giving favor to any one
else in any sinister sense The opinion
Of the Corporation Counsel shows that
the different acts Of the Engineer De-
partment with respect 10 the contracts
IN question were legal and proper, and
II does not appear that the discretion
exercised by the Commissioners or sub
ordinates in the Engineer Department
was Influenced by favOritism toward a
particular contractor.
At the same time, the Commission
ers cannot approve as q matter OF ad-
the issuance of orders for
street paving in advance OF the deliv-
cry of the grade sheets, which was the
contamination Of the orders upon which
work actually began, or IN advance OF
the appropriations actually made and
available. The orders in controversy
were issued honestly and with view
10 the interests of the District Of Co
lumbia, and not Of the contractors, and
according 70 custom Of ordering work
in advance, but they should not have
been issued except when the time had
come 20 do the work and when there
was money available for that purpose.
Cancel $4,000 Orders.
The Commissioners, in accordance
with the regular practice of the En-
gineer Department, and upon the advice
Of the Corporation Counsel, have d.
rected that Unexecuted orders amount
Ing 70 $4,000 in round numbers, for
work which could not be done in the