F72 ,N8 118 COUNTY OF NORFOLK. Court fyoxist Ju»C0tigattou, COMMENTS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AND OTHER MATTERS. Class i_ 12 Book €l)c i£ourt t)ousc Jnucstigatien. COMMENTS THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AM) PORTIONS OF THE ARGUMENTS OF MESSRS. T. E. GROVER, AND R. M. MORSE; WITH Till REPORT OF THE ACCOUNTANT, W. H. HERRICK. DEDHAM, MASS. Transcript Steam Job Print 189G. By transfer AUG 16 1906 TO THE Citizens and Taxpayers of Norfolk County We present herewith portions of the opening argument of Mr. T. E. r, and of the closing argument of Mr. R. M. Morse, the report of mtant, W. II. Ilerriek, showing cost in detail of the Court House, and the findings of the Committee, with comments and testimony relat- ing thereto in the Xorfolk County Investigation before the Legislative Committee in 1896. OUR REASONS Fur presenting this report are : 1st. Because the public press deliberately suppressed our good in- ns and magnified our faults. 2d. Because the Committee, though giving the prosecution three weeks to present their case, gave us only two days for the like purpose. Because the Committee was either so prejudiced against us, or controlled by Mr. Storey, the counsel for the Committee, that his argu- ment became their report, and its findings demand refutation. PLAIN LANGUAGE. We have endeavored to use plain language, and also to give the people of Xorfolk County reliable information in the only way that it could reach them. \ joint special committee, it will be remembered, was appointed by the Legislature near the close of its session, to investigate the acts of the County Commissioners of Norfolk County since the year 1890. There were nine members on the Committee, no single one of whom heard all the testimony, and some of them heard but a small portion of it. When the testimony of the Commissioners was presented, a number of the members of the Committee absented themselves entirely, al- though they had been seen in the committee room occasionally up to thai time. For tin greater part of a day, while hearing the Commis- sioner's witnesses, only three of the committee were in their seats, and during Mr. Morse's argument only seven were present. One of these read a newspaper during most of the time of its delivery, ami one. was engaged in writing. As a sample of the conduct of the investiga- tion, we wish In refer to the fact that a large portion of a day was devoted to the examination of Mr. 1 hillings, to account for the addition of about s.",oo{o his estimate for gas fixtures, which was simply caused by additions of lam] is ami globes, after his estimate was accepted, which were not included in his original estimate, but not a single question was asked \\ hy M i\ Willcutt's estimate was reduced §2000 when the cont ract was made, probal ■: for fear that this might reflect some credit on the < oiiunissioners. Though the Committee were requested time and time again, both at the beginning of the investigation and during its progress, that specific charges lie filed against the Commissions, they refused to order it done, though on examination made by Mr. Fred Joy, associate counsel for the ( 'ommissioners, into the investigations had by different Legislatures for the preceding twenty-five years, no instance could be found but eit her specific charges were made in the order for investiga tion, or were ordered filed by the committee invest igat ing. ARBITRARY AU Til ORITY EX E R C I S ED. The Committee exercised an arbitrary authority such as was never before seen in this Commonwealth. It adopted the methods prevailing in Continental Europe, where a person suspected of a crime is brought before a tribunal and interrogated upon the theory that he must estab- lish his innocence against a presumption of guilt. Their method violated the plain provision of the constitution; for Article XII of the 15 ill of Rights provides that "No subject shall be held to answer for any crimes or offence until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally described to him; or be compelled to accuse or furnish evi- dence against himself; and every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs that may be favorable to him; to meet the witnesses against him face to face, and to be fully heard in his defence by himself or his counsel at his election, and no subject shall be arrested, imprisoned, dis- poned, or deprived of his property, immunities or privileges, put out of the protect ion of the law, exiled or deprived of his life, liberty or estate, but h\ the judgment of Ins peers, or the law of the land." Respectable tradesmen, merchants and manufacturers, were ordered to produce their accounts, and in effect have their private affairs spread to the public, broadcast through the press. This violated that clause of the Massachusetts Bill of Bights, Art XIV., that " Every subject lias aright to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, Ins papers, and all his possessions.' 1 One gentleman who refused to state what profit he had made on a dvnamo or engine, because having a large sale of those machines he did not want the world to know what its cost to him was, and because he had an agreement with the makers not in any case to give the cost to a customer, was summarily ordered to the Bar of the House for contempt. The merest novice knows that the way to prove the value of an article in a court of law is to show what the market value of that article is. The only possible question that could arise would be, did the County pay more than a fair market value":' The hearings before Legislative Committees are governed by the same law as prevails in courts as the Supreme Judicial Court has decided. They always have been before, but this Committee was a law unto itself, and the members felt authorized to set aside the decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court, and the provisions of the constitution itself, in their willingness to allow the reputation of certain men to be injured and the County of .Norfolk to be dishonored. The exception was that those who had chanced to have had difficulty with the Commissioners, and were evidently inimical to them, had their shortcomings carefully white- washed, their reputations fully vindicated, and they were treated with a consideration and politeness that would have lent a charm to a lady's tea table, while others, who happened to be on good terms witii the Commissioners, were assailed with questions, impudent in form, in- sulting in substance, and inadmissable in every respect, Respectable lawyers were denied the privilege of appearing to protect the reputa- tions of their clients who had been summoned as witnesses, and the Sergeant-at-Arms was summoned by the Chairman, who, in an angry tone, and with a violent demeanor, not at all in accordance with a judicial spirit, ordered him to eject Mr. Hamilton, one of the leaders of the Suffolk Bar, a lawyer of thirty years' practice and unimpeachable character, from the room. RECKLESS S TA TE3IENTS. Some days before the hearing closed, one member of the Committee, in a speech in the House of Representatives, publicly declared that there was no evidence to show that Mr. II. N". Bales was not then a partner of the chairman of the Commissioners, although it had been shown by both Mr. Bates and the chairman that that relation had never existed between them, and whatever relation had existed, ceased in 1S90. As this member was only occasionally present at the hearing, it is chari- table perhaps, to believe that he did not know what evidence had been introduced to contradict his assertion. But what confidence can the public have in a statement signed by one, who not knowing the facts, or taking pains to find out the truth, makes a reckless statement where prejudice rather than fair dealing is the sentiment that inspires him. Another member of the Committee upon that occasion declared that the evidence had to be drawn from the witnesses as with a corkscrew, and when so drawn it was only half the truth. ( 'ould a man with such a feeling render an unbiased judgment ? The i i account of tl >sc who had J ransaet eC missioncr ;amined by an expert sen! to their places of busi whose o one instance was deeidedh rude towards a. iacly book ke< per. N'ot only were the accounts with the Commission! rs examined, but the ' v pense, and profit and loss accounts, of their busi uerally were sn rigid scrutiny, and if on an\ of these accounts an appear^ Mum! on an instant be explain. >d, the books were de nullified before the Committee, and it was a rare instance when the man to whom L lii ' ■ 'ks belonged was not subjeci lo some insult or indignity. In one ca is charged with having altered bis books during the noon i , and another our of having erased a whole page of accounts bv ! he use of acids. FAB FROM THE TUFT II. The ( ' say ''at the beginning of the invest ig ition, the Com- missioners, while professing a willingness to help the Commiitee, took a positi resistance. They appear ounsel, they volunteered no stab ir accounts, they furnished no documents and papers except < h ere demanded, and during the whole inquin took the nttitu I n who proposed onh to answe: - the questions which were put to ;iml go no I'm No s a was evei farther from the truth, for the Commission- ers gave Ihc Committee even assistance in their power, as is clearly seen by the fol hi wing testimony of Mr. Morrell. Q. 15; ioi;i:v. Mr. Morrell, 1 wan; to m whether all th relating to the ivork done on the Dedham Court [louse, either in the way of improvement, of addition, or of repair, are on file '.' A. 1 : iiink " hey are, sir. (}. ho you know of any contracts which are not on tile '.' A. X< (>. A are I he} '.' A. I i iv of any. <,». \\ ! hey placed y A. \V reasurer. Q. V, Treasurer of die Coi it Are all the bids which \\ ere mad conl racls, on file '.' A . \ ic bids arc not. (.) V thex '.' \ has ihem. i think. : \ on, M r. < ! ro\ er, here a ' hich were made to racts '.' '.! Veil, 1 coul II look. ()- I ven to Mr. < A. I think Mr. Morse has most of them. There may be bids for one or two contracts that are not— I don't know where they are. Mr Stokey. I should like to have those bids either restored to the records of the County Commissioners or placed in some position where they can be examined, and I want to be sure that those that are handed to me are all that exist. Q. Do you know of any bids which you have not handed to Mr. Morse ? A. Well, there are bids on two contracts that I don't know where they are. Q. What contracts are those ? A. For Mr. Franklin's and Mr. Whitcomb's. (These two contracts were made when Mr. Wiggin was chairman of the Board, and the bids for same had always been kept by him in his pri- vate possession, and were produced by him before the Committee. The inquiry is pertinent, why had not Mr. Wiggin left these bids at the Court House when his term of office finished ? Q. What was Mr. Franklin's contract for ? A. For heating. Q. And Mr. Whitcomb's ? A. The interior finish. Q. What was done with the bids after they were received? A. I couldn't say what was done with them. Q. You were the chairman of the County Commissioners ? A. Not at that time those bids were received. Q. There were various contracts made while you were chairman ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And various bids made for those contracts while you were chair- man ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What became of the bids that you received ? A. They are among the papers. Q. Have you ever looked to see whether the bids received for con- tracts made while you were a, member of the Hoard, and before you were chairman, are on the files of i\\f County Commissioners ? A. I have hunted for them but could not find them ; mislaid some- where. Q. Are all the vouchers, the bills showing how the money was ex- pended, are those in the hands of the County Treasurer? A. Yes, sir. Q. So that the County Treasure)- has to-day a voucher for every dollar which was expended on the Court House? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was there any record kept of the advertising for bids? A. I don't think there was. Possibly we maj have had a copy of the papers, but in moving they have been lost. Q. In moving? Let me ask you whether the records of the County Commissioners show in fact practically how the advertising should be made? A. I don't think it does. (>. Who took charge of that? A. The advertising? Q. i r es? A. The architect Q. The architect. Did the County Commissioners take no, make no direction as to where the bids should he advertised? A. The) directed it. (>. [Tow? Is their direction a matter of record ? A. \ i, sir. i). Well, how is their ac! ton shown '.' A. We gave the arclutei f 's orders. (). Who paid the lulls for advertising ? A. Th - Count \ . (>. Are th • bills on file A. 1 presume 1 lie) are. Q. With whom ? A. Tli • Treasurer. Q. Are the) a part of the vouchers which show how the money ex- panded for the Court House was spent? A . r t hinl so. Q. Voi i think they are - A. V -a, sir. Q. So thai you think b) going to the County Treasurer, L can find a vn ichev f >r ever) single dollar thai was spent ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you know of no vouchers that are not there ? A. X >. sir. (,). Now where are the plans for the work and the specifications? A. The plans are at the < 'our! House. 1,1 [i v. hose custody ? A. [-"ractically in t lie Commissioners custody. Q. Well in whose? II i wa ted to see them, to whom should T go ? A. The janitor of t lie building. (J. The janitor of i he buildii g ? A. 1 1 ■• has charge of them. Q. If- lias charge of the plans : are the speciticat ions wit li I hem ? A. \ >. sir, the specifications are with the Treasurer. Q. Are fded with the Treasurer? Are all the specifications of all the contracts for all the work done on t lie Court House in the hands of the Treastt rev ? A. •> <>. Tli md the plans are in the hands <>{' the janitor ? a. v s Mr. Storev. Thai is all I want to km EVERY FACILITY CHEERFULLY FURNISHED. It may also be said that instead of hindering the Committee in the in- vestigation, as they state in their report, Mr. Morrell and Mr. Blanchard went (tut to Dedham on the same train with Mr. Bradbury, the commit- tee's accountant, provided a table and chair for him in the Treasurer's office, and directed the Treasurer to furnish him with every voucher, re- ceipt, specification and paper, in any way pertaining to the Court House, which the Treasurer did. They also told .Mr. Bradhury that the Clerk of the Courts was the clerk of the Board, and he would give him their rec- ords. They also directed Mr. Daniel], the custodian of the Court House, to furnish Mr. Bradbury every facility in making his examination, which was done. NO BOOKS TO KEEP. The Committee, after hearing all the testimony, evidently know very little about the conduct of county business; their statements may, therefore, be attributed to their ignorance, and that in turn was probably due to the want of attention to the evidence. This fact emphasizes the necessity that men who are placed in a judicial position shall carefully consider the evidence adduced, if nothing more. It appeared in evidence, and if it had not, the Committee should have known it, that the Commissioners keep no hooks of any kind and no law requires them to. The Board of County Commissioners constitute a Court, and all records are kept by and are in the custody of its Clerk. The Clerk of Courts is by law the Clerk of the Board. When a bill is approved by the Board, the Clerk makes a record of the name of the person to whom the payment is due, the amount, and what it is for. The Clerk then makes a certificate, which with the bill is passed to the County Treasurer, who pays the money. The Commissioners have no authority themselves to pay out one cent of the county's money. They have no books or records to keep. But no set of books are kept more correctly or systematically than are those of the Treasurer of Xorfolk County. And no one, so far as known, ever criticized the records. It may lie added that all records and docu- ments, either in possession of tin.' Treasurer or Clerk were presented at the Commissioners' request at the first hearing. The Committee, in its ignorance of the evidence, evidently got the hooks of the Commissioners relating to their private affairs confounded with the Treasurer's hooks and the Clerk's records, for it is a fact that an inquiry was made of the Chairman of the County Commissioners if lie kept books of his private expenses, and he was also interrogated as to his means of income ami what property he had. Of course such inquiries were entirely foreign to the investigation, but the chairman let in the evidence. When the Committee say the Commissioners furnished no documents ami papers except when the same were demanded, they state what is not true, hut if true, no inference could properly have been drawn against the Com- id missioners, because the Committee should have asked fur the books and records of those who had the lawful custody of them; but when the Commissioners did take the pains to see thai the papers ami records were present at I he hearing, and th to find the Committee so careh ss of the facts as to make t!i»' statement above quoted, the Commis- sioners feel that some board should he organized to investigate the Committee, [t might then lie discovered why it is thai the Committee's report was written in such haste, why it follows in ideas ami language so nearly the argument of their counsel as to raise a suspicion that as the Committee knew little ict s, the easiest way Avas to take the counsel's argument and call it the Committee's report. 3IIS-STATE3IEXT OF FACTS. The ( 'ommittee, in its haste to condemn the ( 'omniissioners, or in its ignorance of the evidence, mis-state the facts. They state in their report that the Commissi i ,ere only authorized to spend $280,000, while by their own construction of the law the sum should have been $35!),000, as fully appears by the following table, the items which appear in the estimate:- »f the County Commissioners to the Legislature for the years from !802 to iso.y inclusive, on lile in the office of the Secretary of the C " n ion wealth, except the item " special appropriation, $200,000," whicl thorized by Stat, of I Si>2, ch so, and Stat, of LS04, ch. 15: Additions to Court 1L mthorized by Legis- lature Repairs and furnishing C Idings, Repairs, etc., Additions ;.", 000 .-> ,00'J laooo Repairs, etc., Addition, 15,000 27. " Auditions, Repairs, etc.. Special appropriation? 10,000 20,000 J( 10. 000 -:',".( p.' ■no The estimates for repair- iwn to have been intended for the court house. They were put in . ider that head in the < ounty estimates for the very purpose of having 'count show how the money was expended. The whole work ;: house might well have been • •ailed repairs or alterations. The aim named in the second contract with Willcutt, made in i802, wa !, and was so stated in the contract itself, into $50,000 for additions and $20,000 tor r< pah . although 11 the estimate for repairs that year was only $5000. It must have been evident to the Committee, if they had paid proper attention to the evi- dence, that the estimates for 1893, when Mr. Wiggin was Chairman of the Board, did not call for $25,000 for repairs and $13,000 for additions for any purpose except for reconstructing the court house. Further- more, there were specific appropriations for additions for $285,000 instead of $2S1,000. UNFAIR TREATMENT. The Committee in its report say, "It is impossible for the Committee, in the time which has elapsed since the hearing was closed, to deal at length with the questions presented or to discuss the evidence," and that "they regret in the time at their disposal they are not able to pre- sent the detailed evidence which sustain the statements made in their report. " This action of the Committee in not citing the evidence to support their report is most unfair to the Commissioners, for the testimony is so voluminous that it cannot be reprinted without great expense, and the Commissioners are thereby deprived of a fair hearing before the people. For the Committee to hide themselves under the cover of " no time to cite testimony and to discuss the evidence," when they are so willing to smirch men's reputations, is a most reprehensible act on their part; especially is this true asthe evidencedoes notexist as a foundation of the Committee's report. FACTS IGNORED. Taking the report of the Committee, what is the testimony on which their findings are based ? 1st. The report of the Committee says "the total sum which the County Commissioners for Norfolk County was authorized to spend in the construction and repair and furnishing of the Court House was $281,000. The evidence before the Committee showed that their total expenditure was nearly $400,000, and the Committee find that all the ex- penditure in excess of $281,000 was illegal and unauthorized. " Now. what are the facts? The total cost of the construction, re- pairing and furnishing of the Court House, together with the installa- tion of electric light plant at the jail (which lights the Court House) was about $393,000. To pay this the Commissioners exercised the authority given them by the Legislature in 1S94. to borrow $125,000, and the balance was raised by taxation during the years of construction, the Commissioners using unexpended balances from year to year as they had a perfect right to do, and as was done by the Boards of '02 and '93, when G. V7. Wiggin. Esq., of Franklin, was chairman of the Board. Q. (By Mr. Morse) Mr. Wiggin, in 1892 you submitted your es- timates; did you make any deduction from the amount of those estimates for the balance on hand ? A. I think we dirt not, because we were asking for quite a large sum of money for the Court House addition. I think our idea was to use that. Q. In point of fact, Mr. Wiggin, it is true, is it, not, that after you determined upon the erection of the Court. House, and that expense had to be considered, you didn't deduct your balances in the treasury from the anion nt which you estimated for the various items of expense when you were ask in'.;- for an appropriation by the Legislature V A. Yes, sir, I think that is a fact. Q. Bj Mr. .Morsel should you have felt any hesitation in using any part of that balance required for the payment of expense incurred in the construct ion of the Court House V A. Xo, sir, 1 don't think I should if we hadn't needed it for other purposes. Q. So if you had had that additional $20,000 or $40,000, and the amount was required on the Court House, you would have used it for that purpose V A. Yes, sir. I think, basing our action upon what I understood Judge Hoar's decision to be several years before that, that if it had been on hand we should have had a right to use it. FOlAAt WED ESTA BLISHED CUSTOM. In other words, instead of burdening the County with a large funded debt, they adopted the polic\ of "pay as you go;" for this they are con- demned by the Commit tee in their report. A letter from Judge Humphrey, former Chairman of the Board of Count) Commissioners, shows the custom and practice' of former boards to have been the same as adopted by the present board in its expenditure of "balances.'' The Hon. Samuel 1'. Loud, referred to in said letter, was the first Chairman of the board in 1S28. The letter is as follows: qiuincv. June 20, 1806. Melville b. Morrell, bsq., < 'hairnia n C >. Com uiissioners, ! 'ear Sir: Your letter of inquin respecting an '"opinion" given me by Judge Hoar, while I was Chair in • of the County Commissioners of Norfolk, e ." NO LAW VIOLATED. In reply to this finding of the Committee, it need only be said that up to the present time our Supreme Court has not construed the words 1 1 "public works," ami we submit that the Commissioners arc as capable of construing these words as the Committee, if their report be a criterion of their fitness and abilit} to construe then:. At ; 1 1 1 > rate, the facts are that the Commissioners advertised every contract in reference to the court house that possibly could come under the head of ■' Public Works," and the lowest hid was accepted in every rase. FAIR COMPETITION PROVIDED FOR They invited fail- competition in all cases where no advertising was done, and whatever they did they followed the example of Mr. Wiggin, the Chairman of the Hoard up to 1804, who. by the Committee, is exonerated from any wrong doing. 