The Washington herald., 1908-07-10
FIND NO GRATING
In DISTRICT WORK
Fernald'S Case Isolated One,
Say Commissioners.
REPORT ON BRENNAN CHARGES
No Evidence Is Found that the En-
sinSer Department Has Favored
One Contractor over Another, but
Changes I'm the system OF Making
Awards Is Recommended.

Asserting that there was no warrant Il
the testimony presented for the charg,
that any official or employe OF the en-
gineer department had been guilty o.
favoring one contractor over another
and that the allegations against Charlie.
Fernald, former assistant engineer o.
highways, were at worst a sporadic cas-
Of dishonesty. such as might occur in
any private corporation. the District
Commissioners yesterday made public
their findings following the hearing or
the charges instituted by P. ]. Brennan
In the consideration of the case Com.
missioners Macrarland and West ONLY
took part. Maj. Morrow having with.
drawn from the voting when the charges
against his office were made They point
out IN the findings that there was not
the slightest intimation brought out by
the hearing that there was any system
OF grating" in the engineer depart
ment' and that the allegations were con-
hned to one man. Fernald. who was
shown to have taken money from con-
tractors dealing with the District
Ihe testimony in regard TO Fernald has
already been handed 10 United States
Attorney Baker for action, as have also
the facts In the case OF Charles McDer-
mott, another contractor. who is alleged
TO have given $500 to Fernald. and who
tailed to appear when subpoenaed for
the hearing by the Commissioners.
One Practice Criticised.
Though they find no ground for +b.
charges Of favoritism in the awarding ~
contracts by the engineer department
yet they state they cannot approve the
practice OF issuing orders for street nav
ing in advance OF the delivery O, the
grade sheets. or in advance OF approprla-
tons actually available This condition
OF awards will be altered in the futura
by the department.
Some Of the statements in the record 10
the investigation were made known 10
the Commissioners before the formal
hearing was held. part Of which were
given to the Engineer Commissioner. The
Commissioners, however. did not confne
their examination TO the lines that had
Deen followed by the Engineer Commits
sioner' nor 10 the formal charges made
| by the Brennan Construction Connanv
and the Bean Construction Comnanv b,,t
endeavored to get at all the facts OF all
the transactions that came 10 their notice
They also sought 20 ascertain whether
outside Of those transactions and the ner-
sons taking part in them. there were
other transactions in any District depart-
ment, which ought TO be investigated or
other employees Of the engineer or other
departments who were suspected Of wrong
doing
This investigation. which was concluded
yesterday, was the result of charges pre-
ferred by p. J. Brennan, a contractor OF
this city, IN which he alleged that there
was favoritsm shown in the awards OF
street paving contracts, the specific in
stance being IN the division of the con-
tract for 1897.
The Commissioners claimed that under
the terms of the contract they had the
right TO divide the award. and in this
assertion they were afterward upheld by
the corporation counsel In the three
weeks OF hearing on the case many Wit
nesses were examined, and the case was
enlivened by the frequent sharp retorts
which were exchanged between Mai. Nor
row and Brennan. with his attorney
Charles A. Douglas and which reached A
climax when the Commissioner passed the
lle Later he apoligIzed to the contractor.
and asked that the remark be expunged
from the record.
The Commissioners Findings.
In brief the findings. OF the Commis-
siOncrs follow:
The Commissioners made the investi-
cation as broad and as thorough as pos
sible and without regard 10 technical rules
OF evidence. The charges made. formal
and informal. fall .nto tvo classes. First,
that there was corruption or graft on
the part Of employees Of the engineer
department; second. that there was favor
itism IN dealing with contracts in the
engineer department
"As 10 the first class Of charges, the
testimony shows that only one employe
of the engineer department was seriously
accused by anybody, and that he was the
only one who was shown to have taken
money under any circumstances from
contractors or others dealing with the
District Of Columbia, directly or Indirect
ly. 1t is admitted that the men I'm ques-
ton, Mr.. Fernald, took 81 600 as a gift
from John Wainwright. jr., local super
intendent Of the Drake & Stratton Co,
contractors with the Pennsylvania Rail-
road Company and $500 in a loan from P.
J. Brennan. president Of the Brennan
Construction Company, contractors with
the District Of Columbia, which acts alone
had been previously considered by the
Commissioners as reasons enough 10 war
rant them In requesting his resignation.
''The evidence indicates that Fernald
received at least $3.50 more from Vain
wright. and that his bank account was
unaccountably increased to n large
amount, aggregating over $4,000 in three
and a half years. although It was not
proved that he had received the sum OF
$500 which II was said he had admitted
receiving from another contractor with
the District OF Columbia-McDermot OF
the McMullen & McDermott Co.
In Hands of District Attorney.
"Fernald having declined 10 testify as
to those transactions. the Commissioners
referred his case. together with the tes-
tlmony taken In the inquiry, 20 the United
States attorney for the District OF Co
lumbia for such action as he might deem
proper, and McDermOtt having failed to
answer the subpoena of the Commission
ers 10 appear, the Commissioners in
formed the United States attorney for the
District OF Columbia of that fact
1T ought TO be thoroughly understood
that no other evidence Of alleged corrup-
ton on the part of any employe of the
engineer department was given. although
direct questions were asked OF all the con-
tractors and other witnesses who an