The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1908-05-27
Brennan Attorney Charges
FaYoritiSm, in Closing
Argument.
DIVIDED CONTRACT
BASIS OF ATTACK
Calls II Ingenious Scheme, But
Hopes That Fernald May
Prove Innocence.

Declaring that it Is his hope that Charles
F@rnaId may be creed from the sus-
piciOn Shich now rests upon him. and
sssailng ,he Engineer Department, aIf
especially the Engineer COMMISSIONER
Gibbs l. Ecker, attorney COR Brennan,
today pres suted 10 lhe Commissioned
the opening argument in the he}rIrg
Of the charges Of tavOritism. which
have been under consideration for the
last ten days.
Mr.. Baker devoted the major part OF
his argument 20 the division OF the
contract Of March 80, 1907. which was
divided between Brennan and Crawford,
declaring II 10 be an ingenious scheme
20 give the Cranfords work in which
not only was the rankest favoritism dis
played. but the fundamental law
ignored.
incidentally. the attorney charged col
fusion between the CraHfords and Fer
nald In the awarding OF the First street
contract.
1T is not my purpose" said lIr.
Baker, TO discuss the mass Of tesu-
mony relating TO the official Iniscon-
duct Of Mr. Fernald, or. relating TO
Wnat might be termed other collateral
matters not involved in the direct issue
Of favoritism presented by our clients.
1t is evident now II IL never Vas
before, -lat the single reason which the
engineer department had for dividing
the contract Of March 81, 1871, was TO
give q portion OF the work 10 the Gran
fOrds. Notwithstanding The Tact that
upon the whole contract the hld Of the
Brennan Construction Company was the
lowest, and under the law should have
been awarded 10 them
At the time Of the division OF this
contract il was asserted by the eng
Eeer department that the reasons ior
the division Of the work were that the
bids had been asked for upon the plans
and specifications which contemplated
the division which was afteTwaId made
and that this fact was wgI known 10
gineer Comm issioner. was very strong
in his assertion Of this fact 10 appears
( clearly from the testimony a1IIceu here
that no such division 01 the work was
contemplated when Tie bids were asked
Charges Change Of Front.
The testimony or 5ir. CrauIard, A-.
Hunt and the statement ~ Major AIor-
row are all % the effect that rle div
sion OF the work Vas thought o. after
the pids were opened. and when e was
found that Crawford was not the sue
cessful bidder. There has been a CON-
plete change Of ?-out on The part of The
Engineer Department On al matters re-
Iatiug TO The division Of this contract.
The reasons urged 81 the time are nov
repudiated. and tie naked fact remains
that il was only after the C-ant0rds
were found no- 20 be tle lowest bidders
that the ingenious scheme OF the divi-
sion Of this work was suggested
Major Morrow and Mr.. hunt both
calm the credit, as stated by -eenr OF
this scheme 10 divide the contract
Wherein lies the cTedlt2 Upon The IN
yitGtiOn Tor bids. The Brennan Con-
strgction company. 0einE me lowest
bidder. should have received TIE con-
tract. That company was and is re-
spausible. TX mas done and Is doing
Woric Of large magnitude Tor the Dis
trict at prices below Which It's com
petilOrs could not bid. It's work has
always been Of the highest character,
and eminently satisfactory 10 me Com
missioners.
Wherein. then. lies the credit OF dIch-
ing from the Brennan Construction
Company that which il is entitled to-
not only by the mandate or the organic
! law, but by the popular VIII OF the
/ tax payersE Is II a cFedlJaDle lhlng 70
violate the law and compel the people
/ Of the District 70 pay higher prices
1 for public work for the single reason
/ that those IN authority desired 10 sub
| sidize private corporat0n2
Violation of Law.
: II such conduct gives the standard
/ by which the credit OF political future
/ g TO be measured. then. in the name OF
| common justice. and in the interest OF
the District government, it IS TO , be
/ hoped that new ideals soon Will be
! erected.
The division Of this contract was a
violation of the organic law. TnICn de-
! clares in unsmbiguoUs language that
public work shall be left 10 the lowest
! responsible bidder. and where the bids
/ have been asked for upon the whole
/ work, the Commissioners have no dis
! creriOn 10 do otherwise except on &C
4 count Of something which affects the
! responsibility or ability OF the bidders
/ The only excuse that Is now offered
/ for the violation or the OrgGuIc act ana
the unfair discrimination against Bren-
/ nan is that Il was for the best interest
/ Of the District 10 keep the Crawford
/ Paving Company engaged IN asphalt
work. The mere statement OF the
/ proDosition shows the thin veneer which
/ Clothed the rank tavcritlsm com
and Vet. In the teeth of these facts.
/ auG of the acknowledged character OF
! the work and cheaPness OF cost which
/ hass been obtained for public work IN
/ the District, on account or active com
/ petition, the engineer department seeks
/ TO hide itself behind this transparent
/ excuse for its partisan farvoritism to-
! yIer5 the Cranfords. The evidence
/ shows conclusively that the Crawford
| PAVING Company has been for years
and is now, amply able 70 take care
pf itsaf.
Asks for Authority.
But the real question IS. what right
had the Commissioners Of the District
Of Columbia 10 subsidize the Crawford
Paving Company IN order that It, az
the cost OF the tax payers, may feed
upon the public treasury? such policy
bears uDcn its face the landmark OF
special privilege. Is indefeusible from
every viewpoint. and should be utterly
/ repudIated if thr government of the
District Of Columbia IS 10 be upon y
plane OF equal rights and justice 10
~, iis citizens.