13\ Mr. Morse to Mr. Wiggin. Q. Did you advertise to make contracts with architects for the con- struction of this court house ? A. Xo, sir. Q. Why not ? A. Because 1 never considered that a public work under the statutes. Q. It was an expenditure of more than $300, wasn't it '1 A. Not for a public work, as 1 construe that term. Q. It was for work in connection A. The\ were employees of the County, and [have never regarded 1 hal as coming within the stat ut e. < v >. How r were they employees of the County any more than a man who set up an engine was an employee ? A. [ don't know that we ever paid a man for setting up an engine, or ever advertised for a man setting up an engine. Q. Then you don't consider that the employment of labor in con- nection with the construction of or addition to a public work is a con- tract for a public work within the statutes'.-' A. Labor alone V Labor alone— I should think it was exceedingly doubtful if that came within the statute. Q. And you have already said that personal property alone does not come within it, where you go info a simp ami buy, havn't you ? A. Well, perhaps I said that. Q. So that if neither labor nor property is the subject of il, what dees come within the class of contracts for public works, as you con- strue it ? A— Such as were made in regard to this. Q. What was the cost of t he engine and dynamo ? A. I think the engine cost $4o0. I think that is the cms;. Q. Of whom did you get it'.' A. Of the Exeter Machine Works. Q. Exeter Machine Works V A. Exeter, New Hampshire, yes, sir. Q. Dues that include the cost of the dynamo ? A. Xo. sir. Q. What was the cost of the dynamo? A. I think it cost somewhere in the neighborhood of 6700. 15 Q. Of whom did you get that? A. I think that came from Sawyer, Mann & Company. < t >. Who put up the engine and dynamo ? A. Well, Mr. Field and myself and the engineer and the prisoners set the engine, 1 think, and the dynamo, I think, was set by the com- pany who furnished it. OLD BOARD DID NOT ADVERTISE. Q. Did you advertise tor any of that work ? A. I don't think we did : I won't lie sure. We made contracts for it: J won't say that we did not, but my impression is that we did not. Q, You got the engine, you say. of the Exeter people? A. Yes, sir. Q. And you got the dynamo of the Sawyer, Mann people? A. Yes, sir. (). Why didn't you advertise for a dynamo and give people a chance to compete : j A. 1 think we found one that was satisfactory to us and bought it; simply bought it. Q. That is to say, you went into the shop and bought it ? A. Ye>. they furnished it. Q. And you did not consider that you were bound to advertise to get it, did you V A. Xo, sir, if we had we should I suppose. Q. And do you see any difference between buying that engine or dynamo and buying the fan for the Court House? A. None in principle. Q. Mr. Wiggin, did you advertise at the time you bought these different lots of furniture for the Court House? A. Well, what have you reference to V Q. Well, you have testified to the different lots of furniture that you bought for the Court House? A. Yes sir. Q. Did you buy one lot of about $2000 worth ? A. I don't recollect of ever doing it. Q. Of Davenport? A. I don't recollect it. Q. In 1890? A. I don't recollect it. Q. Will you say you didn't '.' A. Well, I can't think— I know that we allowed the Register of Deeds to purchase some furniture for his office there. Q. About what amount'.' A. Well, I cannot say, Mr. Morse. Q. Was it. a large amount'.' A. Yes, it was a considerable amount. There was some counters that had to be put in. Q. Was it several times more than $300. A. Well, I cannot tell you the amount, but I shouldn't be surprised if it was. Q. AVas it nearly *2<>00'.' IC A. I have said, Mr. Morse, thai 1 liave no recollection as to tlie amount of it. Q. I know, but I thought with that form of question you might be able to explain ? A. N't), I cannot. The reports will show; the records will show what it was. Q. Did you contract with Davenport to make that furniture? A. I didn't personally ; no. Q. Did the Board? A. 1 cannot say that. I should say what was done was done bj the Register of 1 >eeds. Q. It was done by the authority of the Board? A. Yes, sir, if done at all. Q. And it was furnished for that Registry? A. Y. Will you answer the question, please ? Were there any con- tracts or papers called for that were not furnished? No, sir. Q. Then you saw everything that you asked for? A. Yes. sir. Q. Well, now, what train did you go out on V A. I don't remember, sir. Q, Didn't you go out on the half-past ten train in the morning and stay till three o'clock in the afternoon V A. I don't remember that, sir. Q. Isn't it the fact that you got there by 11 and stayed there till 3 ? A. 1 don't think we got out there as early as 11. (}. That is your impression? Now, you say they showed you some petitions for the laying out of highways, some of which you knew would not he granted? A. I made no such statement, sir. Q. What did you say in relation to if.' A. I said that they had certain petitions which they offered before —at the public hearing before the Committee on Counties, last year, for laying out of highways: they had them there. Q. Didn't yon tell the Committee here to-day that your impression then was or you knew then that they would not be granted".' A. Knew that they would not be granted ? Q. Some of whi(d) would not be granted. Isn't that just what you said to the Committee just now,— some of which would not be granted? A. I thought my statement was that the impression the Committee got was that most of them would be granted. Q. Do you remember one for laying out a highway in the town of Brookline ? A. I don't recall them by detail. Q. You can't tell any of them by detail ? A. No, sir. Q. Did you say— I did not catch your answer to Mr. Storey's ques- tion—did yon say that the decrees were to be drawn on these, as you underst 1, all within a few weeks, the decrees upon the petitions that were shown you at Dedham ? A. I don't remember that I made— at Dedham? Q, Or at the hearing, 1 mean? A. Here at the state House? I don't remember of saying that the greater part of them would be decreed within a few weeks: I never made such a statement. Q. I did not catch your answer. I say merely— Mm STOREY. I asked the question in that form. Q. Mr. Storey asked the question and I did not catch your answer, whether yon said they were or not. A. I can answer that question. As I remember it, I said that the greater part of them would undoubtedly bedecreed: I did not say when. Q. 1 was asking, Mr. Senator, because I did not catch what you 21 said. Xow, you tell about there being transfers : what do you mean by that? A. Under the Act of last year? Q. Well, the Act of last year was not passed till June, 1895:, you were out there in April. Now, what do you mean by telling this Com- mittee about transfers in April, before the Act was passed ? A. Because previous to the Act of last year they did not even have to make any legal transfer: they could simply spend the money for that purpose, if they chose. Q. Before the Act of last year there was a general sum granted, from which the Commissioners drew to pay any expenses that they saw lit, didn't they ? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they had asked for $30,000 for repairs and building of the Court House? A. Yes, sir. Q. And they had a balance of over $40,000 besides, didn't they? A. What do you mean by that? I don't understand. Q. They had a balance from the year before of $40,000? A. I did not remember that. Q. Wasn't it stated to you that there was a balance in the treasury January 1st, 1895, of $40,039.95? A. Undoubtedly. Q. Well, then, so far as you knew, you granted a County tax of $160,000? A. $160,000, I think. Q $160,000. And then, in addition to that, they had $40,000, $40,639.93? A. Oh, I deny that. Q, What ? A. I deny that. Q. You deny that they had $40,000 ? A. I deny, after all the bills of the previous year were paid that they had very little— Q, Do you know that they had a balance on the first of January, 1895, of $40,639.95 ? A. I admit that they had a balance then, yes, sir. Q. How much did you understand they owed out of that ? How much did you understand at this hearing that they owed out of that $40,000? A. I understand that the $160,000 which they asked for was for one County year, for the expenses of one County year. Q. How much out of that $40,000 balance did you understand was in outstanding bills on the first day of January, 1895 ? A. I don't recall. Q. Did you know? A. I couldn't say. Q. Did you inquire ? A. I— as I recall it, we tried to find out what the outstanding bills were that would have to be paid out of the County tax that we were going to grant. And I will say, if you will permit me, in explanation, that last year was the first year that the Committee on County Es- timates ever went into the matter in detail. It was new to me, new to all of us, and we were somewhat at sea. 22 Q. You have been telling this Committee about the transfers of balances? A. Yes, sir. Q. There could be no transfers of balances until that act that was approved in June, 1895, was passed ? A. No, sir. Q. And you were out two months earlier than that ? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you mean by telling about the transfer of balances in April, when there was no such thing ? A. I mean that it was said at the hearing by Judge French and by Mr. Blackmur, that the County Commissioners in asking, that is, in making up their estimate— of course, that bill for specific appropria- tions was then before the Committee, had been introduced,— in making up their estimates, so much for this and so much for that, it was said that some of those amounts that they said they wanted for roads and bridges were going to lie used for the Dedham Court House. As I say, the County Commissioners denied it. Q. They had a balance of $40,000, in addition to $30,000 which you granted? A. Well, I deny that. Q. In the first estimate? A. I deny that. I deny that we thought they were going to have it. Q. You don't know, nor cannot tell the Committee, nor you didn't inquire, how much outstanding debt there was the first of January, 1895? A. The Committee understood that the larger part of the $40,000. Q. You didn't inquire, and you don't know, do you, Senator, how much there was on the first of January, 1895, of outstanding debt? A. I don't remember whether we did or not. Q. Was there any question made at that hearing by anybody as to the amount of outstanding debt on the first of January, L895? A. I don't recall. Q. Have some of these persons who have been interested been over to your house to see you in relation to this investigation'.' A. You mean anybody on either side? Q. Has Judge French been there? A. No, sir. Q. He has not been to your house at any time in Cambridge? A. He has not been there recently. I was trying to think whether be had been there once. Q Anytime since the hearing before the Committee on County accounts? A. I cannot recall, sir, whether lie has been at my house or not. lie came up to the Senate Chamber to see me one day. Q. (Jan you recall whether he has been out to see you on this inves- tigation or not? A. lie came up to see me at the Senate Chamber, to see how it was getting along, what had become of it. Q. lias he ever been out to your house at Cambridge? A. As I say, I do not recall. I think possibly he did. but my mind is not very clear on that subject. 23 Q. He came out one evening, didn't he'? A. As I say, I cannot recall whether he has been out to my house- He lias been up to the Senate Chamber. Q. Can you say one way or the other whether Judge French has been out at your house in Cambridge to see you in reference to this in- vestigation, and to urge you to use your influence to favor it'? The Chairman. What is the question? (Question read.) Mil. Storey. I do not think the question is very material, one way or the other. Mr. Grover. I don't know. I think it is. The Witness. It is not because I do not want to answer the ques- tion, but it is because I do not want to make a mis-statement. I have a faint recollection that he came out there, but I am not at all sure about it. The Chairman. I do not see how it is material, but I have not said anything because I supposed Senator Dalliuger wished to answer. The Witness. I wish to answer. I wish I could give a better answer. Mr. Grover. I think we can get a better answer from some other person. The Chairman. Ton may proceed witli the examination of Sen- ator Dal linger. Mr. Grover. That is all. The fact remains that Asa French was seen in Senator Dallinger's house, at Cambridge, within two months of the investigation, there for the purpose of procuring an investigation if possible, a fact which Dalliu- ger cannot remember, though he does remember what happened more than a year ago. Truly do the Committee see the mote in Morrell's tes- timony, and are blind to the beam in Dallinger's testimony; and on such testimony are willing to brand the Commissioners as "deceivers" of the Legislature, and "concealers" of the truth from the taxpayers of Nor- folk County. We have gone into the testimony of Senator Dallinger at some length, and we think it shows conclusively that, coupled with a very bad memory, he was someiohat ignorant of the duties of his position. So far the Committee in their report have considered the actions of the Commissioners in reference to violation of statute Law. This Committee, though composed of four lawyers and live laymen, do not hesitate to accuse the Commissioners of violation of all these statutes treated of, even though in one particular the Commissioners were acting under the legal advice of the late Judge Hoar, and we submit that their findings on the above points are entitled to only such weight as their source gives them. BEST JUDGMENT USED. We come now to that part of the report of the Committee which accuses the Commissioners of extravagance, of allowing contractors to 24 make inordinate profits, the payment of large commissions, and of mak- ing no effort to guard the County Treasury, and "the conclusion that a full discovery of the facts would reveal corrupt dealings between the contractors and at least one of the Commissioners." And, on the first point, "extravagance," we have only to say that the Committee were not appointed to pass upon the cost of the Court TTo use. The Court House and its furnishings speak for themselves, and we are willing to abide t lit- fair judgment of citizens of the County whether our expenditures in building the Court House were extravagant or not, when it is remembered that the valuation of the County in lS9o was $180,1:13, 4:-}.", with a debt of only $125,000, and that, too. incurred by the building of the Court House, and with the lowest fate of taxation of any County in i lie Siate. i I is true, the building could have been built at a much less expense; that the chairs, tables and benches could have been of spruce, instead of oak, but we built the Court House and furnished it to conform with the dignity of the County, using our best judgment as to its needs and requirements. NO COMMISSIONS TO Till] BOAliI>. Now, as to the payment of large commissions by the < !ommissioners : There is no testimony from first to hist of the payment of any commis- sion by the Commissioners, and the only evidence of any commissions being paid by anybody throughout the whole of the investigation is,— 1st, where Pray per cent, on a sale of $1600 to the County. Mr. Ridgway was in the business of buying and selling carpets and rugs. He had acted for the County Commissioners, in the buying of rugs and carpets, when Mr. Wiggin was Chairman id' the Board. When the time came tor buying of rugs for (lie new Court House, Mr. Morrell saw Ridgway on the street, and asked him where was a, good place to buy rugs, and Ridgway recommended Morrell to Pray iV Company, and went with him to select the rugs, and then claimed from Pray & Company he was entitled to a commission for bringing them a customer, and Pray & Company paid Ridgway a commission of _•"> per cent. (By Mr. Morse.: Did you pay any part of the commission you received to Mr. Morrell ? A . I did not, sir. ( ). Or to any member of the Board of County Commissioners? A . I diil not, sir. Q. In any way, shape or manner? A. In any way, shape or manner : no sir. I,'< -dirt ct Examination. (>. (By Mr. Storey) Hid you pay any other money to either of them ? A. No, sir. Q, Ever? A. Never. Q. Never paid any money ? A. Never. 25 Q. Or did you ever send them any rugs ? A. No, sir. Q. Anything of that sort ? A. Xo, sir. Q. Or give them anything in the way of money or goods, directly or indirectly ? No, sir. Mr. Libbey, salesman for Pray & Co., testified as follows in reference to Mr. Eidgway and his connection with the sale. Q. Will you kindly tell me— give the whole history of the trans- action ? A. I will. Mr. Ridgeway came into the store one day and wanted to make the best arrangement lie could in regard to a trade that he said that he had for a lot of rugs, and he was turned over to me to make the arrangements with. He is an old personal friend of mine. He and I have been together a good many years in the carpet business. I made arrangements with him. Then Mr. Morrell came in and picked out the goods. ****** Cross-examination. Q. (By Mr. Morse.) Mr. Libbey, were the prices at which these different goods were sold fair prices for the goods? A. They were; yes, sir." Mr. Henry H. Cotton, from whom the Commissioners bought rugs for the Court House, testified as follows, in reference to the payment of commissions:— Croxx-Examination. Q. (By Mr. Morse.) Mr. Cotton, did you ever have any private deal- ings with Mr. Morrell, or any member of the Board of County Commis- sioners'? A. I don't know anything about any of the Board. I don't know any of them at all, except Mr. Morrell. I know him. Q. Well, any one that has ever been known to you as one of the Board of County Commissioners? A. No, sir. Mr. Storey. I do not understand he has answered your question. The Witness. Not to my knowledge, I have not. Q. Have you ever sold any goods to Mr. Morrell? A. No, sir, only these. 0. I mean to him individually? A. No, sir. Q. Have you ever paid him any commission? A. No, sir, not a cent. Q. Have you ever given him any thing in any way or shape? A. Not the equivalent of a tack. Q. Have you ever given or paid, or in any other way benefited in any way either of the other members of the Board of County Commis- sioners? A. No, sir, I do not know them. Mr. Buzzell of Keeler & Co., who furnished the furniture for the Court House, testified as follows as to the payment of commissions :— 26 Q. lias the firm of Keeler & Co., or the assignees of that firm, or the trustee of that firm, or you representing them, or anybody else repre- sentingany of them, at any time, paid any person, either commissioner, architect, or anybody else connected with Norfolk County, on the con- struction of the Court House, any commission, directly or indirectly, by money, furniture, or anything else ? A. No, sir. Q. Has there ever been any agreement or understanding ab'out it in any way ? A. No, sir. All other witnesses who were interrogated on this point testified to the same effect as Cotton and Buzzell in reference to paying commis- sions to the Commissioners, all of whom denied explicitly the payment of any commission to the Commissioners or cither of them. The only other evidence of any commission being paid was where Sanborn, a sub contractor, paid Franklin a commission of $500. San- born was a sub-contractor under Mr. Willcutt. who was the lowest bidder for the contract after public advertisement. Franklin had been a contractor with the county for part of the work on Court House. Trouble had arisen between Franklin and the Commissioners on account of his faulty work. When Sanborn figured under Willcutt it covered such work as was done by Franklin, and Franklin told Sanborn that if he figured and got the job under Willcutt, he should want $500. Sanborn figured this amount in his estimate, got the contract, and paid Franklin this sum. Nothing of this was known to the Commissioners. The evi- dence is that the Commissioners and Franklin were on most unfriendly terms. So much for commissions; in the case of Pray and Company they paid the profit to Kidgeway, and we can well ask the question what would Pray ami Company have charged the county for the same rugs if Ridgeway, whose judgment in such matters as to the price and quality was reliable, hail not gone with Mr. Morrell to make the purchase. Everybody knows there is no fixed price for rugs. As to the commis- sion paid by Sanborn to Franklin, this took place long after the < 'ounty Commissioners had made the contract with Willcutt, under whom San- born was a sub-contractor; and so by no possible means could the county treasury have suffered in the payment of this commission. Now as to the finding of the Committee that the Commissioners allowed the con tractors inordinate profits: NARROW MARGIN OF PROFITS. Mr. Willcutt, to whom was paid alone $230,000 of the $390,000 which the Court House cost, testified that his net profit on the whole job was about $ 12,000, a little over 5 percent. Certainly $12,000 profit on a job of $230,000 cannot l>e considered inordinate, except in the eyes of this Committee. Mr. Whitcomb, who received $50,000 of the money spent on the 27 Court House, was not summoned by the Committee, though he was available and had his books, which would have showed his profit. Can this be accounted for because the profits of Whitcomb were so small that it reflected credit on the Commissioners'!