The Washington herald., 1908-05-21

the premise that he had an unpleasant
task to perform. challenged the qualifi-
cations Of the Engineer Commissioner
10 sit at the investigation.
He made no reflections upon The IN
teFgTity OF Commissioner Morrow He
wanted to point out that it was the En-
gineer Department OF the District gov
ernment that was under investigation,
to such an extent that It might be said
TO be under fire"
He said:
II is being subjected now 10 the investigating
probe Of the whole Board Of Commissioner and I
think, In his mistaken zeal. the Engineer Commls-
sioner has assumed. as re take it. tho wrong rusd
here he has assumed 70 be the defender and
champion Of the department over which he presides-
that IS IN motive and In sentiment and Ia pride al
ways to be commended and always conmendable.
But as We taxa IT, liT. COmmissiUneTs the engi'
neer department did not need, and should not have
az the hands OF enc Of your board, while you are
sitting as board Of Investigation a champion or
a defender. II they needed defense II should come
from some other source. and not from enc Of The
judges.
Douglas Criticises Morrow.
He went on to explain that since the
beginning Of the investigation. Maj. Nor
rows attitude has been that of defend
er. He thought it unlikely the investi-
cation could go on without the Engineer
Commissioner himself taking the stand
and testifying IN thet case. he thought.
the spectacle would be unique, ''of one
OF the three investigators and judges
being himself a witness in the case, and
then. in turn, sitting in judgment upon
his own testimony, IS well as the testi-
mony Of others"
He thought the progress OF the investi-
CATION so far. showed. without doubt
thet the Engineer Commissioners had as
surned the role OF champion not only OF
the engineer department generally, but
OF that department when 1t is charged
with favoritism and its officials with cor
ruption.
He said:
We submit this to the Board Of Commissioners,
that you take this record. from is inception
down 70 the present time, and you take the cues
tions asked by the Engineer Commissioner and even
those asked By Capt Markham. aud take the very
structure o. the questions and close ycU eyes 70
the question as 70 who vas propounding those qsss
tons, and 7 submit, with ali Difference TO C0mmls
AlGner Morrow. yuu would assume and naturally
assume they were the questions Of a partisan attor
ney not only for the engineer department generally
Fernald
II that he the attitude Of the Engineer Conmis-
sioner. I submit be is disualihe6 from sitting in
Judgment upon this case and no verdict rendered
~ this Board II Commissioners Eill meet the de-
mands and expectations q the public and I think
that entitled to careful and serious consideration.
Mr.. Douglas averred that MAI Morrow
had evidenced a most intense dislike for
the president of the Brennan Construction
Company. He referred 20 the way Mai
Morrow had handled the witnesses called
in the investigation. He pointed out that
Mat. Morrow had accused Mr. Davis. en-
glneer of the Brennan company, with
quibbling and playing with the Com
missioners. He had charged Mr.. john
son, the superintendent with deliberate
~ trying TO deceive the Commissioners
He had. when Mr. Smith was on the
stand. denounced Mr.. Brennan as lar
and directed Il 10 be recorded IN the
minutes Of the proceedings
MOFros's Attitude Defined,
Mr. Douglas continued;
Now, in view of the fact Of this sttitude in view
of the fact that the enslneer departures. is under
Investigation az this time IN view o. the attitude
assumed by the Engineer Commissioner toward this
department and toward these charges of favortlsrn
m view q the attitude he has assumed tassand the
charges against FeTnad IN view q the indisputabe
evidence II the unmistakahle hostility OF the part
of Commissioner Morrow toward Mr. Brennan the
head q the Brennan Construction Company making
the principal charges of fayoritism here We submit
ne IS not II the attitude. he is not in the position
be Is not IN the mental condition or mental poise
that VII enable him 70 sit quietly deliberately and
without bias and without prejudice and pass upon
the issues presented hy the charges here
And I submit in doing % that I make no rssee-
ton upon Maj Morrow. ] think IL this matter
was presented 10 our courts across the street ard
it appeared that there Was hostility between the
Judge who was to trJ the case and the plaintiff or
defendant. however usihable that hostility or feel
ing Of enmity might be- the Judge would not Sit
IN the tFial u a case Of that sort
1 believe when this matter Is presented 10 Com
missioner Morrow. without intending the SLIGHTEST
otense ne viii see the PTopTety and the force and
eject of the position we here take. and ,e are
compelled 70 take il because q the discharge al the
DUTY watch is incumbent upon Us here.
Commissioners Asked TO Rule.
Mr. Douglas then made the request
that the Commissioners consider the ad-
Of Maj. Morrow abandoning
sitting with the commission. stating
that his clients were willing to 90 ahead
with Commissioners Macfarland and West
sitting. II they would not do this. he
urged that they request the President of
the United States to appoint an investi-
gator 70 go deeply into all matters In
dispute.
Mr.. Douglas declared that he had been
forced, against his will, to assume the
role Of public prosecutor in the investi-
cation and. if he had not done so. II
might have been said he and his clients
had made charges and had failed to
sustain them. He thought ths unfortunate
line the investigation had taken has come
ABOUT through lack Of cooperation from
the engineer department.
He said:
ssy again it resulted from. think. the mis-
aiken line Of duty Of the Engineer Commissioner.
nd With all dsfeTenCe 10 the Engineer Oommissione
submit it would be better for his department and
better fcr all the departments Of the District GOV
rnment TO put in the probe and to send it in deep
md find out the facts
And this matter Of false pride as to whether or |
lot the engineer department is right or wrong I /
ahhot see that It would m any way reflect uron
ne hnglneer Commissioners II the slightest possible
So far as the evidence has gone. nobody has nra- |
moed any evidence here regarding the engineer de- /
lartment as 20 faToritism or as to corrupton excr4
he Brennan Construction Company and the Beau /
construction company; 50 far as We have gotten 4
% assistance n the er0ssexamination Of these wiz
iesses. Not single solitary question can recall /
las been asked hy the engineer department Of This
government that was calculated to bring ont things
gainst the engineer department
Ihe Ee;J structure Of It's questions leans toward /
he defense and the Tindicatien Of the eneipee,
department..
In conclusion, Mr. Douglas said he had 1
lot made this motion lightly. but had
given it long and serious thought. He /
hoped that nothing he had said would /
,e construed as casting any reflection /
'pon the Engineer Commissioner. But he
iaid
i feel, under the circumstances of the
'ase- that the other two Commissioners
hould go forward with this investira-
ion. and the Engineer Commissioner
hould be permitted. or requested, 10 re-
ire, so far as being a Judge in this case
s concerned"
At The conclusion Of Mr.. Douglas
peeeh the Commissioners retired for