Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-15
Describes Method Followed i
Awarding Contracts.
PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION
Assertion That Charles Fernald Was
Powerless to Accord Preference
to q Contractor.

| cr7m1nated against the Brennan COM
pany. was resumed at the District build
| ing today.
| Capt. Edwin Markham. assistant en-
gineer commissioner who read a state
ment at the session last Tuesday g3.ing
| the engineer departments side of this
case. was the first witness today. He
supplied figures and facts taken from the
records Of his Office to explain what he
termed the unjustness of the charges by
Mr.. Brennan. 1t was declared that Mr..
Brennan's statement that he has not been
| an unsuccessful bidder for street work
since he began business here Is not true.
as he was the highest bidder for street
| work in 1904 and that the Crawford COM
| pany was the lowest bidder.
| In answer to a question from Corpora
| ton Counsel Thomas representing the
| District. Capt. Markham said that during
his connection with the engineer depart
| ment he has never been aware of any
favoritism shown the Crawford company.
Ascribes Error to Brennan.
| In connection with a statement made
by Mr.. Brennan at the last hearing. Capt.
Markham said Brennan was again in err
ror. explaining that the contract specifica-
tons for the construction of the sewage
pumping station provided that the con-
tract was for the entire work. and that
the reason a certain part of the contract
was not awarded the Brennan company
was because a low bid on that portion
was impossible by the wording Of the
| specifications. He agreed that the Bren-
| nan company was lowest bidder on the
substructure. but that 1t would have been
illegal to divide the contract, and that. as
| a matter of fact, by letting out the con-
tract as whole without dividing 1t the
District saved several thousand dollars.
Ia otyH$%
| pany was SO aware at the time. and he
| added he knows OF 10 request on its part
| for division afterWard, and that he does
| not believe that case has any bearing on
the 1907 street paving contract which was
divided between Brennan and Crawford
and which called for the protest from the
| former and which resulted in the hearing
| Corporation Counsel Thomas at this
point asked the witness II Mr.. Fernald
| controlled any contract so that 1t could
| be given to or denied a particular COM
| pany.
"Emphatically no." Capt. Markham re-
piled. He was utterly powerless to give
preference to contractor"
| Cross-Examination Of Markham.
When Capt. Markham concluded what
may be termed his technical testimony,
and had reviewed the Fernald matter. At
torney Douglas Of counsel for Brennan be-
gan the cross-examnatfon.
| Captain. were you and Maj. Morrow
not informed that Joseph II. Bradley of
| the Potomac Sand Dredging Company
went to several persons interested In this
| case. among them being Mr.. Brennan. and
said, For Gods sake. do something to
stop this thing. as the disclosures will
send two of my best friends to the peni-
tentiary-meaning McDermptt of the Nc
Mullen & McDermott Construction Com
pany and Joseph Crawford of the Gran
1 fnp1 pox,{
| las asked.
| Capt. Markham replied that he had been
informed of hing to that effect, but
when he asked Mr.. Bradley to repeat the
conversation in question he declined to
do SO.
| Were you not informed by some one"
| Mr.. Douglas inquired, that Mr. Bren-
nan would drop the charges II Mr.. Hunt,
| engineer of highways. and Mr.. Fernald
were asked to resign?"
That is news to me-" Capt. Markham
| replied.
Contribution of $1,000.
Attorney Douglas then referred to
Fernald's subsequent dismissal. when he
| admitted he received a check from John
WAINWRIGHT of the Drake-Stratton Com
pany for $1,000. and that he borrowed
| $500 from Mr.. Brennan. Counsel asked
Capt. Markham If he considered the 81 600
bride or present The reply was that
! he regarded 1t as present.
DO You think that under the circum-
stances Mr.. Fernald could honestly and
honorably have accepted the money?
Mr.. Douglas asked.
Il certainly do the witness replied
but | think that Mr.. Fernald should
| have first consulted his superiors'
AS to the expression too chinchy."
which Messrs. Brennan. Davis and john
| son of the Brennan Construction Com
| pany allege Fernald used regarding their
work for the District, Can't. MARKHAM tes-
| titled that during the informal investiRn-
| ton. conducted by Maj. Morrow and him
| self, Mr.. Davis. who is chief engineer for
| the Brennan company, and Mr.. Johnson
superintendent of the Brennan company
| said Fernald used the expression in an
swering their inquiries for more work,
but Brennan said Fernald never used the
expression In conversation with him.
During the hearing last Tuesday Mr.
maid had used the expression and that
Fernald said. You will not get any work
unless you put up for it,
Matter Of Cost of Home.
Attorney Douglas then asked Capt.
Markham how much Fernald paid for his
home. Markham said he had not asked,
but that Fernald had volunteered the in
formation. saying he paid $1,000 Mr.
Douglas then asked what salary was paid
Fernald as assistant engineer. and Maxi
ham replied 1t was 1880 a year.
Mr.. Douglas asked II it was not true
| that Fernald had paid Cor the house in
two years. Markham said he did not
| know.
Did the engineer department make any
| investigation how that house was
| bought? ?" Mr. Douglas wanted to know.
| Mrs. Fernald." Markham sid. had
been given $500 by her brother. and upon
| the death of her brother she received an
additional $1,000 from life insurance.
continued to press Fernald for definite in
| formation as to where the money for the
home caDe from and his reply was: Am
l not entitled to a home? / have been
working for the District government more
than twenty years. and isn't it plausible
| that within that time / should have saved
the money!"
| Capt Markham also explained that the
| 81 600 received from Wainwright also
| went toward the house.
Question Regarding Bribery.
Capt Markham Attorney Douglas
asked, "should you as contractor 60 to
an employee of the District and ask the
question, why don't l get a portion of
the work of the government? and this
employe should respond. You are too
| would you be suspicious that his whole
object was to secure a bribe from your
| Markham replied that under the cir
| cumstances and conditions when Fernald
/ was alleged to have made the statement
1 he would not consider 1t an attempt to
get a bribe He said the expression was
| a common one for Fernald to use.