* The same applies to Haberstroh, who decorated the Court House, costing $3035. Hollings' bills for gas and electric light fixtures amounted to $6700, and Mr. Hollings testified that he did not make a dollar on the fixtures furnished for the new part of the Court House, which in amount was more than half he received from the County, and on the balance he- made a very small profit. Where is the inordinate profit to Hollings and Company? Keeler and Company were paid $44,270.29 for the furniture put by them into the Court House. This sum included the cartage, setting up, etc. Mr. Buzzell of the firm testified that his profit was very small on this job. We have the evidence that Keeler and Company was the low- est bidder, and we also have the evidence of William I. Beckford, of the firm of Doe and Hunnewell, who was summoned as an expert as to the value of the furniture itself, put in by Keeler and Company, his esti- mate was $46,712 for the same job, and he further testified that " it was a nice job." Mr. Robert Casson, of the firm of Irving and Casson, was summoned as an expert as to the value of the furniture, and he swore, after having examined it all thoroughly and going through it in detail,— Q. By Mr. Morse. " What was the aggregate estimate made by you upon the work?" A. $42,561. Q. Is that the fair value of the work? A. I think so. Q. AVhat do you say as to the quality of the materials used, and the work itself? A. First class." Mr. Storey admitted that all the furniture bought of Keeler & Co. was in the Court House, and produced no evidence to contradict the evi- dence of Beckford and Casson as to the value of the furniture furnished by Keeler and Company. So much for the inordinate profits made by Keeler and Company. Albert B. Franklin, to whom was paid $20,000 on account of work done on Court House, under contract made when Mr. Wiggin was Chairman, apart of whose work was called a "botch" by the expert, Frederick Tudor, when on the stand was not asked by Mr. Storey what his profit was: would the inquiry, if made, have shown an inordinate profit under Mr. Wiggin's regime, which Mr. Storey did not want disclosed? JUST AND REASONABLE. H. N. Bates & Company were paid for engines, dynamos and fit- tings, about $7600, and about $1100 for work on the fan at the Court House. Mr. Alfred Brooks Fry, the eminent expert, being called to testily as to the prices and quality of work furnished by II. X. Bates & Co., after going through separate bills, testified: i By Mr. Grover.) I will ask you this general question, whether in respect to all the work you have been over, you consider the price charged by Mr. Dates a fair price? A. As a whole? Q. As a whole. A. In connection with the fact that, as I understand it, there were practically no plans and no specifications; as I understand it, Mr. Hates was responsible for the successful installation of the proposed plant, that he assumed the responsibility ordinarily taken by an engineer ver\ largely; 1 consider in the main the prices just and reasonable. ( v ). How about the character of the work:' A. The character of the work, so far as I am able to determine, is good. And Mr. Hamilton A. Hill, also an eminent expert, testified as to the prices and quality of work furnished by II. X. Bates & Company, as follows, after examining all of Mr. Bates' bills. Q. Have you looked overall the bills, Mr. Hill? A. Yes, sir. Q. And what should you say to I hem, to all of them? A. Well, 1 think as a whole he has made a reasonable and fair price to the Commissioners. I have come to that conclusion after a good deal of study of the details of it which I should he very glad to go into. (,). I will ask you, Mr. Hill, whether the work was well. done? A. It struck me as very well done; I think he tried to make a good job of it. That a profit of about 100 percent, was made by Mr. Sanborn on a piece of work done by him for the county is admitted. The contract price was $740. It cost Sanborn $3S9, and his profit was $360, or about too per cent, profit . Sanborn did other work for the county under special contracts, where he figured his profit from to percent, to :;:U per cent., but in all these special contracts the total amount of profits, as testified to by him, was about $600 to $700. This is the only case where an\ party had received more than a fair profit on the work". COMMISSIONERS REDUCED PRICES. The Commissioners did reduce prices, did exercise judgment in the character of articles furnished and the expense to which the County was put, the finding of the ( 'on unit tee to the contrary notwithstanding. They cut down Hollings' bills over $1S00; they reduced the price of decorating the Court House from $8000 to $3000; they cut Whitcomb 1 s account some $1700, and so on in many instances did they cut prices. They stand by the character of the articles furnished: and by their own supervision of the building and furnishingof the Court House, saved the 29 county the expense of an inspector usually employed in the building of such a building as the Court House, amounting to some $4500. In reply to charges of Committee that certain papers were not placed on file with the Treasurer, until after the beginning of investiga- tion; also that a schedule of the furniture was dated months after com- pletion of work, we will say: An examination of the Vouchers and Papers by the Commissioners, at the office of the Treasurer, showed that for four bills of small amount, a detailed statement was not furnished, although the same had been paid on a proper architect's order. We thereupon asked the archi- tects to furnish the same. This request they complied witii, and then we deposited them with the Treasurer. As to the date of schedule, which was dated October 27, 1894, we supposed that was clearly understood by the Committee to be a clerical error. The date should have been May 3, 1804. Mr. Buzzell, and the architects, testified that schedules and estimates in every case were submitted to the Board lor their approval before any work was done on them. The schedule comprised items for furnishing tins for holding papers and »lass for sash in record cases, which were taken from schedule and referred to one of the ( Jommissioners, for the purposeof ascertaining if a saving could be made on these articles. The facts were testified to by Mr. Bowker, showing a saving was made of $377.84 flic tins were man- ufactured by Kenrick Bros., and the date of their order was May 12, 1894, showing conclusively that the matter must have been considered before that date. THE DIFFERENT BOARDS. In order that it may be understood what portion of the work was authorized by the different Boards of Commissioners, we make the fol- lowing statement : The Board from January l, 181)0, to January 1, 1894, was George W. Wiggin, Chairman; Melville P. Morrell and John Q. A. Lothrop. The Board from January 1, 1894, to September _4, 1S94 (when Mr. Lothrop died), was, Melville p. Morrell, Chairman; John '). A. Lothrop and Watts H. Bowker. Since January 1, 1895, the Board has been Melville P. Morrell, Chair- man; Watts H. Bowker and Thomas Blanchard. At the time of making the first contract for rear portion of building, the plan for the whole building was adopted, and the work divided into two parts, designated Front and Rear. The front embraced the front wing, and contained, besides vestibule and hall-ways, the Registry of Deeds and Registry of Probate on first floor, Probate Court, counsellors' room, copying rooms, etc , second floor. The rear pari comprised the balance of the building. TOTAL COST OF COURT HOUSE. The only material change from plans as originally adopted has been the reconstruction of the dome. 30 Contracts and extra work on rear portion, authorized by Boards of !>'.»•_' and LS93, including architect's commissions, . $171,068.82 ( osl of furnishing, decorating, electric work, gas fixtures, etc., of rear portion, authorized by Board of IS94, to Sept. --'4. 1804 40.126.GS Cost of work, on rear portion, authorized by Board of 1895, 2,805.89 Total cost of rear portion $214,000.89 Contracts and extra work, including architect's commis- sions, on front portion, authorized by Board of 1894, to Sept. 24, 1894 140,753.45 < 'osl of work on front portion, authorized by Board of 1894, from Sept. 24, 1894, to Jan. 1, 1895 25,360.00 Cost of work on front portion, including sidewalk and grading, authorized by Board of 1S95 13,601.75 Total cost of front portion, including cost of curbing around entire lot. sidewalk and grading, 179,715.20 Total cost of Court House, $393,716.09 All the contracts were signed by every member of the Board at time of making contracts. In this estimate we have included all bills any way connected with the Court House, also electric plant at Jail. The bills for furnishing, decorating, gas fixtures, heating and electric plant, we have apportioned as near as possible to the different portions of building. PROPER BUSINESS METHODS. As to our business methods, we will state that,— 1st. Contractors were required to furnish bonds to the amount of one-half of their contracts. 2d. Xo payments were made under the contracts, except on a written order from the architects, which order was approved by Com- missioners and paid by Treasurer, who took a receipt therefor. 3d. On the completion of a contract, a detailed statement, includ- ing all extras under the contract, was submitted to the architects, together with all bills, if any, of .sub-contractors; after adjustment, an order was issued for final payment. The contractor was then required to receipt his final bill, and thus duplicate receipt was thereby obtained, and all bills were finally deposited with the treasurer. As to the furniture, the original contract was duly advertised and awarded to Keeler & Co., they being the lowest bidders. Before doing anything under the contract, they were required to furnish a detailed statement, giving price for each and every article to be furnished, and this statement was used by the Commissioners as a basis for all subse- quent work done by them. As fast as the work progressed, and we were able to decide on the additional furniture, prices were submitted and comparisons were made and adjusted with previous estimate. 31 OPENING STATEMENT OF THOMAS E. GROVER, Esq. Mr. Chairman— Mi-. Morse and myself have thought that a brief opening might help the Committee in this investigation. We are not aware that the Commissioners have withheld any information in their possession. The witnesses who have been summoned by the Common- wealth have told their story, but the Committee will bear in mind that they are men over whom the Commissioners have no control, and if books have been destroyed they are not the books of the Commissioners. If it has appeared that "facts have to be drawn as with a corkscrew/' and when so drawn are only half facts, as was suggested by a member of this committee publicly in a speech recently delivered in the House of Representatives, it should be remembered that the Commissioners themselves have thrown no obstacle in the way, and they trust that this Committee will approach the consideration of the questions involved in this investigation in the spirit that Herbert Spencer says should pre- cede all investigations, "an honest receptivity and willingness to aban- don all preconceived notions, however cherished." This investigation is not to be carried on upon suspicions. It is upon facts that are to be developed, and it is upon those facts that the Com- missioners are to be judged and not upon the suspicions that maybe aroused by the action of any witness who lias been summoned before this Committee. I said that the Commissioners have thrown nothing in the way of this Committee for the fullest investigation. They have not claimed the rights or havenot been accorded the rights that they were entitled to. Mr. Story, able as he is with an expert accountant, has been allowed to see these witnesses in private, to examine their books, to call in all the aid that he required, but the Commissioners have been offered no chance to be present at any of these investigations, of these private investigations of the books, or the examination of witnesses. We have been content and have had to be content to rest with the good judgment of the Committee in the final determination of this investigation. Some criticism has been made upon Mr. Sanborn and Mr. Bates in their relation to the County Commissioners, but it will be borne in mind that with the single exception of the fan put in the Court House by H. N. Bates and Company, Mr. Bates or his firm have had no contracts whatever with the County Commissioners in relation to that Court House. This Committee will remember that the third contract made with Mr. Willcutt was for something like $105,000. He was the low est bidder and his bid was accepted. It w r as not necessary that they should accept the lowest bidder. The Supreme Court has recently decided that it is within the discretion of the County Commissioners whether they will 32 accept the lowest bid or not ; but in this particular instance, with a number of well known bidders and contractors bidding upon the same specifications and under the same contract, Mr. Willcutt was the lowest bidder; his bid was accepted and the contract made in consequence of it. Under that, and as a sub-contractor under Mr Willcutt. came Mr. Bates, and under Mr. Kates came Mr. Sanborn. Whatever may have been the profit to Mr. Bates, whatever profit he may have got out of the work that he was doing under that contract, is no concern of the County Commissioners of Norfolk County, because they looked to their con- tractor. Mr. Willcutt, who had agreed to do the work, and it is of no consequence to the County whether Mr. Sanborn made or losi under his sub-contract with Mr. Bates. If he has made tuO percent, profit upon some things, the county lias lost nothing. There is no charge here, and no evidence has been put in that the work has not been faithfully and properly done in accordance with the contracts and specifications that had been prepared. If Mr. Sanborn, as a sub-contractor for Mr. Bates, and Mr. Bates as sub-contractor for Mr. Willcutt, has paid Mr. A. B. Franklin a commission of $500, it is no concern of the Commissioners, nor anything that should reflect upon them in the slightest degree. If they had not, as they had, taken the lowest bid for thai work, there might have been a breath of suspicion about it ; but as he was the lowest bidder, and as these men were sub-contractors under him, as the work was well and faithfully done, as the County got its full value in the work done by Mr. Willcutt, it is no concern of this Committee, and it is no concern of the County Commissioners, how much money Mr. II. X. Bates or Mr. Sanborn made from those transactions. The County has got its value in the work by competit ive bids. A great part of the time of this Committee in this investigation has been taken in inquiring into the profits and the methods of the contrac- tors who were sub-contractors under Mr. Willcutt, which, it seems to the Commissioners, was entirely unnecessary, and was an unjust reflec- tion upon them. If they have got their work under the. contract, if that has been faithfully and properly done, if they have seined with Mr. Willcutt for what the\ contracted to do, whose business is :, to enquire into the facts of whether Mr. Sanborn has made money, or Mr Hates In.s made money, from the sub-contracts with Mr. Willcutt? I want to call the Committee's attention as briefly as I can to some of the duties of County < oin mission ers. Those duties are designated in and their authority is derived wholly from the Statutes. That part of their duty which requires them to erect and care for public buildings formerly belonged to the Court of Sessions, as did also the laying out of highways. The authority to layout highways, how- ever, was taken from this Court and conferred upon a body known as Highway Commissioners, and later, niton the creation oi the Boards of County Commissioners, the authority severally exercised by the Court of Sessions and Highway Commissioners, in relation to public buildings and highways, was transferred to County Commissioners, where it now 33 remains. The Statute denning the duties of County Commissioners, so far as they relate to the erection and repair of county buildings has never been changed. The law is now found in Public Statutes, chapter 22, section 20, which provides that— "County Commissioners shall have authority,— To provide for erecting and repairing court houses, jails, and other- necessary public buildings, within and for the use of their county. To represent their County, and to have the care of its property and the management of its business and concerns in all cases which are not otherwise provided for. To do sncli other acts as may be necessary to carry into effect the power given them by law." The authority of County Commissioners within the limits prescribed by the Statute is absolute, and they are subject to the revision of no other Board. For a neglect of those duties the law provides a remedy. If there is insufficient accommodation in any county, the proper author- ities may go to the Supreme Judicial Court, and that Court will compe* the County Commissioners to furnish suitable accommodations. I have understood that one of the court houses of this state, I think the one in Hampden, was built by order of the Supreme Judicial Court, and Mr. Storey cited one case where the District Attorney of Bristol County brought a mandamus against the Commissioners of Bristol County to compel them to construct a court house sufficient for the need of the County. But that is as far as the Supreme Court can go. It is only for a neglect of duty that you can apply to the Court for that remedy. But the Court cannot designate to the County Commissioners how they shall construct a building, they cannot designate how the rooms shall be placed or arranged, they cannot say whether the court house shall be built of brick, or stone, or marble, or how it shall be furnished; that is a matter left entirely with the discretion of the County Commissioners, officers chosen by the people, and it is something with which no other body has any concern whatever. Or, in other words, the Supreme, Court or no other body can designate the way in winch the Commissioners- shall perform their duty. It can compel them to perform their duties^ but it cannot designate the way in which it shall be performed. If the Committee will pardon me for a moment, I want to call at- tention to one of the specifications that I understand my friend Storey makes against these Commissioners, and that is in relation to the esti mates made by the County Commissioners to the Legislature for each year. The Statute, as it remained up to March 10, 180."), required the Commissioners on the last day of each year, and by Statute of 1805, chapter 143, on or before December I5th in each year, to " annually pre- pare and make up the estimates of the taxes for all County charges and debts for the year then next ensuing, including the building and repair- ing of court houses, jails, houses of correction, and other County build- ings, with their appurtenances. The estimates so made up and approved by them shall be recorded by their clerk in a book kept for that purpose; 34 and a fair copy thereof, with a statement of the amount <>f borrowed money due from the County, and of the amount of taxes clue and unpaid at the time of making .said estimates, signed by the presiding Commis- sioner and attested by their clerk, shall, with the treasurer's account, be sealed up and transmitted by the clerk to the office of the Secretary of the Commonwealth on or before the tirst day of February next after making up the same, to belaid before the General Court for examina- tion and allowance." 1 presume the Committee may lie alreadry fam- iliar with that Statute, which is found in Public Statute, chapter •_'::, .section 22. This estimate includes all costs of the County, such as criminal costs, which are to be taxed by the prosecuting officer and allowed and -certified by the clerk under the direction of the Court and paid by the County Treasurer ; the paymeut of medical examiners' fees, authorized by chapter 26, section 24; the reasonable expenses of police, district and municipal Courts, statutes of 1S93, chapter 396; the expenses of the Su- preme Judicial and the Superior Courts, including the services of both traverse and grand jurors; the expenses of building highways, salaries of county officers, erection and repairing of count} buildings, and many other purposes which it is unnecessary to enumerate. This fact should be borne in mind, that although the law requires an estimate by items, the Legislature, until last year, has always made that allowance in one gross sum. And that was the law. The Commis- sioners, then, having that amount on hand, paid their bills from that general sum without any reference to the estimates that were handed in by the Commissioners to the Legislature. It was one gross sum from winch they made all their payments not specific estimates for a specific purpose, where the Treasurer credited himself with a certain amount, as if it were appropriated for a particular object, and then charged himself with the sums paid out under that head; but it was one general sum, and there was no distinction or division made, and tin- Committee will find that that was the law and practice until the pas- sage, of the Statute in 1895. The Resolve of 1SU0, chapter 47, provides "that the sums against the names of the several Counties in the following schedule are granted as a tax for each County respectively, to be collected and applied accord- ing to law: Norfolk County. $S5,000;" for 1891, chapter 4:;. Norfolk County. $105,000; 1S92, chapter 42, Norfolk County, $140,000; for 1893i chapter 53, Norfolk County, $140,000; for 1894, chapter :»ii. Norfolk County, $150,000; for 1895, chapter 108, Norfolk County, $160,000. Last year was the first year when, under the provisions of the Statutes of 1895, chapter 143, there was a grant of special items. In addition to these general items there have been two special acts id' the Legislature authorizing the County of Norfolk to appropriate money for the build- ing of a Court House; one in 1892 for $75,000, and one in 1894 for $125,000. The Statute provides that the County Commissioners shall have author- ity to raise these sums either by taxation or loan. The Act of 1892 was 35 the first Act making a special appropriation. The money under that Act has never been touched, and it will be for the Committee to deter- mine whether it is a good business principle for the Commissioners to take the unexpended balances remaining from a general appropriation, and pay the bills, or whether they should leave those balances remaining in the treasury and make a special loan of $75,000, which the Legislature had authorized. I am aware that one of the former Commissioners, for whom I entertain the highest respect, has said that this $70,000 was in- cluded in the estimates of 1892 and 1893. Because the amount asked for the repairs of the Court House during those years in the general estimates happen to amount to that sum, I don't know that there would be any occasion for me to discuss a prop- osition, that is so absolutely unwarranted. If the Commissioners had had authority to make a special appropriation of $75,000, they never would have put that amount in the general appropropriations that were required for the Court House, because it would have been wholly un- necessary, and if the Commissioners had come before the Committee on County Accounts and asked for $75,000 and said that the amount in their general estimate was for the part authorized by that special act, the Committee would have said at once, "You don't want that in there, you have authority to raise that without any special or additional authority from the Legislature." It would be entirely unnecessary and superfluous for the Commissioners to come in here and have two Acts of the Legislature allowing them to raise that sum of money, and besides that, the accounts as kept by the County Treasurer show that such was not the fact. Furthermore, I might say that in the estimates put in in 1802 and 1893, where the Commissioners asked for certain specific sums for building the Court House, nothing is said in them, in those estimates, about their being a part of the $75,000 already authorized to be raised. It was, I think, as we shall show to the Committee, no part of the $75,000; that the Commissioners now have authority under that Statute to issue their note, to borrow $75,000, or they have authority to put it in the next tax levy, and so long as that stands on the Statute books unrepealed, they may exercise that authority at any time within their discretion. Now, I want to call the attention of the Committee a little definitely to the accounts as they stood, to justify the position that I have made, and that is that the Commissioners have paid the bills for rebuilding the Court House without recourse to this $75,000 authorized by the Acts of 1892. On January 1, 1892, there was a cash balance of $20,173.35. That sum was available for any purpose to pay any indebtedness the County had authority to incur. There can be no doubt whatever about that. It was available for building the Court House or any other purpose that the Commissioners saw fit to use it for. In the estimates for 1892 there were these estimates: Additions to the Court House, $35,0no, and re- pairs, $5,000; so that the Commissioners had $00,173.35 which was avail- able that year for the Court House construction. They expended during 36 that year on the Court House, $2S,275, and on other County build- ings, in repairs, $1057.03, together amounting to $29,332.03, leaving a balance of $30,841.32 to go into the general balance of the next year. The cash balance of . January 1, 1803, was $71,202.52. The estimates for 1803 were: Repairing and furnishing County buildings, $25,000, ad- ditions to the Court House, $13,000, making a general sum of $100,262.52 available for the expense of rebuilding the Court House. They expended on the Court House in that year $57,175, for repairs of other County buildings $1603.45, making a total ol $58,778. 