Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1908-05-28
ARGUED BY COUNSEL
Favoritism Alleged in District
Contracts.
BRIEFS WILL BE FILED
Attorneys for Brennan and Crawford
Companies Heard.
LOCAL OFFICIALS CRITICISED
Charges of Partially Reiterated and
radicted-Defense of Fer
nald Is Postponed.
LOCAL OFFICIALS CRITICISED

surfacing contract in March year ago
between the Brennan and Crawford COM
,, panies to be gross favoritism and abso-
lutely contrary to law, Charles a. Doug
las, of counsel for the Brennan company.
scored the engineer department of the
District in his closing argument yester-
day afternoon in support of the COM
panys charges of favoritism. which have
been the subject of rigid investigation
on the part of the Commissioners foI
more than two weeks.
| He declared that the District would
have saved 500 by awarding the entire
contract to the Brennan company. in
| stead of dividing it. and accused c. B.
Hunt. engineer of highways. with sug-
costing the division He charged that
this was for no other purpose than to
favor Crawford and to discriminate
against Brennan. In thus criticising En-
gineer Hunt he said he did not attack
his integrity. but believed Mr.. Hunt did
it as d means of keeping two asphalt
plants in the District. and to give the
Cranfords some District work.
We claim that this division was done
against the manifest interests of the Dis
trict of Columbia and in violation of its
citizens and taxpayers.
Fernald and Crawford.
When Charles Fernald former assist
ant engineer of highways, went to the Of
flee of Robert Farnham. engineer of the
Pennsylvania railroad and accidentally
met Percy Crawford there and informed
him that his bid for 1st street had not
been submitted and which resulted in the
latter getting in a belated bid that was
just s. lower than the lowest bid re-
ceived for the work. which bid was in the
hands of Fernald an hour before he met
Crawford. the Cranfords were again being
shown favorit!sm.'
Mr.. Douglas claimed that Fernald went
to that office with the express purpose of
looking up Crawford Regarding Gran
ford's assertion that he forgot to put In
the bid, he remarked that it was. strange
that he should forget $4,000 contract
Mr.. Douglas reviewed the testimony Of
fered during the inquiry to substantiate
his charges of favoritism. He called at
tention to the attacks made upon Mr..
Brennan's character during the investlga-
ton and spoke of the attitude of the Engi-
neer Commission toward Brennan.
Maj. Morrow's Attitude.
Il do not know Mr.. Douglas said.
what my client has done to bring down
upon his head the displeasure of Maj.
Morrow. but it has fallen upon him. not
withstanding, and taking into considera-.
ton Maj Morrow's dislike for Brennan
and the friendship between Mr.. Hunt and
the Cranfords it makes situation that
would be almost unnatural if, in close
situations, it did not result to the detri-
ment of one and benefit to the other.
say this without any reflection upon the
integrity of either Commissioner Morrow
or Mr.. Hunt.
I'VE all. more or less, some more than
| others, are Influenced by our prejudices
or bia SEES; our passions by our enmities
and by our friendships. Whether it be
so in this case, as indeed and in fact
as a truth this thing does stand out
| that the Brennan company was the low
-! est bidder on the entire work. 1t does
stand out that never before in the history
| CT this District government-as it is now
constituted-never before has this board
ever sought attempted to divide a
| contract 1t also stands out that the sit
ua,ion is an unprecedented one"
| In closing Mr.. Douglas said: Our po-
| sitlon is tnis-that 1t was without the
power OF this board to have divided this
contract ana that it is within the power
to cancel the qrders that have been given
| the Crawford company for additional
| work. which orders have not been exc
cuted yet. and which are waiting for APP
p-opria tons"
Defends Official Action.
The argument offered by Attorney Flan-
| merry representing the Crawford Paving
| Company, followed directly after that Of
| fered by Attorney Baker of counsel for
the Brennan company. whose remarks
We're printed in The Star last night. he
declared that the Commissioners not only
! did what was perfectly right and legal IN
dividing the resurfacing contract between
| the Crawford and Brennan companies
which called for the protest from the lat
| ter company but that the District could
| not have done otherwise If they INTENDED
| to live up TO the specifications of the
| extension
the work awarded the Cranfords was also
! perfectly legitimate, and has proven
great saving to the District. and such an
| action on the part of the engineer depart
ment should not be questioned. ana TO
| term the transaction favoritism would be
| TO make ones self ridiculous.
! He SAID that the charges as preferred by
| the Brennan company are made directly
DIT the board of Commissioners. NO one
| IN the District government has power to
/ III 4 Ike a contract but the Commissioners
! Mr. Flannery said. Therefore this board
i is charged with favoritism. and 1t would
1 be useless for me to defend them against
such a charge. Their honor, fairness and
intsg gritty has never been questioned be-
/ fore and needs no Champion
i He declared that the testimony onered
during the inquiry would convince any
| reasonable person. whether lawyer or
layman t!,at this District engineer de-
| partment is conscientious and honest and
absolutely innocent of any of the dis
] parasing insinuations made to the con-
! trdry
This department needs no purif1ca-
ton he said. There is nothing wrong
i IN il. The testimony offered by those
trying to prove that something wrong
exists has been the rankest kind of hear
say evidence and void of any facts.
Nothing to Hide.
i ION the other hand the Cranfords nave
nothing to hide or nothing to fear They
/ have been shamefully and wrongfully at
lacked during this inquiry, but they have
resented nothing. and have testified non
estly and candidly and have done every
/ thing in their power to assist the 1om-
missioners in getting at the facts.
The testimony concerning the alleged
attempts of Sidney Bieber to prevent the
Brennan company from bidding for TINS
lesurfacing work was conflicting. Bren-
nan made one statement; Perry Johnson
treasurer Of his company. made announcer
statement and Bieher still announcer. ~
any rate and despite the conflicting tesu-
mony on this point. It has never oeen
testified that Bieber was representing the