The Washington times., 1908-05-25
Overruled in Effort to Side
track the Fernald
Hearing.
LATTER'S DEPOSITS
MOSTLY IN CASH
Bank Cashier and Contractor
Crawford Principal Witnesses
= of the Day.


ion OF the attorneys for Brennan, the 1
charges of corruption against Fernald /
have been sUbstanlL1ted. Attorney
Charles A. Douglas today requested the !
Commissioners that any other such evi- /
dence be submitted direct 10 the DIS /
trict Attorney, and that the hearing be I
fore them proceed along tho lines of the
allegations regarding favoritism n thel
giving OF District contracts.
las citizens" said Mr. Douglas, Mr.. |
Brennan and Mr.. Beau. OF the Beau /
Construction Company, are willing TO |
lend their aid toward investigating the /
Engineer Department or any other de- /
partment OF the District government /
In view Of the action OF the Commits I
sioners in submitting evidence relating I
10 Fernald tCthe District Attorney, We /
ask that this hearing be confined from l
this point TO the charge Of favOritism." /
Commissioner Macfarlaud replied that
1t was the desire Of the Commissioners
/ 10 produce at the hearing in progress all
! evidence relating 10 the investigation.
Deposits in Cash.
That the majority OF the deposits
made by Charles FeruaId during o
period OF three and a half years, and
] aggregaJing approximately $4,000. were
/ made In cash, was the testimony offered
/ by Henry H Mckee, cashier Of the Ma
/ tiOnal Capital Bank. or Washington.
/ From the records Of the bank. Mr.
/ Mckee produced dfty-elght deposit slips
/ which showed. he said, that but six de-
/ posits were made i'm checks. the re
maiudeT consisting OF cash, to the
amount of $1,000 and more, at one time
/ Attorney Douglas, counsel for Bren-
( nan went over the slips, 20 show that
/ all OF the large deposits We're made ia
! cash. while smaller amounts only were
| deposited by check.
/ Asked by Mr. Douglas whether lt was
I not UNUSUAL for depOsitor 20 place
! such large amounts IN cash, the Wit
! ness said that 10 was not, though con-
1 sidering the entire clientele of the in-
] StituJlOu IL is the exception and not the
/ rule.
Crawford on Stand.
The contract for paving First street.
| which was awarded to the Crawford
Paving Company, and which was later
re-advertised as the result of o. protest
by the Beau Construction Company. was
| the subject Of cross-examiuati0n by- At
/ torney Douglas OF Percy Crawford. who
was on the stand when the hearing ad-
/ jOuTned Friday.
Il was on this contract that the Gran
/ fOrd Paving Company submitted bid
! Of - less than the BeaIl Construction
! company, following a conversation on
! the day on which the bids were opened
| between fernald and Percy Crawford
/ In reply 70 question by Attorney
douglas. MI CRAWFORD said that the
/ amount Of their bid wis determined by
| himself and his brother, Joseph H
| Crawford, on the preceding evening His
! brother, he said thought the amount OF
their bid, Sl3.6l5, was too low.
a HHHa .H.a4
he said. shat the bid must be in thS
/ Oulce Of the Engineer Department on
the following day by j. o'clock, but in
the stress Of other business It ESCAPED
his MIND. and he forgot 10 submit the
proposal
/ Forgot the Bid.
Having business in the Office Of h, D.
ert Farnham. an enginsr of the Pera,
sylvania railroad, Mr. Crawford said
that about l:30 he met FernaId as he was
entering the office, and was reminded
by him that his bid for the First street
work was not in. II was after this con-
versation, ne said, that tie bid was
/ filled out and given to Fernald.
Then said Mr.. douglas you met
. | FeTuald at the psychological moment,
F.. when you should have been informed
, ! that your bid for this work was not in. %
/ J, s. FlanneTy. attorney for the Gran
, | fords, interposed an objection 20 the
{. question, and a discussion as 20 it's ad-
= missibihty arose, which was ended by
I Mr.. Douglas saying that the witness
10 had answered in the affirmative.
You were very much interested In
securing this contract, were you notg
! returned the attorney
Re- 4 was" replied MI Crawford. But
] also was interested IN contract fOs
| some Baltimore and Ohio work and thr
District proposal slipped my mind"
I'm your twenty years experience a
a contractor, is not this the only con
tract that was ever forgotten by YOU"
Mr. Crawford replied that this was
the only large contract which had
3 escaped his memory, but that he had
. forgotten smaller proposals
RI Saving to District.
, In reply to q question by Mr.. Doug
las, Mr.. Crawford said that in view OF
, an opinion Of the Comptroller OF the
Treasury, in which it was held that
the bids should be readveTtised. as il
r was awarded irregularly, the contract
!. was awarded TO the Brennan Construc-
p ton Company, at "a saving of S1,0JO tC
1.-The District on the second proposal
1.-THE witness said that the Cranfords
D first proposal, giving as a reason that
] at that time the company might have
, been more desirOus OF obtaining the
% work than when ii submitted its first
p. Going into the alleged offer by Sidney
y Rieber to the Brennan Constructor
| Company. Douglas asked y who would
10 have been favored by the elimination OF
o Brennan Objection was again raised
/ bv Alto -ney Flannery, but the question
was permitted, and the witness replied
that the other bidders. the Barbe
| AsDhalt Company and the Cranfords
Wojlld have beer bnCfited.
'4i Denial that Bieber in any way repre-
9 sented them In the deal between Bren
IS nan and Bieber, has been made by
CONTINUED on Fourth PageO