15, leaving, as a, part of the general balance January 1, 1894, the sum ol' $50,4.^4.07, to go into the bal- ance of the next year. Those balances were available for building the Court House, if they were not needed for other purposes. The cash balance for January 1, 1S94, was $47,433.85. The estimates for 1S94 were: Additions to County buildings, $27,000; repairs and fur- nishings, $15,000; and by the loan authorized by the Legislature, which was raised that year, $125,000; making the total sum available that year for the rebuilding and repairs of the Court House, $214,433.S5. They ex- pended upon the Court House $183,285.56; repairs on other buildings $964.88, making;; total of $184,250.44, leaving a balance on January 1st, 1895, of $30,183.41. January 1st, 1895, there was a balance of $40,639 95. This is the year upon which there has been so much discussion. The estimates for 1895 were : Additions to the Court House, $10,000, repairs on the Court House, $20,000, which made $70,639.55 that year available for the building of the Court House. I will assume here, for the purpose of giving some fig- ures, that the Commissioners were required to charge the sum named in their est i mates to each particular item for which I hey were to make ex- penditures. That is not so, not at the time when this estimate was made, but I will assume ii to he so, that the Committee can see how nearly the Commissioners came to their estimate— how well they came out. They expended that year $100,391.73, of this sum there appears in the miscellaneous charges $6,056.15, leaving $94,335.58. The general re- pairs on other buildings cost $244.72, making $94,580.39, from which sum deduct $70,639.55, and there remains a deficit of $23,940.35. There were transferred from various accounts, $24,000. Taking out the deficit of $23,940.35, leaves a balanceof $59.65 that year upon the Court House account. There was a balance January 1, 189(5, of $S,255.40. The amount asked for this year by the Commissioners was $6000 for repairs and rebuilding of the Court House. The Committee cut that down to $3500. The bal- ance of $8,255.40, as well as the $3500 that is allowed by the Legislature, was available for the Court House, making $11,755.40. The amount ex- pended in 1896 was $14,700.63, which leaves a small deficit. But if the Legislature of this year had granted the $6000 asked for, instead of $3500, there would have been to-day a deficit upon building that Court House of $445.23, and only $44.".. i':: without touching that $75,000 that was authorized by the law of 1892. 37 The counsel for the Committee charge us with having made illegal transfers last year. I want to call the Committee's attention to the fact that that law went into effect on the 5th of June, 1895, and of course it could have no possible bearing upon the actions of the County Commis- sioners until it went into effect. There was expended that year in all for rebuilding the Court House $100,391.73, and of this $08,658.63 was paid before the Statute went into effect. It left a liability either then due or to become due on June 5, when that Statute went into effect, of $29,537.10. And there is no lawyer nor any member of the Committee that won't say that when that law went into effect they had a right to take the $30,000 allowed them by the Legislature to pay the debts that were then due on the Court House, and if they had, then there is still a balance in their favor under their estimates. They made a mistake in making the transfers, because there was no occasion for it. They were exactly within the law without making the transfer, because they had a right to pay those bills up to the time when that Statute went into effect from the general fund al- lowed by the Legislature, as they had done and as had always been the custom of County Commissioners from the time when the office was es- tablished down, and if not paid, so that the amount then due was less than the amount granted by the Legislature, there was no occasion for any transfers. Sol say it is for the Committee to determine whether it is a good business principle to use unexpended balances for the pay- ment of your debts, or whether they should run the County in debt lie- cause the Legislature had authorized a loan of $75,000. The Commissioners take this position, that there is no authority re- quired from the Legislature to authorize them to build a Court House if the public interestdemands it. They are required to keep the build- ings in repair and to furnish proper accommodations for the Court. They must do that whether there is any appropriation from the Legis- lature, or any suggestion made to the Legislature. That is a duty de- volving upon them; it is not a question for the Legislature to deter- mine. And not only have they a right to build, but they have a right to issue their notes and to raise money for the building of a Court House under the Statute, without any suggestion to the Legislature. The question is left wholly to their discretion, not only as to the building of the Court House but the kind of Court House that they are to build. Now, I want to call the Committee's attention to Public Statutes, chapter 23, section 26, and see what the County Commissioners, not only of Norfolk County, but every County in this State, had a right to do while this building was in process of construction, if they were disposed to be dishonest, or if they were disposed to avail themselves of all the powers that were granted by Statute. "The County Commissioners may renew the whole or any part of the debts of their County, may negotiate loans in anticipation of and to be paid from the annual tax when collected, and may contract new debl - noi exceeding, in an} one year, or for any one object, thirty dol- lars For e;n h one thousand inhabitants of the County." The Committee will find in th •, more than twenty objects thai the law requires the County Commissioners to provide money for. tioned some of them. The County of Norfolk, according to uis, has 134,810 inhabitants. Thirty dollars for each thou- sand inhabitants means $4'), 445. 70 for each object, [f they had aright to raisi il for twenty objects, they had a right to raise $S0o,911. 40 under the general law without any further authority from the Legislature. 'i;i;v. May 1 ask you a question ? M i;. < (Rover. Certainlv. Mi;. Storey. Do you contend that they would have a right to raise il for I bree objects and spend it all for one ? M >■ I'.'- 1 don't say that. I. say they have a right under that Statu li the} have not availed themselves of, to raise for each ?4o,44.") in the County of Norfolk. Suppose they should avail themsi Ia es of that, .Air. Chairman. Suppose they had raised $40,4 to for this Court House. iey could have done, as I have s 'iid, ' iv authority of the Legi dature, because th • general act that 1 read authorizes that— suppose they had, and given the i for it, the holde uotesyould collect that money 'ounty of Xorfolk. wh ther the Legislature granted them a 'the money to pay for it or not. I don't know how it may '"'• wit h a ' ounty, but a man in Mas ;achusetts who lias a claim against a tow et his judgment and collect his execution by levyiug upon the pr | d' any individual in 1 That is the law as declared by the - tipreme Judicial Court a goo I man} years ago. I don't say that that apply to the County of Xorfolk, I don't know whether it would or not, but I know that the Count} of Xorfolk can sue and lie sued like any other municipal corporation, and if the Commissioners had raised that money, as they hail a, right' to do, and given their notes for it, the holder of those notes could collect it whether the Legislature authorized the Commissioners to put the amount in the tax list or not from th" property of the County. This is more important, perhaps, as bearing upon the question of the good faith of the Commissioners in this particular instance thau anything else. It shows that they have been to the Legislature. The Legislature have known what the County Commissioners desired, and have :ed them to a certain extent i o borrow money for the building of that Court House, but the Commis- sioners still assert, as undoubted law, that they had aright to go on and build that Court House under the provision of the existing law. not only the right, but it was their duty to do it if the public convenience and il required it, without any authority from the Legislature whatevi r. 1 want to call the Committee's attention to another subject that has been brought up in these hearings. Some question has been raised as to the right of the County Commission i contract for work costing 39 more than $800 without advertising. That, I understand, is one of the specific charges, so far as there have been specific charges made, that the Commissioners are expected to answer. I wish to call the attention of the Committee specifically to the Statute : "All contracts for public works made by the Commissioners [shall, it' exceeding three hundred dollars in amount, be made in writing after notice of proposals therefor has been published at least three times in some newspaper published in the County, city or town interested in the work so contracted for." Public Statutes, chapter 22, section 22. It will be noticed that this statute says "public works." I might say to the Committee that that Statute is first found in the Acts of 1854. Up to that time there had been no such provision in the Statutes. Public works have an exact and definite meaning, and unless there is something in the Statute from which to plainly draw a different conclusion, words are to be construed by their ordinary and usual definitions. The duties of County ( Commis- sioners concern public works as well as works that do not come within the definition of that term. There is nothing in the Statute to show that these words, as used in the Statute, should receive anything other than the ordinary and usual definition. Public works are defined as "all fixed works, built by civil engineers for public use, as railways, docks, canals, and so forth : but, strictly, military and civil engineering works constructed at the public cost." Webster's International Dictionary. That is the definition not only found in the common dictionaries but it is the definition found in the dictionaries upon civil engineering, and this Committee know that in many cities they have a Hoard of Public Works and a Hoard of Public Buildings. There is nothing in this Statute to take these words out of their ordinary signification. The practical construction put upon an Act of the Legislature by those who are obliged to act under it always has more or less weight with Courts, and those members of the Committee who are lawyers will remember that the Supreme Courts of this State and of the United States and of (other States have always said that they give great consideration to the practical construction put upon the Statutes by those who are called to act under them. I want to call the Committee's attention to some of the acts of the County Commissioners preceding 1890, which have put a practical con- struction by preceding Boards upon that very Statute. March 10th, 1889, the County Commissioners paid E. Menhinick $840.20 for work at the Dedham jail. In July, 1889. they paid J. P. Perry & Company $!:):> for piping in the jail. March is of the same year they paid the same firm $2531.45 for piping. October 7, 1891, they paid A. II. Davenport, for a counter and gate, $365. Part of that is still present in the Treasurer's office. Feb. 1, 1889, they paid William A. Pales, for bricking around the boiler, etc., $655. < >n the 31st of January, 1S89, they paid a bill, which I quote exactly. This bill is dated the :'.!st of January, 4d i,s-.c "To mercliandi.se as per bill rendered, $1460." July 10, 1889, they paid John T. Langford, for piping for the water works, $3220.97. March 8, 1SS9, they paid the Sawyer-Mann Electric Company, $2S03.S8. March 30, IS89, they paid the Exeter Machine Works, for engine, etc., $489.35. They paid Davenport for furniture, $1542. Now, these bills were paid wil limit advertising and without any written contracts. They were the practical construction put upon that Statute by the County Commis- sioners of Norfolk County. And I presume that if the Committee had time, and it was competent to go into the acts of the County Commis- sioners in other Counties, they would find that precisely that same course is pursued in all the < !ounties. There has been no charge here that in any public works, as that term is understood and within its meaning, the Countj Commissioners have made any contracts, for over $300, outside of provision of the Statute. If they had built a bridge, or a canal, or a railroad, or a com- mon highway, those objects come within the definition of public works and should be advertised for. It may be said, however, here, in justice to the Commissioners and as having some tendency to show that they were acting in good faith towards the public, that in all of the contracts •upon the building of the Court House at Dedham, where there was stonework required and where by the utmost stretch of a definition there could be any pretence that it came within the definition of the term public works, they have advertised. They advertised for the first foundation, which was given to L. 1>. Willcutt. They advertised under the second contract which was made with Willcutt. for $79,000, and the third contract of $10.">,00<> with Willcutt. They were all advertised. So was Franklin's and so was Whitcomb's contracts, one for heating and ventilating and the other tor carpentry work. Any work that has been done upon that ( !ourt House that by any possible means can come within the definition of the term public works, as understood, and as defined by everybody who is acquainted with the definition of the term, has been advertised for by the County Commissioners, and the contract has I .i in writing, thereby coming specifically within the terms of the Statute. When there is an Act upon the Statute hooks, it is the duty of public officers to comply with it. and in the construction and rebuilding of that Court House the Commissioners have complied with all the pro- visions of the Statutes in relation to the raising of money, and also in relation to the advertising of contracts ami making contracts in writing. There is one suggestion I should like to make to t he Committee. Perhaps I may as well do it now as any time. That Court House was structed in parts, and perhaps it was more expensively done than it would have been if the whole work could have been carried on at once. Hut tin* Committee will remember that there were sessions of courts to be provided for, the Supreme, Judicial, and the Superior Courts, and the Probate Court. There was the Registry of Deeds, the Registry of Probate, the Treasurer's office, all in that biuldng. Consequently, the Commissioners, when they began their work, first took the South 41 side, throwing the offices all over into the North side, and constructed that part of the building. Then, when that was completed, they car- ried their offices all over into the South side and reconstructed the North side of the building. So that, in order to accommodate the offi- cers and Courts that had to be held there, they had to construct the house in parts rather than doing it all at once. We expect, Mr. Chairman, that the evidence will show that there was not only a public demand for the reconstruction and rebuilding of that Court House, but also that there was absolute need of rebuilding or making additions to the Court House. Acting upon that and per- forming their duties, as they were obliged to do, they began in the year 1891 to look about and see what they ought to do in relation to it. I think the Commissioners have stated, if not, it will later appear, that two of the Commissioners went to Cambridge and saw the public build- ings there; they came back to Boston, and at the suggestion of the County Commissioners of Middlesex, visited the office of Wait & Cutter, the architects. Some suggestions were made to them as to what the Commissioners deemed desirable to do, and they were requested to make some sketches. There the matter remained for some months. After the new Board was installed in 1892, the subject was brought up again and Mr. Willcutt was called in. He was told, and the Commissioners pointed out to him, what they thought it was necessary to do about the Court House. Mr. Wait was called out. Mr. Willcutt estimated the cost of the work, as then proposed by the County Commissioners, to be from $(55,000 to $75,000. It was upon that basis that Messrs. Wait & Cutter had prepared their sketches, not plans, but mere sketches. Then Mr. Wait was called before the Commissioners and the matter of their fees was talked over. It was then agreed, as suggested by Mr. Wiggin, that, as there would be probably $65,000 or .$75,000 expended, they would calculate their fees for that work upon an expenditure of $65,000. Mr. Wait then said that for so small a job as that he thoughthe ought to have something for travelling expenses ; whereupon Mr. Wiggin figured five per cent, cost upon $05,000, making $3250, and said, "We will add $50 to that sum for travelling fees, making it $3300," and that was agreed to in writing. As I understand, the reason why that agreement was made was to cover just the work that was proposed then to be done, and no more. It did not include the work as it finally appeared. Messrs. Wait and Cutter would have been bound by their contract if that work had cost $75,000, and all they would have been entitled to would have been $3300; but when the work and the whole plan was changed and a more expensive < Ymrt House than was then anticipated was built, any lawyer knows that the contract then made was a nullity, and as there was no specific contract made for the amount that the architects should receive, they were entitled to a fair compensation for their services. Mr. Wiggin, I have no doubt, acted as he supposed in the interest of the County in making the architects fees a specific sum, and he made that sepcific sum so that if the cost should run over live or ten thousand dol- 42 lars t hey would be bound by their conl ract, lml they were bound by that contract only for the work that was then proposed; they were not bound any farther. When the plans were changed, when the works were en- larged, when more expensive work was required, then the contracts ceased, and the architects came in for what their services were reason- ably worth, and we shall claim that live per cent, upon the cost of that building is an ordinary and fair sum to he paid for their work. And 1 will also call at lent ion of the Committee here to this fact, that that bill was not paid carelessly or thoughtlessly, that there was discussion about it, and that the advice of counsel was taken as to the Commissioners duty in the matter, and they acted upon their counsel's suggestion. They cannot have been said to have, been wrong in acting in 1 hat way. I presume the Committee may be fully aware of the methods adopted !'\ the County Commissioners in paying the bills upon that Court House. They are the same as I understand are adopted for the payment of the hills upon this State House. They are the same as are adopted and must be adopted for the payment for the construction of any public building. The County ( 'oinmissioners, who are building the Court House, like the Commissioners of tins state I louse, employed, as they supposed, compe- tent architects. That they were competent is seen from the fact that t hey have heen engaged by other counties in the same line of work" and upon buildings outside of the state. I laving done that, they did as you, Mr. < 'ha in nan. or any member of the < Committee won id do in building a house, looking it over to see that the work was going on properly, but still trusting thai t lie details of that work would be looked after by the architects whom they had employed, who were experts in their line, and t a miliar with the work that the Commissioners themselves could not be familiar with. Those contracts provide that the contractors shall be paid eighty per cent, of the value of the work" from time to t ime. When it came to the payment upon those contracts, Mr. Wait made an esti- mate of the work, and drew an order which was carried to the County Commissioners. The Commissioners could not estimate the sum due under the contract. It would be impossible for an ordinary man in do- ing a job of that kind to estimate just the amount of work that a con- tractor had done upon it, and they left it, and properly left it. to the architects to determine. The contractor presented the certificate drawn by the architects to the County < Jommissioners, who approved it. That went through the usual channel, and was paid by the County Treasurer. And 1 don't know of any other way that work could be carried on than the method adopted. That is the usual method, and that is the proper method. There can be no specific items filed upon a contract which re- quires the payment of a sum in full. There is certain work to be done, which the specifications provide for, and it is as a whole that it is done, not in parts, and when there is an estimate made upon that work it has got to be upon a general certificate, it cannot be upon specific items. It would be impossible for any contractor to build a public building and to file a specific item every t ime t hat he asked for a payment under his con- 43 tract. The County Commissioners have fully complied with the law in that respect. When they came to the extra work they have required, and you will find in every instance, a specific bill of items for that work. In rebuilding a Court House like that at Dedham, more extra work is required than would lie necessary in constructing a new building. 1 want to call the Committee's attention to one item which will be found in one of Mr. Willcutt's bills/and that is for the foundation. The Com- missioners had supposed that the foundations were adequate for the new building, the architects had supposed so and so had the contractor; but when the architects came to make an examination, they found that there was a cobble stone foundation, and they had to put in a new foundation in order to secure safety to the new building. That was extra work. It cost over $300. It was not in writing. But would this Committee say that the Commissioners should have advertised for that work under those circumstances? Would any other contractors have come in and hid against Mr. AVillcutt under those conditions? And so it will he found that many of these extras that are charged arose in similar ways, something that was unforeseen, and could not he determined when the original contracts were made. It will be remembered by the Committee that the Commissioners kept no hooks of account. The law does not compel them to keep hooks of account, and they could not keep hooks of account if they chose, very well. But the law does say that the Clerk of the Courts shall be the clerk of the Commissioners, and when a bill is approved by the Commis- sioners a record of it shall be made by the clerk. The record having been made, the bill is passed to the County Treasurer. He is the accountant of the Count}, not the County Commissioners. Under a recent Statute every bill thai is approved by the Commissioners requires a certificate from the clerk before it is paid by the Treasurer. That accounts for the reason that certain bills appear in what is called the pay-roll which lias not, as used by the Commissioners, I think, of all Counties, the exact definition of a pay-roll, such as that term is generally understood. There are several bills put into one certificate with the pay of workmen. The bills are approved by the Commissioners, and the clerk makes one cer- tificate which answers for all of those bills. Some of it may be pay-roll for the payment of workmen, and some maybe for another purpose, but it all goes into what is called the pay-roll, and under that one general certificate from the clerk. I have not heard during this examination any suggestion that the books of the County Treasurer of Norfolk County have not been properly kept. I have not heard any suggestion that there has been any neglect on the part of the Clerk of the County Commis- sioners as being derelict in his duty. Whatever faults may lie upon other parties to these proceedings, or the witnesses to these proceedings if they are not parties, in relation to their hooks of accounts, have noth- ing whatever to do with Commissioners. They have no control over those books, and, unless it can be shown that some, money 1 hat was paid to the contractors went back to the pockets of the Commissioners in 44 some way. it is no concern of theirs how the men with whom they deal keep the books— whether these men know whether they are making a profit, or working at a loss. We shall show, I think, if the Committee please, that no member of the County Commissioners of Norfolk has ever received a dollar directly or indirectly from any one of these contractors. Some suggestion is made in relation to Mr. Bates and Mr. Morrell. They have been friendly. They live in the same town. I don't know that any suspicion should be drawn against a man for hiring some one whom he knows and in whom he has confidence to do a piece of work. I think that every one does that. When I have a building to erect, I don't go to a stranger, I go to somebody I know, some friend in whom I have confidence. And if men are to be tried upon that ground, if it is suspicious to have a friend who is a well known business man and to employ him to do any work, why, then, perhaps the County Commis- sioners in that particular instance have been guilty because they hired a friend. And so with the others. The Committee will also remember that this contract for the furniture was let out to the lowest bidder by competitive bids, and allot the contracts, perhaps with one exception, contain a clause that if extra work is required under the contract it shall be upon the same terms as provided for in the contract, and if there is anything taken away from the contract there shall lie an allowance made in proportion to the work required. Gentlemen, 1 am sorry that 1 have detained you so long. I have only undertaken to give you a sketch of what the evidence for the Com- missioners will prove. I shall leave the witnesses to repeat the story in detail. 45 CLOSING ARGUMENT OF ROBERT M. MORSE, Esq. Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: — This Committee is sitting as a judicial body to investigate and determine whether in the construction, enlargement, repairs or furnish- ings of the Court House, at Dedham, there has been any violation of law by the Commissioners of Norfolk County. In deciding that question this Committee will proceed under the same rules of evidence, and governed by the same law which obtains in the administration of justice in every tribunal. It does not sit here to record or repeat gossip or scandal, or insinuation, but it is to determine, under the solemn sanc- tity of its oaths, whether or not there has been any violation of law proved upon the evidence submitted. I am led to make this preliminary suggestion, particularly in con- sequence of the somewhat peculiar course which this proceeding has taken. In the beginning the Committee inquired whether any one had any charges to make against the Commissioners, to which no reply was made. So far as the record of this hearing goes no person has been willing to put himself before the Committee as responsible for the vague insinuations and charges that have been presented. The Com- mittee, in that contingency, regarded it as their duty to obtain from the Legislature authority to employ counsel, and counsel was employed, able counsel, the ablest who could be obtained. My learned brother, in corning into this case, in the honest discharge of what he regarded as his duty, considered that he was to take the position of prosecuting officer, and instead of seeking to obtain from the Commissioners them- selves, or through their counsel, explanation upon matters which could easily be explained, he began a series of examinations, which involved the Commissioners, the architects, the mechanics and the tradesmen who have had to do with this work, and which have ended in an indis- criminate and reckless charge of fraud and conspiracy against them all. I make no criticism upon the course which he thought it his duty to pursue, because I know that he derived the feeling, and the suspicion which led to this course, from the one person who is in fact responsible for this proceeding; but I refer to it now in order that we may have a clear understanding as to what the relation of the Committee is to my brother, and as to what his relation is to the Committee. If this Committee are the clients of my brother, and he is their counsel, and they are to receive from him his opinion and Ins beliefs, 46 and take them as clients ordinarily take the opinions of counsel im- plicitly and properly, and follow them, then it is useless for me to argue upon the law and evidence of this case. But if, as I conceive, the func- tion of this committee is to discharge a judicial duty, and if the relation of this Committee to my brother ceased when they employed him as counsel, and if he stands before this Committee in no other way than any counsel would stand conducting the prosecution, entitled to fair consideration by the Committee of his statement of the law and of the evidence, entitled to be followed where his views of the law are correct and his inferences from the evidence are sound, and not to be followed when those views are incorrect, then we are fairly before the Committee, and we are to stand upon the respective weights of the arguments that are to be presented. Some suggestion was made in the early part of this hearing that this was a court of inquiry, and that my brother was judge advocate general. That was the position which he himself stated that he held. That is not my view of this hearing or of the respective positions of the parties. I claim and I ask the Committee to recall that from the beginning it has been a prosecution against the Commissioners of Norfolk County, in which the same methods have been pursued that would ordinarily be pursued by prosecuting officers ; that whatever could be done by the manner in which questions were put or witnesses treated, whatever could be suggested that would reflect upon the Commissioners has been suggested, and that from beginning to end there lias been no word of commendation or explanation for anything that they have done, but simply censure, condemnation, and finally this gross charge of fraud and conspiracy. I ask of this Committee an impartial and candid hearing ; I want nothing more than that. And if I can get that. I am confident that I can demonstrate the utter groundlessness of all these charges, or pre- tended charges, against the Commissioners. 1 expect to establish, in- deed the evidence lias already established, that not only has there been no fraud in the construction of this building, but that there has been no extravagance; that there has been nothing whatever justifying censure. On the contrary, there has been an honest and praiseworthy attempt to perform a great public service and a successful performance of a great public service. 1 have further to say, in asking for this impartial hearing from the Committee, that it has been rare in my experience that there has been such an attempt to forestall the action of a committee by the discussion in the newspapers, as has taken place in this particular case. Many statements of witnesses have been misunderstood and misreported, sen- sational headlines have been affixed which have done immense damage, irretrievable harm to innocent, deserving and honest men ; and finally I read in one of the papers only yesterday a statement of the opinion of one of this Committee as to the decision which would be rendered. I do not suppose for one moment that any gentleman of this Committee 47 said any such thing, or said anything on the subject ; but I say that these newspaper reports, growing out of the desire of somebody to taik about a matter which was before a judicial tribunal for decision, has made it peculiarly difficult to discuss this question upon its merits as it ought to be discussed. I shall assume that, after all, the Anglo-Saxon love of fair play re- mains in this Committee and will govern its action. I have confidence that those Commissioners are going to be judged upon the law and the evidence; that if they are shewn to have violated any provision of the law you will say so; and that if, on the contrary, that fact is not estab- lished, you will not hesitate to say that. And I believe that notwith- standing the impulse which seems in a most extraordinary way to seize upon people at times to say ill of public men, and to believe ill about them, you will be better satisfied if you can honestly say as the result of this investigation that not a single charge has been established against the Commissioners. Briefly, to state the history of this proceeding, let me recall your at- tention to the fact that the subject of the enlargement of the Court House had been under discussion for many years in Norfolk County prior to the election of 1891, but that at that time it was made an issue by the fact that one of the political parties took strong grounds in favor of the changes, and that that naturally led the Commissioners seriously to consider the matter. Early in 1892 it was determined by the Commis- sioners that they would make alterations and additions to the building. The building, as some of you will recollect, consisted at that time of the front wing, and of a rear extension in which was the old Superior and Supreme Court room, there being only one Court room in the building. There was an old dome upon the building. The Court room itself was some feet lower than the general level of the second floor, the ctaircases were very steep and hard to use, the minor conveniences of the Court House were very slim, and altogether it was an antiquated building un- suitable for the uses of a great, rich and prosperous county like Norfolk County. In January, 1802, as a result of the preliminary inquiries that had been made, the Commissioners contracted with the firm of Wait & Cutter, experienced and competent architects, to make the plans for the alteration that was then proposed. On the 2Sth of April, 1892, the first contract, that is, the one with Mr. Willcutt, was made, and from that time untill June, 1895, a period of more than three years, the Court House was in process of construction. It was a peculiarly difficult work from the fact not only that it was the alteration of an old building, which, as everybody understands, is much harder than the construction of a new one, but it was the alteration of an old building and the mak- ing of large additions in such a way that nobody should be intefered with in the conduct of the work necessary in the Court House. The Su- preme Court, the Superior Court, and the Probate Court, all held their sessions in the building during the entire three years while the work ■Is was going on; the Registry of Deeds and the Registry of Probate re- mained in the building; and those of you who had occasion to do bus- iness in the Court House during those three years know that it required peculiar skill, an unusual amount of time, and, undoubtedly, some con- siderable additional expense in doing the work in such a way that the regular business of the County should not be interfered with, and that no unnecessary expense should be incurred in the hiring of accommoda- tions outside the building. The Commissioners, from the beginning to the end, employed first class talent in every department. They employed as architects men who were personally unknown to them, but who had a good reputation and large experience, growing out of their recent admirable work in Middle- sex County, in the construction of the Probate Court House, as well as in work throughout the Commonwealth, in designing and erecting large and important buildings. The Commissioners employed in every in- stance skilled, reputable and experienced mechanics, and in every in- stance where, by any lair construction of the law they were bound to do so, they advertised for proposals, and took the lowest bid, and in some instances, as I shall show, where no obligation rested upon them, either to adveri ise or to invite competition, they either advertised or else took pains to get competition from the best mechanics in that particular line. Xo better mechanics, no more honest or reputable men were ever em- ployed on any building, private or public, in this Commonwealth, than were employed upon this building, from Mr. Willcutt and Mr. Whit- comb, through the Bates Machine Company, ami Mr. Sanborn, and Keeler & Co.. and HollingS & Co. It is not very material in this case to consider the precise cost of the building, but I have taken the trouble to go over these schedules with a view of presenting the items of the cost in a, little different form from tliat in which they have been given in (he evidence, in order that both this Committee and the public may know correctly what this building has cost. And. in figuring that cost, l have excluded all that pertains to the cost of furnishing the building, for, although that has been lumped with the other items in the general discussion of this case,] have never known before the cost of furnishing a building to lie in- cluded in the cost of the building itself. When we build a house for ourselves we consider that the cost of that house stops with the con- struction of the building itself, and that what we add to it by way of furniture, or carpets, or pictures, or gas fixtures, is furnishing, which U'oes under a different head. As I figure the cost of the building, everything that properly should enter into it, comes to $33S,S>9S.S2, And that is made up ;is follows, and ! beg the Committee to observe what the items are. Lyman I). Willcutt received under his first contract $10,331.72; under the second contract, $82,056.47; under the third contract, $136,- :;is.7<>; making a total of $22S,736.S9. In other words, more than two- 49 thirds of the entire cost of this building were paid to Mr. VVillcutt for the contracts and the extras under those contracts performed by him. B. D. Whitcomb & Co., carpenters, received under their contract and for extras $50,307.29. Albert D. Franklin received under his contract $20,227.21. Wait & Cutter were paid as architects $17,909.40. I have allowed as a part of the cost of the building, although in my judgment it does not necessarily or properly belong there, so much of Keeler's bill as maybe regarded as permanent fixtures, and that amount- was stated in the evidence Monday as $9397. Haberstroh & Co. were paid for painting $'3035. And of the miscellaneous items I allow everything, except certain items which I shall state in a moment, which I take out for the furnish- ing. I allow $9386.03. That makes the total of $338,098.82. 1 may remark in passing, and it will have a bearing upon something which I shall say hereafter, that the Committee will observe that nothing is paid in the cost of this construction to Bates & Co., except the items I shall refer to in the miscellaneous, and nothing is paid to Sanborn, because they came in, as the Committee will remember, as sub contractors under VVillcutt, who was the lowest bidder. Mr. Storey. To a certain extent. Bates didn't come in under Willcutt except to a limited extent. Mr. Morse. Well, if I don't state this correctly, I shail of course have my errors shown, but I think before I get through I will make this clear. In passing let me say that for the first contract there were the following bidders: L. D. VVillcutt, Connery & Wentworth, Da\ . d 11. Jacobs & Son, Augustus Lothrop, M. S. & G. N. Miller, and Join. Q. A. Field ; and that of all those bidders Mr. Willcutt, who is charged here as guilty of gross fraud upon this County, was the lowest bidder, and! that the amount that he bid was about one-half the amount bid by Mr. Field. Let me remind the Committee further that for the second contract Mr. Willcutt competed with Connery & Wentworth, David 11. Jacobs & Son, M. S. & G. N. Miller, and Hamilton, Balcomb & Peterson, and that he was the lowest bidden - in that ease, and was awarded the contract because he was the lowest bidder. And that for the third contract he was the lowest bidder with Connery & Wentworth, M. .S. A; G N". Miller, and Gooch & Pray. This Committee knows perfectly well that all of these men are reputable and experienced mechanics. And yet I beg the Committee to observe that although two-thirds of the entire cosl of this Court House, and more than two-thirds, went to Mr. Will- cutt, who was the lowest bidder on all these contracts, there is nothing in the long and honorable reputation of Mr. Willcutt that has • I him from the shafts that have been directed against every person con- nected with the construction of this building; and that when my 50 brother undertook to formulate charges against these parties, he said that he charged fraud upon Mr. Willcutt in his conduct of this business. The furnishing of the Court House cost, according to my figures, §44,820.10. Thai includes the remainder of Keeler's bills, beyond that which was allowed on the cost of the building, this being $34,873.29; IIol- Lings' bill, $0093.50; Pray's three bills, $1095, $115.50 and $100; French's three hills, $20.04, $21 and $47.50; Shreve, Crump A: Low's bill, $200; Cotton's two bills, one of $1042.03 and the other $20.25. All those items were in the nature of furniture— carpets, rugs, chairs, tables, gas fixtures, clock and crockery. Fn addition to these items, I have made a third head of the work at the jail, which in my humble opinion does not come within the province of this Committee to examine, but it has been considered in the evidence on one side and the other, and so, of course, I shall have to refer to it. But I have made it a separate item because it is not in any proper sense of the word a part of the cost of the construction f the cash balances in the treasury of the County. Such a, building as that, instead of being an object of censure, should ■t of commendation. Outside of the limited number that have seen fit to raise these questions about the conduct of the Commission ers, there is and there can be but one opinion in regard to the success oi this work. One of the Senators in the discussion of the order for the tment of this Committee, said: ''The Commissioners of out ( "ountj have given to the citizens of Norfolk a Court House of true mag nificence. Norfolk County does not regret the expenditure of a dollai : . noneys have been judiciously and honestly expei 51 No County in the State can better afford the luxury." And in the ex- ercises at the dedication of this building in June, 1805, a Judge of one of our courts, a lifelong - resident of Pedham, honored everywhere as a true representative of the best spirit of the County, Judge Ely, said in his address: "Animated by something of the spirit that I have attempted to por- tray, we are convened here to tell the story of the origin of Norfolk County, to review its first century of existence, and, at the same time, to dedicate to public uses this magnificent and commodious Temple of Justice, whose completion so fitly ushers in its second century." And in another place, speaking of the old structures which were used, he says : "Before leaving this earliest Court House of our County, allow me to quote a brief passage written by Br. Ames, because it is' character- istic not only of 1795, but of 1S27 and 1895, and indeed of all ages. In March, 1795, he writes: 'The Court House raised last Fall is ruinous, open boarded, not wholly shingled, and by reason of a large committee to carry on the building it has hung heavy, slow, and expensive, much more than if it had been put out at a good price to a single person. And it is by some thought the People will grumble at the expense beyond what they contemplated.' " Then the Judge adds : "Truly one generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the grumbler abideth forever." And later he says : "In 1892 the work began whose completion we are here to celebrate. This work is much more than an enlargement. While our Board of County Commissioners have preserved as far as practicable the work done in I860 and 1861, they have completed their work in conformity to the best available rules of architectural symmetry and beauty. The ground plan of the old building necessarily controlled the form of the new edifice, but in the interior arrangement and litness it is a new Court House. The best skill of the architect, the builder and the dec- orator is exemplified in its construction. "It stands and will stand a monument of the wisdom and foresight and independence of our County Commissioners. It stands and will, stand a monument of the liberal and enlightened public sentiment of the proud, spiritual and wealthy County of Norfolk. It is worthy of her. But with all its magnificence of niarble halls and gilded adorn- ments, it is no more than worthy of her. Our peoale have never failed to meet the needs of our County with a generous hand." I have said more than once during the course of the hearing that we regretted that the Committee had not required these specifications to be in writing, and to be precise and definite; but I am grateful for what was finally accomplished, in securing, at the close of the testimony for the prosecution, a statement from my learned brother, somewhat vague but still to some extent helpful in its precision, in regard to what would be relied upon by the prosecution. I propose now to take up these dif- ferent charges, and to consider them separately, and I trust fairly, for the purpose of satisfying the Committee that there is nothing in any of them Avorthy of their serious consideration, nothing which reflects in any way, degree or manner, either upon the fidelity or integrity of the present Board of County Commissioners. They are to be found in Vol. 52 12, beginning at p. 1409. I will read the language which my brother used, in order that I may not do injustice in any way to his claim, or tail to apprehend its meaning, and to discuss it fairly. These charges divide themselves under two general heads. One relates to what I shall call technical violation of the Statutes, which, if proved, would amount to nothing more than u failure to observe provisions which are directory simply in reference to the duty of the County Commissioners. The sec- ond set of charges involves a claim of fraud on the part of the Commis- sioners, and of the architects, and of everybody connected witli the con- struction of the Court House, with the exception I believe of two. And I may remark in passing that what led my brother to except from this general conspiracy two persons, Mr. Haberstroh and Mr. Whitcomb, is more than I can understand. Mr. Storey. Lack of time, Mr. Morse. Mi:. Morse. Lack of time, my brother says, is all that led him to except them. I will take that statement, and I believe that lack of time is the only thing that led my brother to except from this charge of con- spiracy and fraud, Mr. Haberstroh and Mr. Whitcomb. If my brother had had more time he intimates that he would have made the same charge against the best known decorator in JJoston, and against one of the Commissioners on the construction of the State House. Mi;. Storey. I should have made an investigation, Mr. Morse ; I did not say I should have made the charge. Mi;. Morse. My brother would have made no more investigation than he has made here, Every charge against these parties was made without investigation. The first sentence, the tirst question put to Mr. Wait upon the stand, was a denunciation of Mr. Wait, as the first ques- tion put to Mr. Morrell was an insinuation against Mr. Morrell. I will come back, however, to the charges as they are formulated. On page 1409 Mr. Story calls attention to the provisions of the statute governing the action of the County Commissioners, and says that "The first pro- vision is that which requires the County Commissioners to state to the Legislature what money they propose to spend, and how they propose to spend it. For a certain portion of the period under investigation, the law on this subject is found in the Public Statutes. After the passage of the Statute of is;)."), that became the law in tins matter. I think Mr. Morse must be prepared to defend his clients against the charge that they have violated the provisions of that Statute, that they have not stated to the Legislature the sums which they proposed to expend, that they have made statements to the Legislature which were misleading statements, made for the purpose of indicating that they would require for tin' purpose of this Court House much smaller sums than they knew they would require at the time that the statements were made." Mr. Chairman, that is a charge that the Commissioners, in their es- timates submitted to the Legislature of 1896, violated the Statute of IS95 That Statute is Chapter \4:\ of the Acts of that year and it was passed, if -4 recollect rightly, in March of that year. The first estimate or report 53 submitted by Commissioners under it was in December, 1895. My first remark to the Committee is that that subject is not in any way involved in this inquiry. The duties of this Committee are to determine whether, in the course of the construction and enlargement and repairs and fur- nishings of the Court House, which stopped in June, 1895, the Commis- sioners have violated any law, and it is no part of the province of this Committee to inquire or to determine whether the County Commission- ers, in their communication to the Legislature in December, 1S95, violated Chapter 143 of the Statutes of 1895,— it has nothing to do with the question of the cost of the construction or enlargement or repairs of the Court House. This Committee was not appointed to inquire whether the County Commissioners had ever violated any law of any kind, but simply to determine whether in the construction and enlarge- ment and repairs and furnishing of the Court House, which stopped in June, 1895, the Commissioners had violated any law. But if the Com- mittee should think that that matter is within their province, as I re- spectfully submit it is not, I make them two answers to the suggestion or claim that the law has been violated. First. I call attention of the Committee to the fact that the law is directory simply. It undertakes to prescribe the duty of the County Commissioners ; it does not affix a penalty in case of failure to perform that duty. It simply points out to the Commissioners what is expected and required of them. It is the duty of the Commissioners, of course, to comply with that, and they would be to blame if they had not done so, but still it is not a criminal statute in the ordinary sense of the word. In the second place I have to say that the Commissioners did sub- mit fairly and truly to the Legislature their estimate of the estimated expense. Estimates of expense are mere matters of opinion. When the selectmen of a town make their annual report and estimate the expenses for the ensuing year, as prudent men they naturally include all the items which may under any circumstances be required. It may turn out that an amount estimated as required for one purpose is not needed and that it will be convenient and desirable to use it for another. But there was no concealment and no misrepresentation in regard to all the essential facts. The Commissioners submitted to the Committee, as they have testified here, their estimates, and they were accepted by the Committee. And that leads me to say finally on this point that the only body that was competent to deal with the question of the sufficiency of those estimates was that Committee. If the Committee on County Accounts, upon receiving those estimates from the County Commis- sioners, had reported that they were not in proper form or were not satisfactory, that would have been a matter directly for the considera- tion of the Legislature ; but the Committee did nothing of the sort. My brother may suggest that it was due to the hearings before that Committee that this investigation was started. Be it so. That has nothing to do with the point that I am now making, that so far as the matterof submitting the estimates was concerned thc\ were accepted by the Committee, and the records of t fie Legislature will show that they were accepted, as being a sufficient compliance with the law. The next charge against the Commissioners is to be found on page 1410: "The next charge is that, being authorized by the Legislature to spend $200,000 on this Court House, they have spent four." That charge is very easily answered, In the first place, they have not spent $400,000 in the erection of the Court House, as I have shown, but $340,000. Still, 1 don't make any point on that so far as this ques- tion is to lie considered. My claim is that my brother is entirely mis- taken in his opinion or theory of the law which prompts him to make that charge. It is true that the Legislature authorized loans to be made to the extent of $200,000 for the construction of the Court House, but the Commissioners— Mi;. Storey. To be raised by taxation or loan? Mi;. Morse. To be raised by taxation or loans, especially those two items of $125,000 and $75,000. These were in addition to the appropria- tions which were referred to in the estimates submitted by the Commis- sioners each year, and were in addition to the amounts available to the Commissioners, by reason of (he amount voted by the Legislature to be raised for general purposes. My 1 trot her has assumed that the authority of the Commissioners of Norfolk County to construct this Court House arose from, or is limited by, those two Acts of the Legislature. This is not a, correct statement of the law. Public Statutes, chapter 22, section 20, give complete authority to the Commissioners to build court houses and to make additions to them, and any Board of ( 'ounty ( lommissioners in this State, certainly prior to the Statute of 1S95, could proceed so far as the amounts available in their treasury, or the amount which they were authorized by general law to borrow, could lie obtained, to build a new court house or to repair an old one. The only effect of the, Statute of 1S02 and the Statute of 1804 was to give additional authority to the Commissioners, so far as the incurring of permanent loans was con- cerned. The law on this subject was well staled in the case from which my brother read, relating to Bristol County. Mr. Chairman, is this Committee going to hold that the Commis- sioners, who went ahead, apparently with the full knowledge and ap- proval of Norfolk County, through 1S02, 1893, 1894 and 1895, and built this Court House under the direct authority of express language of the Public Statutes, were violating the law? Will they accept such technical construction, such an unreasonable construction of the Statutes as to assume that the Legislature, bypassing the Acts of 1892 and 1894, in- tended to repeal by implication, so far as Norfolk County was con- cerned, the general authority which was given to all County Commis- sioners throughout the State? I shall spend no time over that point. The next charge is to be found on page 1410. "A third charge is that, being required by law to make report annually, so that the tax-payers of the County may see what has been 55 done with their money, they have, evidently by intention, disguised the amount expended on this Court House by putting various payments, which are properly chargeable to this public work, under other heads, and the specifications of that will be found in the cross-examination of Mr. Morrell, in which I called his attention to the amounts which were charged to miscellaneous, the amounts which were charged to fuel, lighting and supplies, the amounts which were charged to variousheads that I specified, all of which were properly charges against the appro- priation for the building of the Court House." I have looked at the cross-examination of Mr. Morrell, to which my brother refers, in order that I might ascertain what are the henious of- fences which are here charged upon the County Commissioners. 1 find that the first expense to which my brother called attention, was the amount of $925 paid Frederic Tudor, who was employed as sanitary and ventilating engineer. I may remark, perhaps, in passing, that Mr. Tudor has escaped the general flood of charges, and his name I should add to those of Mr. Haberstroh and Mr. AVhitcomb. This examination appears on page 204 of Vol Linic 4. It seems that Mr. Tudor was paid $025 in all for his services, and that of that sum $400 was charged by the Commissioners on the. account of the addition, $325 to the cost of repairs and furnishing, and $200 for miscellaneous. Every one of those items appears in the printed report of the County Commis- sioners. The question of where the item should go is a matter of book- keeping, merely, governed partly by the judgment of the Commissioners as to where the item should belong, partly by consideration of the fact that in their original estimates they had counted upon a certain sum under these different heads; and, while I do not understand that it has been the practice of the County Treasurer to open separate accounts, crediting each account with the amouni of the estimate made by the County Commissioners, and while the distinction between the different heads is a purely arbitrary matter and does not concern anybody, except so far as book-keeping may concern those interested in that, and while the statement of the item under one head gives just as much informa- tion as it does under another, I say that this division, although an arbi- trary one, cannot be held by this Committee to have been an unfair one. Mr. Tudor's work related both to the construction of the new work and to the repair of the old. I should like to know upon what principle it can be said that work of that kind, which had to do with ventilating and heating both the old building and the new building, might not be charged, a part of it to the cost of the addition and a part of it to the cost of repairs, or why a part of it might, no), be charged to miscella- neous. And my brother Joy suggests— which may, perhaps, save this from my friend's censorious remarks— that the $200 item was charged to miscellaneous under Mr. Wiggin's administration. So in regard to Mr. Haberstroh— $2000 of his work was charged to the additions, and $1035 to repairs. My brother seriously makes a point about that. Why shouldn't it have been so divided? There was the old work, and there was the new work. Part of this work was in the nature of repairs, part of it was in the nature of new construction. 56 x,. i regard to Mr, Co a, who did work' in connection with the grading, and was paid $3i')03 Tart of that was charged to the addition. $200; part to repairs and fi rnishings, $425; and most of it, $2897.75, to i iscellaneous— and why sh ' 'n't it have been charged to miscellane- ous? What objection is there to charging to miscellaneous expense all the cost involved in gradii ? and similar work about the building? So my brother gravely >sk.s Mr. Morrell, and presses him with great severity, if la' did not char? !1 of Mr. Hollings' lull to repairs and fur- i ishings, and he says lie did. c\ course lie did. It was properly charged there, and if my brother un 'ertakes to transfer the cost of gas and elec- trii i inres from furnishings- to cost of construction of a building, 1 shall simply suggest that his knowledge of erection of buildings is not as profound as his knowledge f law. So Wait & Cutter's hi; 1 as divided, as appears on page -jot of Vol- ume 4, part of it going to ■ klitions and part to repairs. And it was I i ly divided. Mr. Morrell said in his answers it was an artificial division, by which I understand him to mean an arbitrary division. There wasn't any way exactly of distributing the two parts of the work. It was undoubtedly influenced by the fact that in their original esti- mate oi the work thej trad egarded certain items as calling for certain expense, and in their imagi ary account of those different items, which neither they nor the Count} Treasurer ever kept, they found it more consistent to charge these items to those different accounts. ] . a informed by one oi the < 'ommissioners that the second contract with Mr. Willcutt, which was made under Mr. Wiggin's administration, was divided in the same w;: , divided in the contoact. So in respect to Mr. Franklin's account— part of it appears to have been charged to the ad lition, part to repairs, a perfectly proper division. In regard to Mr. \\ illcutt's, the division was addition, repairs and miscellaneous. These words were written right into the contract. I ;he contract of Mr. Willcutt, $59,250 for the additions, $20,000 for Un- additions, repairs and i ' anges in the old building. Von will find the division of the payments to Mr. Willcutt on page 200, Volume 4. So my brother puis: ed Mr. Morrell as to why the charge of Mr. JSndicotl for surveying was charged to the account of highways and bridges. 1; docs not seem t< i ie to require a great deal of argument or ,i to satisfy the Ci : mittee that the charge of a surveyor for work done in connection with the ways about the Court House might properly be charged to higl ' Again and this is the last item in the cross-examination of Mr. Morrell he asks whj the cost of Mr. Dates' work at the jail, in putting i' ■ electric light plant, was iharged to supplies, fuel and repairs. Why shouldn't it be'.' A changi ich involved the. taking out of the former plant, and substituting a nei on an old building— what is that but a re- pairof the building ? So at I say, upon a fair review of this list of items, and 1 have now slated them all, it will appear that the di\ made '", the Countv Comn issi mors was a correct division, in fact that 57 it was justified by the circumstances, but that, whether so or not, it was a division which was absolutely harmless, which deceived nobody and involved nothing whatever. Every item was stated in the printed re- port and the work that was done was stated. The next charge, the fourth charge, is found on page 1411, and is prefaced by a statement that "The statute of 1895 requires that they (the Commissioners) shall specify in detail exactly the purpose for which they want money and the amount which they expect to need for each purpose, and they are by law prohibited from spending money appro- priated for one purpose for any other, but are permitted for written reasons stated to make a transfer from one appropriation to another. I shall claim that, upon the evidence, they came before the Committee —or. rather, they came before the Committee and stated that they should require certain sums for certain specific purposes, with the in- tention, when they made that statement, of using the money for a dif- ferent purpose, and that they transferred from the appropriation made for highways and bridges and for various other things sums to the ap- propriation for the County Court House or to various heads, out of which was drawn money expended in the construction of. the County Court House, without that written statement of reasons which the statute requires and in fraud of the Legislature. " 1 say in reference to this charge, as I did about the first one, that it is not involved in this inquiry before the Committee. I say that that is not an inquiry in regard to the violation of law in regard to the violation of law in the construction of the Court House. But I have various answers to make to it, assuming— as I will do for the purposes of the argument— that the charge is properly before the Committee. First I have to say that these transfers were in fact made before the statute of 1895 went into effect. Therefore they could not be in violation of that law. The Committee will remember that Mr. Wiggin testified— Volume 14, page 1892— that they had had the opinion of Judge Hoar as to their right to use general balances for the purpose of any legitimate County expense ; and my claim is that at the time when these payments were in fact made by the County Commissioners, they had the right to use those general balances for that purpose, and that their subsequent transfer was an entirely unnecessary act. If they had made the payments when they were authorized to make them, as they were, their subsequent transfer in a mistaken notion of the necessity of compliance with that statute, cannot possibly work against them, or be of any consequence here. In tliis connection I wish to say a word in reference to the methods pursued by the County Commissioners in their business, and the funds which they held available for the construction of, and addition to, and furnishing of the Court House. They arc suminerized in Schedule H of the statements prepared and submitted by Mr. Herrick, the accountant employed by the County Commissioners. 1 cannot make them any 08 tions. Tin I wish to read them here in ("Tiler t the i mmitt< m;i tly the position which we un- md had a right to take, i m this work. NJ M rsi I reread I e statemei red by Mr. Herrick, which led. With tl I Li 1S95, therefore, all the expenses were iet oni of the i ; and and the money available, and legally avail- ich the money was spent; and the result, as ?tated, is tl I I i mnty has obtained this building without the incurring of any per - 25,000, which will be paid in the course ol d it while it holds the lowest rate of taxation of any county in this state. N i County, as yon ■ee from di - paratively small amount for this temporary pur taxation is the of any county in 1 - ' transfer of balances is t'er at all, that whatever was done by the Commis 1 he money had been the law as d prior to the : be a si retch of the pro' I duty d the Con es msible -■ • r lission. meaning by that ■ ent. Unles means that irld had th< 1 build- [ the Co I at the least possibli ated by unworthy or iose was ad that _ i ertainly until the contrary is the statute si ■ found, the u with thi emnation : they ?e for it in the en eumstances u idei which ;sio > we iced, as that of men trying to do their duty. r the prosecuting counsel is thai the Com- the statute providing that contracts for public 5S i be a rded after advertisement in public newspapers. First ttention of I ! e to the fact that my brother in that Efi n nt times during the hearings. isi lj used the words ''public work'" in place of the words "pub- lic works'" which the si ;es. He has used the word "work"' in- B ii have helped using it intentionally, because he has sought to our a construction upon the statute which is not justified the f. The language of the statute is to be found in se-c- 59 tion 22 of chapter 22 of the Public Statutes. But I will read from ray brother's opening statement, wherein the section was correctly quoted: "All contracts for public works made by the Commissioners shall, if exceeding $300 in amount, be made in writing, after notice for proposals therefor has been published at least three times in some newspaper pub- lished in the county, city or town interested in the work contracted for." My brother has argued as if all contracts for any kind of public work— meaning by that any kind of public employment or public ser- vice or in regard to public property— must be in writing after advertise- ment therefor. If the Legislature had intended that it could easily have said so. If the Legislature had intended that County Commis- sioners should not have authority to spend more than $300 for any pur. pose unless after an advertisement in a newspaper and a contract there- for in writing, the statute would have said so. The statute does not say so, and no Board of County Commissioners, in Norfolk County or any other County in this State, has ever so construed the statute. Mr. Wiggin is certainly as experienced and as careful as any Commissioner could be. I do not claim that his opinion of the law is infallible, but I do submit that the construction of the law which he himself laid down and enforced during the term that he held this office— while perhaps not conclusive as to what. the law is— furnishes very strong evidence of what the correct construction by an intelligent man should be. My definition of that section is that all contracts involving the construction of any permanent public structures should be in writing. If a carpet is bought which cosr $350, it is not necessary to advertise for that : if a steam en- gine i.s put in which costs $500 or $1000, it is not necessary to advertise for that : if a room is painted, if any new furniture is bought, it is not necessary to advertise for those things. They are not public works. It is a perversion of language to call them public works. If my brother's construction and reading of the law was correct and the statute read •'public work.'' it might be different. Then he could say that anything that involved public service of over $300 needed to be in writing. But the statute means anything involving the construction of permanent structures. I agree that if the Commissioners propose to build a new building they ought to advertise for it. they ought to make a written contract for it. that that is what the statute contemplates. I am inclined to think that if they were to construct an important highway, county way. the statute contemplates that that should lie done, if done by contract certainly, after advertisement and by written contract. But I deny the proposition that any expenditure over $300 made by the County Commissioners is to be under written contract : and I point to the invariable practice of the County Commissioners of that county, and I might say of all other counties, as sustaining my proposition. What contracts, then, if this definition is correct, fall under the class of those which ought to have been advertised"? The only con- tracts that ought to have been advertised were those that had to do 60 with the permanent building. And the} wen- advertised. The Willcutt contracts were all of them let after advertisement, and all those con- tracts were in writing'- The Whitcomb contract was let after advertise- ment, and that contract was in writing. The Franklin contract, which to my mind is not a contract that needed to have been advertised, was advertised, or rather the bids for it were advertised, and that contract was in writing. No other contract was a contract for public, works. The contract with Wait & Cutter, for services as architects, was not a contract for public works. Who ever heard of such a thing as public officials advertising that bids will lie received from architects for plans and for prices in competition'? If such a thing was done, it is an un- worthy thing to do, which every architect of standing in his profession, and every other right-minded man, will condemn as improper, just as much as if a person were to advertise tor bids from a physician, com- peting bids for the cure of a. patient in his house. The work done by Mr. Keeler, in making furniture, was not a contract for public works which needed to lie advertised for, although the Committee will remem- ber that that was obtained only after competition with three of the best and most reputable dealers in this city. The contract with Haberstroh did not have to be advertised for. The contract for the various items of furnishing did not have to be advertised tor. Neither did the contract for putting in the jail electric plant which, as I have already argued. is outside of the province of t his examination— need to lie advertised for. The Committee will hesitate to adopt a construction of the statute so severe as to impose upon the County Commissioners duties, which no Board in this Commonwealth has ever fell that they were obliged to bear. I may refer, upon this point, to the evidence mentioned by my brother Grover, at page 1438 of Yol. L2, which was subsequently abun- dantly supported by the documentary proof which was put in, to the effect thai for years the County Commissioners have acted, not upon my brothei- Storey's construction of the law, but upon our construction of the law. On the 16th of March, 1889, the County Commissioners paid one Menhimick $840.20 for work at the Dedham jail. In July, 18S9, they paid Perry & Company $735 for piping in the jail. March 18th, oi the same year, they paid the same firm $2,531.45 for piping. October 7th, 1891, they paid A. II. Davenport, for a counter and gate, s;;i;:,. February 4, 1889, they paid one Fales, for bricking around the boiler, etc., $655. On the 31st of January, 1889, they paid a bill— and Mr. Grover quotes it exactly- "To merchandise as per bill rendered, $1,400." July LO, 1S89, they paid John T. Langford, for piping for the water works, $3,220.97. March 8th, ISS9, they paid the Sawyer-Mann Electric Company $2,803.S8. March -nth., LS89, they paid the Exeter Machine Works, for engine, etc., $489.35. They paid Mr. Davenport for furniture, $1,542. None of those bills were paid under written contracts ; none of those were paid upon bids advertised for. And they did not need to lie advertised. Nobody ever thought at that time of any such construction of the statute. It 01 remained for my brother, in his search for something on which to hang these Commissioners, to set np a construction of the law against the language of the statute, against the practical construction of the statute, and against the reason of every sensible man. When the law provides in terms that no county commission shall spend more than $300, unless they have advertised for competing bids upon the subject matter of the expenditure, and have made a contract for that expendi- ture, it will be time enough to seek to convict a Board of violation of duty in that regard, because they did not advertise. But, under the present law, there was no such necessity resting upon the Board. The seventh specification against the Commissioners is a violation of the statute in not delivering bills or vouchers to the County Treas- urer. He says that the bills or vouchers were not delivered to the County Treasurer. The language of the statute is, the bills or evidence of the indebtedness. And it does not require both . It may be the bills, the itemized bills, or it may be the evidence. And one is a sufficient compliance with the law. The whole of this charge, Mr. Chairman, rests upon the fact that the County Commissioners, until the final settlements with the different contractors were made, did not deliver to the County Treasurer the itemized bills of their different payments. They did, in everp instance, delivec the certificate of the architect in re- gard to the amount due. My contention is, that that was a full com- pliance with the law. It was the ordinary way in which work of this kind is done. It is testified to by Mr. Willcutt and I think by the archi- tect, that that is the way in which all large public works are constructed. And any man who is building a house with the assistance of an archi- tect, knows that he never sees an itemized bill, — I won't say it is so with all men, but it is the experience of many that they never see an itemized bill until they make their final settlement, and that they rest upon the. honesty and the fidelity of the architect to scrutinize those bills, and pay upon their certificates and rest upon them until the final settlement is made. For what purpose is an architect employed, except to examine the work as it progresses, and the charges that are presented, and to certify to the parties who employ him how much is due ? What higher evidence of the indebtedness is there than his certificate ? And when the County Commissioners took that certificate, and examined as they did in every instance, the bills in the architects' hands to satisfy themselves that they conformed to the amounts certified, and then handed that certificate, with their approval, to the County Treasurer, what higher evidence could they furnish to the County Treasurer of the amount which he should pay than what they did furnish? It is per- fectly true that the County Commissioners did not, as the work pro- gressed, furnish itemized bills to the County Treasurer, and they were not in his possession. But it is also true that they were in the posses- sion of the architects, that the architects examined the bills and exam- ined the work ; and that Mr. Morrell personally went to the architects' office and compared the amount of those bills with the amount of the 62 certificate, in order to have, in addition to the guarantee of the archi- tects' certificate, the evidence id' his own senses that the bills were right ; and then, upon that evidence, certified the architects' certificate, and that that voucher went to the hands of the County Treasurer, and the payment was made upon it. In the early part of this hearing there was some talk about the looseness of the business methods of the County Commissioners. I un- dertake to say that that is the best order of business, that no better system could be devised and that no better system is acted upon. And I will venture to say that every large building in this city, including this State House, is being erected to-day under precisely the same system of accounts. I believe that if you were to examine you would find that the Commissioners of this State House furnish to the Treasurer no other evidence as a voucher to him than the architects' certificates which they have approved. And I am sure that in the erection of all large buildings that is the universal practice. I may remark in passing that it is not a question before this Com- mittee whether the County Treasurer has complied with the statute requiring him to keep on tile itemized bills. If that question should arise, it would have to be in some other investigation and would he a subject for independent examination. I have nothing to say about it here. The only matter involved in this inquiry is the conduct of the County Commissioners ; and what 1 claim is, that they have fully com- plied with the provision of the Public Statutes which my brother relies upon, that the bills of evidence of County indebtedness tor which pay- ment was ordered should be delivered, with the order, to the Treasurer. The eighth charge is as follows. It is found on page 1414:— "The next charge which I think my brother must be prepared to meet is a charge that in this matter the interests of the County have heei i left absolutely without protection at the hands of the County Com- missioners; that the money expended upon this Court House has been expended far in excess of a reasonable price for what the county has re- ceived; in other words, that the extravagance has been gross." In answer to that I have first to submit that the question of extrav- agance or the economy employed in the construction of this building is not involved in this inquiry, except so far as it may tend to support and to prove a charge of fraud. If my brother, from any evidence in regard to extravagance, has been able to convince this Committee that these Commissioners have violated the statute in respect to any corrupt use of the public money, then! agree that evidence relating to gross and ex- travagant expenditure is competent to aid him in establishing that pro- position. But, as an indepenpent fact and charge, it is not within the province of this Committee or of the Legislature, and it has nothing to do with the question of the comparative cost, or economy, or extrava- gance of a building in Norfolk County. That is a matter winch lies be- tween the < lounty Commissioners and their constituents. If the County Commissioners, being charged with authority under the statute to spend 63 money for certain purposes, spend it foolishly or extravagantly, their constituents will call them to account for it very soon, and that is the only remedy that there is. It might be that it would be a good plan that all expenditures should be voted by the County itself. But under our system of government that, has never been found practicable; and, as you all know, from the beginning it has been the practice for appropria- tions to be made by the Legislature, although the sums are required to be raised by taxation of the county. My brother makes this charge in the most sweeping manner. Listen to it again : " In this matter "—that is, in the construction of the Court House and in the repairs of the building and in its furnishing— " the interests of the County have been left absolutely without protection at the hands of the Couuty Commissioners, and the money has been expended far in excess of a reasonable price, and the extravagance has been gross.*' Mr. Chairman, no greater misrepresentation of the facts has been made from the beginning to the end of this case, than that. I will shotv you by the figures that it is absolutely unsu pported by one shread of credible evidence, and that my brother ought to apologize to this Board and to their con- stituents for that charge against them. The interests of the County left absolutely without protection, this building built at an extravagant cost, when, as I shall show you, the interests of the County have been guarded at every point, and the expenditure has been the lowest practi- cable sum on almost every item involved. I showed you, gentlemen, that $228,000 of this entire cost, more than two-thirds of the entire cost, was paid to Mr. Willcutt, or the firm of Willcutt & Son. I have shown you that that sum was principally for contract work, and that it was done under a competition with the best known and most reputable builders in the state. Two-thirds of this entire cost paid to a builder of the highest standing, competing with other builders of the highest standing, and yet my brother makes this charge! The next considerable item of cost was over $.",11,000, paid to Mr. Whitcomb, the carpenter, a brother of a member of the late Commission on the enlargement of the State House, against whom my brother has not suggested any word of blame or censure. And that makes $278,000 out of a total cost of $338,000 for the construction of the building. Now, Mr. Chairman, I have one word further to submit. This in- quiry has been going on now for over a month. My brother has had all the resources of the Commonwealth for any reasonable expense that might be incurred. It would be a very simple matter for him to rind a mason or builder, who, upon examination of that building, would say that Mr. Willcutt' s charges were unreasonable. And yet he has called nobody here to show that fact; not one man is produced here. He charges extravagance in the amount paid to Mr. Willcutt upon these several contracts, and for these extras, and he charges it without one particle of testimony to support it ; not a single man called to sustain that charge. Was there extravagance in connection with Mr. Whit- 04 comb's contract? Why not call some carpenter to examine that work and say so ? My brother's position as a lawyer is an eminent one ; I do not wish to detract in any way from that. But the assertion of no counsel, however eminent, counts for evidence, or is a substitute for evidence. He cannot fairly and honestly ask this Committee to con- demn this work as extravagance, the work performed by Mr. Willcutt and by Mr.Whitcomb, in the face of the fact that it was performed under competition, and given to the lowest bidder, and that he does not call a single witness to say that there was a dollar of unnecessary expense in- volved. In that connection, let me say a word about this much talked of matter of Mr. Bate's sub-contract with Mr. Willcutt. Mr. Willcutt's contract for the front part of the Court House included not only the mason work, but the plumbing, the steam heating and the electric wir- ing, and Mr. Willcutt decided to make a sub-contract for that work. That was his business and nobody else's. lie had secured the contract from the County ; he was the lowest bidder. It was not the business of the County to say anything to him as to what lie should let out by sub-contract, or with whom he should con- tract. But he decided to let out those three jobs by sub-contract, and Mr. Bates figured upon that sub-contract. My brother asked Mr. Bate's if he was a plumber, or furnished electric wiring or steam heating, and he said no. Neither was Mr. Willcutt. When Mr. Willcutt contracted to put up that building, he was neither a plumber, a steam heater or an electric wirer, a plasterer or a painter. But it is the commonest thing in the world for those contracts to lie made with one man, because the owner desires the guarantee of a responsible person that the work shall be faithfully performed. He wants one man to look to. The County Commissioners had Mr. Willcutt to look to ; they had his bond to fall back upon. It was of no consequence to them who did the work for him, or what sub-contracts were made. Mr. Bates did make a sub- contract with Mr. Willcutt for $13,229, which covered the plumbing, the steam heating, and the electric wiring; and he himself then contracted with William Lurali & Company to do the plumbing, and Sanborn to do the steam heating, and with Fuller to do the electric wiring. And he testified, under oath, before you, that his entire profit on the whold con- tract was $500. Now, my brother will say that he does not believe that. Assuming that he does not, how does he prove an affirmative proposi- tion by saying to this Committee that he does n >t believe t lie evidence of a person whom he calls as a witness. Again, on this point of extravagance, the next largest item of the expense was $20,227.21 paid to Franklin. Is my brother going to say there was any extravagance there '.' Why, the only question raised about Franklin is this, that Mr. Tudor, the experienced and competent expert upon the ventilation and heating of the building, condemned a portion of Mr. Franklin's work and required it to be taken out. that al- lowance had to be made bv Mr. Franklin on his contract for that work ; 65 and that, instead of it, was substituted the new work done by Bates. Certainly no extravagance so far as Franklin was concerned. And now, Mr. Chairman, you have covered the three items which take the most of the money, $228,000, $50,000, $20,000. What then re- mains ? I may add, perhaps, in passing, because I will dispose of it here, that my brother made a considerable complaint and will perhaps say considerable about the cost of the new work performed by Mr. Bates. Mr. Bates did that work for $1,118; that is to say, he obtained a fan from the Sturtevant Company, and he put in his own skilled mechanics, and that was a considerable part of the work ; and he charged $1,118 for it. Part of that item was paid by the allowance from Mr. Franklin's con- tract. Hamilton A. Hill, a competent expert, says that a fair price for the work, without allowing anything for profit, was $895. Mr. Webber, called as an expert by the prosecution, says (Vol. 0, p. 1022) the fair price was $1,022 for that work. In other words, all the talk of extrava- gance about that item of the fan— and the Committee will remember how many times the changes have been rung on that fan, amounts to a difference between their expert and our contractor of less than $100. The next largest item about which complaint is made is the bill of Wait & Cutter, for architects' services. They were paid $17,000.40. It is admitted that that amount is less than five per cent, on the entire work. It is admitted that nobody was employed as inspector on the building, and it is common knowledge, as testified to by the architects, that in the construction of large buildings now-a-days, it is usual and proper to em- ploy an inspector, who has, in addition to the architect's commission, a regular sum for constantly watching the building. Witli some personal experience myself in the construction of large buildings, and with the general knowledge which everybody has about buildings, I undertake to say that no building of the size and importance of this Court House would be constructed in Suffolk County to-day. whether by the City, or the State, or individuals, where there would not be paid, in addition to the architect's commission of five per cent., the sum of two, three, or four thousand dollars a year for the services of a competent man to be present on the work all the time, and watch every stone which was put into it, and every piece of work which was done by the mechanics. Now, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, it is common knowledge that an architect is entitled to be paid ten per cent, commission for his services in connection with the furnishing of buildings. And you will find that in our best buildings, public or private, where an architect is called upon to exercise his ekill and taste and give his time in the selec- tion of papers, of carpets, or furniture, his charge is ten per cent, and not five per cent. So that in this particular case the amount which was charged by these architects was the lowest charge which could be made on the basis of a commission. What is the whole point made about this payment? Why, Mr. Chairman, I should lie thoroughly ashamed of Norfolk County if it 06 i justify the position thai has been taken in this case, thai the archib < ts should have been held down to the written contract made in January, 1S02, to do this work for $:>300. I should lie ashamed of Nor- folk County if it had set up any such defence to the claim of the archi- tects. There are some obligations that are more binding' than written contra< ts, and t his if one of them. These architects were asked to make some -preliminary sketches at a time when the whole expenditure in- volved was $ 05, 000 to $75,000; and the} were asked how much their charge would be. They said on the basis of $05,000 live per cent, com- nussion would be •i :!-!50, and that as thai was a comparatively small job, they ! bought t hey ought to be paid something for expenses in addition. and it was agreed that $50 should be added ; and a contract was then and there drawn, by which they bound themselves to do this work for i-y, :.oo. Now, gentlemen, instead of this being a work which involved only $05,000 to $75,0O0,as first contemplated, it involved work costing for the buiiding alone $3:58,000, for the work in connection with the jail $!KX'0 more, and for the furnishing, $44, (too more, a total of over $:3!>0.000. And the claim is that the Noil oik County Commissioners should have insisted on the letter of that contract when the architects asked to be paid for their more than three years of work, and plans which Mr. Cutter told you would in bulk equal the whole space of the cubic contents involved in the height of that table, and should have insisted that the} should have been paid stricth according to their contract. Wl at did these ( 'ommissioners do about that '.' They said, here is a question. Here is a written contract. Here, on the other hand, is our knowledge of the fact that the conditions have entirely changed since that contract was made. What shall we do :> The} did not act without consideration. The} went to two different counsel and got two written Opinions on the subject as to their obligation ; and those opinions have been lead in evidence before this Committee. Both counsel, each writing independently of the other, gave their written opinions to tin I i of County Commissioners that the contract in writing was not binding or conclusive; that the Norfolk County Commissioners were bound to pay, and the architects were entitled to receive, a reasonable compensation for their services. And it is admitted that the commis- sion paid was reasonable. ; e.ctravuganei on the luirt of l hi Commissioner* to [wnj >/< dniavij < sion, '//< lowest possible commission, for work of I hat hind .' I again that if Norfolk County, rich and prosperous and honorable as it is, could have been guilt} of the meanness as well as the la-each i if legal obligation in failing to meet a claim of the architects to be paid for three and a half years of service mi this building, the regular and iii-dinar. compensation, because of that written contract, it would sink low in iteem and in the esteem of every reputable citizen ol ( 'oimnoiiwealth. Then it is claimed that there was extravagance in respect to the ,l pi ruiedb} Keeler »x Co. Now, Mr. Chairman. I call your 67 tion one moment to that, because there has been more said about that, publicly and privately, than about any other work done in this case. And I want every man who hears me to feel that I state the facts exactly as they are, and to say after they are stated that there; isn't any answer to the proposition that that work was all economically, reasonably and honestly done, and that there was no justification for this charge. The whole amount paid Keeler & Co. was paid to cover all the fur- niture that they put in, and all the permanent fixtures, and it amounted to $44,270 29. It included two items, one of $575, for polishing- floors, and the other of $245 for the furniture in the safe, making a total of $820, which, for purposes of comparison with the experts, I will deduct from the total amount paid, leaving $43,450.29 as the total expenditure on the furniture and furnishing. The carting is also included in this amount, and should be deducted. Now, Mr. Chairman, recollect that from the beginning to the end of Mr. Buzzell's examination, attempts were made to throw discredit upon him and to impute some fraud or misconduct on the part of Keeler & Co. Bear in mind again that they are a firm which rank with A. H. Davenport & Co., Irving & Casson and Doe & Hunnewell, and that they competed with those firms for the original contract, and were the lowest bidders. Bear in mind the further fact that every article of furniture and furnishing is stated specifically in the bills as they are upon the records of the County Commissioners, that the charge for every article is there stated, and that my brother lias had the opportunity to send, and has sent, persons to the Dedham Court House who have counted every table and every chair, and for aught I know every cushion and every smaller or larger tiling that is there. Moreover, he has had an opportunity to call experts without number to value those articles, and we have furnished letters to persons whom they desired to send there that every facility might be given them in their investigation. And I want to say to start with that he has not been able to find a furniture dealer in Boston or anywhere else who is willing to come here and say that any item upon this schedule, or that the aggregate of this amount paid, was not true and honest and reason- able, not one. If my brother intends to claim that there is anything about this charge of Keeler & Co. that is unreasonable, I have to say that he lias had every opportunity to produce evidence, and he /ins not pro- duced a particle. My brother does no! try cases ordinarily in that way. He dots im' comt in and make charges, and then., failing to support flu m by < r'ah nee, clost by arguing upon hisown charge that tin charge is supporU d. But what have we done? We on our part undertook to have these articles examined and valued. We called Mr. Beckford, who is in the employ of Doe & Hunnewell, one of the competitors of Keeler & Co., with no interest, certainly, to magnify the excellence of Keeler's work, or to overstate the reasonable cost of it Mr. Beckford went out there and examined the furniture and furnishings in two afternoons. He was not able in that time, as he stated, to value each article in detail, but he used his experience and judgment as a furniture man in the examination lis (it the property that was there, and he put upon the whole an estimate of $4(5,712. My brothers think it was very funny that he put his esti- mate in that form. Where is their estimate of the value of this prop- erty ? Where is their expert to prove how much this property is worth? They ask you to brand these commissioners with extravagance about this work, and they do not produce a man who has been out thereto examine it and to say what it is worth. On the contrary, I have a right to charge, and I do charge, that they have failed to get a man who was willing io put a valuation on that property less than what Iveeler & Co. charged for it. Then you have Mr. Casson, of the firm of Irving & Casson, one of the best known and most reputable dealers in this city, one of the com- petitors of this work, who went out there and examined this work after it was performed, and he testifies that in his opinion the whole amount of that work was worth $42,501. That is his estimate in detail as against an actual charge of S43.450.29, which charge included, as I am informed, some small items which were not considered by Mr. Casson. Talk about extravagance in this work, when you have a competitor, and a man of experience like .Mr. Casson, coming m and giving that estimate! Here is l he most vulnerable point in my brother's case. Here is the one tiling against which he has levelled his batteries from beginning to end. Keeler&Co! Mr. Buzzell! Mr. Kuzzell's books! And so on. He has tried to lead you away from the main point under consideration. The main point is not Keeler A: Co.'s books, or their business, or their gen- eral appearance here. The main question is,— Did they furnish that fur- niture for the Court House? Are their prices reasonable, or are they extravagant! And that issue my brother has not met, and he cannot meet it except to admit he has failed. There is nothing in this case, Mr. Chairman, at once so surprising and so unreasonable as to persist in claiming anything extravagant in rhe cost of this furniture put in by Keeler & ( !o., when you have the es- timate by Doe <.V. Hunnewell. and Irving & Casson, that the prices were reasonable, and when they cannot find a man who knows anything about it to say that they were unreasonable. My brother has spent a lot of time talking about the cost id' pigeon-holes, and about the com parative cost of bookcases. lie asked one witness whether if one hook- case of a certain size cost one sum, it didn't seem unreasonable that another bookcase of another size should cost a. different sum. That is like the other question he put earh in the hearing, that if one school- house could be iiuilt lor a certain sum, what would it cost to build this Co i hi tlousc? Xo sense < f i report ion, no relation of question to answer, no connect ion between the charge and the proof ! Merely misleading, confusing inquiries and statements, trying to get you to try Keeler & Co. on their private affairs instead of meeting the issue which he has evoked of whether or not Keeler cv. Co. charged a reasonable price for their u or! . Then lake Mr. EloHings, My brother has not only charged the Com- (39 missioners with extravagance, but he has charged Mr. Rollings with fraud— one of the most, I dislike to use offensive language, but I will say one of the most unfounded of all the unfounded charges in this case. Here is Mr. Hollings, known to every man within the sound of my voice as one of the leading business men of the city of Boston ; a man who has done more than any other concern in this city in the way of furnishing large public buildings and private buildings with gas and electric fixtures ; a man everywhere respected, of good standing, whose record has never been questioned. And yet my brother in his final charge, to which I shall refer again, says this man has been guilty of fraud. And this examination lias been pursued down to the point of the suggestion that there were too many lamps in one of the rooms, and that they might have saved the cost of a globe here and there. If my brother is going to testify as to his experience in house building, per- haps he will tell the Committee whether he always found it possible to know beforehand just where to make the outlets for his gas fixtures and electric fixtures, just how many he needs, what kind of burners, and where he needs them ; and perhaps he will tell the Committee whether or not he has sometimes found his most elaborate fixtures come out be- hind a bed-post. The fact is that all those things are liable to bo erroneously placed. The fact is that nobody can tell beforehand as to just what will be required. The question is not whether these details are all just as they should be ; the question is whether in the aggregate the entire cost involved here is reasonable or not. Mr. Hollings was paid $6693.59. Half of that was paid under a con- tract which he obtained in competition with the leading concerns in the city, including McKenny & Co. and Shreve, Crump & Low. I shall not spend any time over that. My brother has had opportunity to send any number of electric men out there, and they would have told you if there was anything unreasonable about that charge. I come next to Mr. Bate's work at the jail. The total amount of that work was $6650, including the cost of the engine, dynamo, and so on. Hamilton A. Hill says that work was worth fairly $5720 without allowing any profit. Mr. Frye. the chief engineer employed by the United States upon its public buildings, gave you his estimate, which I do not at this moment recall, but it was substantially the amount of Mr. Bates' bills. Mr. Webber, the expert called by the other side, puts it at about $4000. But Mr. Webber, I think it was clearly shown, did not in- clude in his figures some of the items which entered into the final re- sult. But, supposing they have found one man, and he is the only man in the United States they have been able to get to testify to a single item of this whole work, supposing they have found one man who would ex- press his judgment now that work for which $6650 was paid was worth only about $4000? You have against that the opinion of two such men as Hamilton A. Hill and Mr. Frye that the work was worth substantially the amount paid. To So in regard to the carpets. My brother has succeeded in showing that in the case of $1695 worth of carpets bought of Pray & Sons, the firm charged the retail price, and he has brought Mr. Randall, one of the firm of Pray & Sons, here to say that they charged more than they ought to have charged for them. Mr. Morrell and the County Commis- sioners are not to be blamed if they have been jewed by one firm in the price of a class of goods which they are not acquainted with. Mr Morrell is no more acquainted, I will assume for the purposes of this case, with the proper price of Turkish rugs, than he is with the value or the details of the mechanism of a watch- lie had some carpets to buy for the ( 'ourt House, lie went to a man he supposed understood about it , who was in the business, and asked him to assist him. That man, having an eye for a commission, goes to Pray & Sons, and makes an arrangement by which he is to receive tlie whole amount of the profit, practically, that is to say, 25 per cent, of the price. And Pray & Sons, having in mind the fact that they are to give that liberal commission, charge the amount of the retail price. Now, I agree that if my brother had bought those carpets he would have bought them for three or four hundred dollars less, and to that extent the County has paid more than it ought to have paid. And that is the whole extravagance which has been proved in this case. It is the only item in the whole case. The Commissioners did pay three or four hundred dollars for those carpets more than they ought to have paid, and it is the only item upon which the proof is full. In regard to Mr. Haberstroh, there is no claim that his price was excessive. In regard to the small bills id' Mr. Hates, if you will take tin- trouble, as 1 think you will in fairness, to compare the estimates of Mr. Hill and of Mr. Frye and of Mr. Webber, with those of Mr. Bates, you will find that the differences are very slight. For instance, I have right be- fore me the price of Mr. Bates for the dynamo, heater, Knowles pump, piping, magneto, etc., and it is $1151. Mr. Hill estimated the price at $1150, and Mr. Webber put it at $1000. That is all the difference there is between them on that. On the engine, heater, piping, fan, and so on. at the jail, Mr. Bates 1 price was $1242. Mr. Webber himself puts the estimate at $1142. See what trilling differences, gentlemen, you come down to, that all that has been shown in the way of extravagance is at the outside a difference of three or four or live hundred dollars on some of these little items involved in these miscellaneous purchases and pay- ments. Finally on this matter of extravagant payment there was an intima- tion that the Commissioners had been extravagant in their use of the old furniture. My brother started out with the idea, apparently, that the Commissioners had furnished their houses with the old furniture from the Court llou.se. or that they had given it away in some reckless manner. What is the fact about it? First, the Davenport furniture, 71 which my In-other followed up with such detective skill, is all there in* the Court House. The Committee cannot fail to recollect the blank look with which my brother met the statement of Mr. Daniells that it was all there. Incredulous to the last, my brother was very slow to give it up, and yet we haven't heard a word about that Davenport furniture since we were told it was all there in the Court House. Every dollar's worth of furniture which has gone out of the Court House has gone out under the supervision of Mr, Daniells, who has been the custodian of that building for 17 years. The proceeds of every piece which has been sold have been turned into the County, and appear upon the records of the County Treasurer. The furniture has been used to furnish the Urookline Police Court room, in which my brother never practises, but it would be worth his while to go there once to see how handsome it has been made by this old furniture from the Dedham Court House. The Quincy District Court has been furnished partly from the Dedham Court House, and the Stoughton District Court has been practically fur- nished altogether by the old furniture from the Dedham Court House. Now, Mr. Chairman, i have left myself a few minutes only to con- sider the second branch of the case, which, however, can be discussed very briefly because there is so little of it. r have said that this inquiry involves a charge of fraud, — a charge so gross tha« the charge itself answers the proposition. Nobody is going to believe the charge when it involves everybody concerned in the construction of the building. When my brother says that Wait & Cutter, and Willcutt, and Hates, and Sanborn, and Keeler, and Rollings, and Pray, have all been guilty of fraud, and the Commissioners have been colluding with them or re- ceiving commissions from them, we all know that there is nothing in the charge. It does not need any argument, it does not need any evi- dence ; you know it is not true. My brother has had access to almost every private account. He has looked over all the letters of Mr. Wait and of Mr. Cutter, he has had their private books covering years, and what is the result ? He fastened on Ah-. Wait one check for $4000, and intimated by his questions and his manner that th?t #4000 had been paid to the Norfolk County Com- missioners. Mr. Wait said that it was very mortifying to him to have his private matters exposed, but that so long as the question had been asked, he would repel the suggestion by telling the truth ; and he told you in regard to every dollar of that money, what it was drawn for, and where it was deposited. And if his statement was not true, the treas- urers of the different savings banks in which the deposits were made would have been here to disprove it. Mr. Cutter's private books of ac- count were in the hands of brother Storey for three or four days, and no suggestion is made that Mr. Cutter paid out a dollar improperly. Was it fair, then, Mr. Chairman, in the face of that evidence, for- my brother to say he charged Wait & Cutter with fraud in relation tO' the County Commissioners. Then in regard to Mr. Dates. What is the charge against Mr. Dates'?- i -1 first, that he lives in Hyde Park. Whenever my brother has been at a loss for anything to charge or intimate against a witness, he asked him if lie didn't live in Hyde Park. Early in this hearing living in Wakefield was n reprehensible and criminal offence; one or two witnesses were asked if they didn't live in Wakefield. Now, Mr. Dates lives in Hyde Park, and Mr. Morrell lives in Hyde Park, and Mr. Hamilton A. Hill lives in Hyde Park; and because they all live in the same town therefore they have conspired to cheat the County of Norfolk. That is the argu- ment. Mr. Pates is a large manufacturer. He carries on an important work. The Pates Machine Company is one of the best known and most reputable establishments in the state. It has furnished labor and mate- rials for Norfolk County for years before Mr. Morrell was a member of the Board, and while Mr. Wiggin was Chairman. Mr. Franklin, himself, bought the engine he put in under his contract with the County Com- missioners oi the Pates Machine Company. Mr. Pates stands as well as any other man. We have nothing to do with Mr. Pates' reasons for not wanting to show his books or to be examined about his profits. Some men are ven pari icular about these things. Some men like to hand over all their private accounts and checks to other people to examine. My brother Storey would like nothing better than to hand over all the checks i.i his o;iio you think that these men have not families and friends, these Com- missioners, these architects, these contractors, these merchants, these mechanics, and that they do not suffer as much as you would if it was intimated in the newspapers that you had been paid a bill twice, or that you had charged an exorbitant sum, or that you had given a bribe, or thai you had received a bribe? I chum that this review shows that these charges are absolutely without foundation. I beg you not to imitate the example of the city government of a neighboring city winch, having such matters before it, failed to do justice in his lifetime to a worthy man charged with fraud, so that that man died by his own hand by reason of the shame and grief and mortification brought upon him by unjust charges, but that you will be ready and prompt, here and now, not to visit these men with cen- sure, but to say that they have done well, that thej have earned the gratitude of the County, and that t he only rebuke to be administered at your hands, should be to thosewho have made these groundless accusa- tions. REPORT OF W. IT. HERRICK. SCHEDULE A. COST OF COURT HOUSE FOR NORFOLK COUNTY, .MASS. Under Contracts and Miscellaneous Expenses, First Contract, dated April 28, 1892, made with Lyman D. Willcutt $8,776 00 Extras under this contract : Cesspools 782 00 Foundations 778 72 $10,331 72 Second Contract, dated July 19, 1892, made with Lyman 1 >. Willcutt $79,250 00 Extras under this contract 2,806 47 $82,056 47 Third Contract, dated July 25, 1893, made with B. 1). Whitcomb & Co $47,811 00 Extras under this contract 2,496 29 . $50,307 20 Fourth Contract, dated July 25, 1S93, made with Albert B. Franklin $18,987 00 Extras under this contract 1,240 21 $20,227 21 Fifth Contract, dated February 6, 1894, made with Lyman 1). Willcutt & Son $105,292 00 Extras under this contract 31,056 7<> _ $136,348 70 Sixth Contract, dated January 23, 1894, made with Keeler & Co $12,980 00 Extras under this contract 31,290 29 $44,270 29 Seventh Contract, dated February 20, 1804, made with 11. Hollings & Co $3,242 20 Extras on contract, 193 50 " front of building 3,258 09 $G : 693 59 Eighth Contract, dated February 19, 1895, made with L. Haberstroh & Co $3,000 00 Extras under this contract 35 00 $3,035 00 Miscellaneous Expenses 12,648 25 Wait & Cutter, Architects 17,909 40 Total cost of Court House $383,827 92 To show the total expenditure, we add this amount, which is classed as doubtful, as being part of cost of Building 0,888 17 $393,710 09 76 April 24, 1S02. Contract foe Excavating and Foundation of Rear Portion of Court House. Lyman D. Willcutt, Contractor. ( First Contract, i Contract, $8,776 00 Extras: Ruilding Cesspools, as per agreement, .. . 782 00 Building new foundation under side walls of rear of old building 773 72 — $10,331 72 Credit. I >y cash payments : July 2(5. 1802 $5,000 00 November 4, 1802 2,000 00 December 27, 180:: 1,750 oo .Inly .".I. 1894 1,581 72 Contract foi: Constructing Rkai: Portion of the Court FIouse. Lyman D. Willcutt & Sou, Contractors. Second Contract, i Contract $70,250 00 Extras o,800 -17 $S2,056 17 < redited by cash : \o\cnilicr 7, 1S02 $ 4,000 00 December 15, 1892, 15,000 no February 21, 1S03 10,000 00 Api'il 4, 1803 5,0nn oo July 11, ISO::, [0,500 00 September 5, 1S03, 5,000 00 September 5, 1803, s,000 oo ( )ctober 17. 1803, 4,000 oo December 20, 1S03, 4,500 00 January 30, 1804 12,000 00 April 17, 1S04, 3,000 00 July 31, 1894 1,056 17 $82,05(1 47 77 July 25th, 1893. Contract for Finishing the Interior Rear Portion of the Court House. B. D. Whitcomb & Co., Contractors. (Third Contract.) Contract $47,81 1 00 Extras 2,49(3 29 * 50, 307 29 Credit. By cash: February 27, 1894 $8,500 00 March 20, 1894 13,500 00 May 1, 1894 0,000 00 July 10, 1804 12,000 00 Mav 7, 1895 7,307 20 $50,307 29 Contract for Heating, Pi/umbing, Electric Wiring for the Rear Portion of the Court House. A. B. Franklin, Contractor. (Fourth Contract.) Contract $18,987 00 Extras 1,540 57 $20,536 57 Credit. By cash : October 17, 1893 $3,500 00 November 14, 1803 2,500 00 December 27, 1893 2,000 00 March G, 1894 6,500 00 October 31, 1S04 4,000 00 November 20, 1894 1,727 21 $20,227 21 Settled for this sum. 78 Februarj 6th, ism. contract koi! tiik construction am) interior finish complete of tiik Front Portion of tup: Court Hoi se. Lyman I». Willcutt & Son, Contractors. (Fifth Contract.) Contract $105,292 00 Extras 31,056 70 $136,348 TO Credit. I5y cash : June 12, 180-1 $13,500 00 July 10, 1894 12,000 00 Jul} 31, IS94 4,500 00 ( )ctober 2, 1894 20,000 00 November 20, ism 12,000 00 December 4, 1894 12.072 95 February 5, 1895 15,000 00 April 9, 1895 18,000 00 July 2, 1895 2,986 50 July Hi, 1895 12,000 00 .Inly 16, 1895 1,000 00 January 1, ism; 12,689 25 $130,348 « (l Contra* t for the Furniti i;i. of the C01 rt Hoi se. Keeler & < 'o., ( lontracl ors. (Sixth Contract. 1 Contract $12,9S0 00 Extras 31.290 29 ■ $44,270 29 Credit. By cash. April 4, 1894 $3,000 00 April 17, 1894 2,:.oo 00 May 1, 1894 2,000 00 July 31, 1894 652 50 October 2, ism 6,000 00 1 >ecember 1. 1894 2,000 00 March 5, 1895 ($,000 00 March 19, 1895 8,000 00 April 23, 1895 5,000 00 July 9, 1895 6,500 00 October 22, 1895 2,000 00 January 1, 1896 617 79 $44,270 29 79 February 20th, 1804. Contract for Furnishing Gas and Electric Fixtures for Rear Portion of the Court House; also for the Front Portion. R. Hollings & Co., Contractors. ( Seventh Contract. Contract, date February 20, 1894, $3,242 00 Extras, 193 50 3.25S 09 $6,693 59 Payments under R. Hollings & Co. Contract. Credited by cash : April 15, 1804, $ 500 00 May 1(5, 1804, 800 00 October L6, 1894 1,000 00 January 10, L895 1,000 00 May 21, 1805, 2,000 00 January 21, 1800 1,393 59 $6,693 59 Contract for Frescoing the Court House. L. Haberstroh & Son, Contractors. I Eighth Contract . Contract, $3,000 00 Extras, 35 00 $3,035 ., umbrella, stands, Frederick Tudor,plans for heating and ventilating, Thomas Corrigan, grading grounds, II. II. Cotton & Co., rugs, Thomas Corrigan, grading grounds William Hall iV Co., bronze and marble work $200 00 362 no 1,095 00 47 50 200 00 227 00 _"_'."> 00 1 1.". 50 1(37 00 100 OO 150 oo 100 00 100 oo 200 01, TTI 31 197 00 11' > 00 120 00 1,1 IS 37 7S5 oo 1 :>( i oo 20 01 21 H 1 00 1,042 93 IT To 21 00 200 00 2,2S9 25 20 25 590 10 183 1)0 $12,(J4S 25 81 Schedule D. Total Architects' Orders, Schedule B $358,023 88 Payments on Architects' Orders, Schedule C 7,894 64 Wait & Cutter, Architects, Schedule E 17,909 40 $383,827 92 Total Payments. Schedule E. Total Payments, including Payments to Wait & Cutter, Architects. 1892, $20,000 00 1892, $20,000 00 1893, 57,17.") 00 " 2,275 00 Wait & Cutter 1894, 171,151 it; 1893, 57,175 00 1895, 90, S91 73 " 000 00 .. st 1896, 14,70() 63 1894, 171,151 10 Wait & Cutter, 17,900 40 " 12,134 40 .. 1895, 96,891 73 $388,827 92 " 3,500 00 a a 1896, 14,700 63 $383, S27 92 Jan. 15, " 15. Feh. .), " 20, Mch. 5, April !), " 23, May 0, •' 17, " 17, " 21, " 21, " 21, " 21, " 21, June 4, Schedule F. Payments from January 1, 1895, to June 5, L895. U. X. Bates Machine Co., $1,118 37 R. Rollings & Co., 1,00 ) 00 Lyman I). Willcutt & Son, 15,000 00 A. A. Sanborn, 785 00 Keeler & Co., 6,000 00 •• S,000 )0 Lyman I). Willcutt & Son, 18,000 00 Keeler & Co., 5,00 I 00 Wait & ( utter 2,00 I 00 L. Ilaberstroh & Son, 2,000 00 15. I). Whitcomb & Co 7,307 A) E. C. Morris Safe Co. 150 00 Abram French Co., 20 04 L. Haberstron & Son, 692 71 " 342 29 Shreve, Crump & Low Co., 200 oO H. II. Cotton & Co., 1,042 D3 R. Hollings & Co., 2,000 00 Frederick Tudor 200 00 $70,85? i33 1 ineiits fro une 5, 1805, to January 1, IS9<>. Juik II, Frederick Endieott $47 70 12, Abram French Co. 21 on " 25, Thomas Corneal 2,2S9 25 Jul} 2, Lyman D. Willcutt &■ Son, 2,980 50 "' 9, Keeler & < o., 0,500 00 " ll, H. II. Cotton & C< 20 25 " 10, Thomas Corrigan •"''• || ' 10 '• io, Lyman I). Willcutt & Son 13,000 00 Sept. :;, William Hall & 183 00 Oct. 22, Wait & Cutter, 1,500 00 Oct. 22, Keeler a\ me ' for 1895, $70,85S 03 29,533 10 $100,391 73 Sfln tilth II. Statement of Balances and Appropriations Available for Defraying ( st of Court House. 1892. Jan. 1 : Cash kdance, $20,173 35 I nat< s to ! -'^ Additi ins to Court House, 35,000 00 Repairs 5,000 00 $00,173 35 : deil $28,275 00 on other C ountyBuild- ings, 1,057 03 Leaving for general balance, Jan. I, 1893,.. $30,841 32 1893. Jan. I. Cash kdance, $71,202 52 Estimates for 189;] Repairs and FurnishingCountyBnildings, $25,000 00 Additions to Co rt House 13,000 00 $109,202 52 Expended, . .. $57,175 00 Repairs County '..Mings, 1,003 45 58,778 45 Leaving for general balance Jan. 1, 1894,... $50,484 07 83 L894. •Tan. 1. Cash balance, $47,483 85 Estimates for 1804: Additions to County Buildings, $27,000 00 Repairs and furnishing 15,000 00 Loan on 10 years' time, 125,000 00 $214,433 85 Expended, $183,285 56 Repairs 507 54 457 34 184,250 44 Leaving for general balance, Jan. 1, 1805... $30,183 41 18! 15. •Ian. 1, Cash balance, $40,080 05 Estimates for 1895 : Additions to Court House 10,000 00 Repairs 20,000 00 * 70, 080 95 Expended, $100,391 73 of which there appears in mis- cellaneous charges, 6,056 15 $04,885 58 General repairs 244 72 S!U,5S0 30 Less available funds, 70,080 95 Deficit, $28,940 85 Transferred from various accounts, per Schedule G. $24,000 00 Less deficit 23,940 35 $59 05 is; 15. Miscellaneous : Estimate, $3,000 00 Transferred as per Schedule ( r, 0,000 00 $0,000 00 Expended on Court House, 6,050 15 $2,943 85 Due on general miscellaneous account, — 2,862 20 $81 65 84 1895. Appropriation by Act passed by Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts, April 27, 1890; repairing, furnishing, and im- proving ( 'mint y buildings, $8,500 00 Expended in 1S9G, $14,700 63 8,500 00 Deficit in 1896 $11,200 63 There was a $75,000.00 loan authorized by the Legislature, March 19, 1892, that would be funded for a number of years, but no advantage was ever taken of it. Scheduh 1. Cost of Norfolk County Court House and furnishings, $383,827 ,| _ Court House $329,31S S2 Furnishings : Keeler & Co., $44,270 29 R. \ ilings & Co., .1. Ii. Pray, Sons A: Co., do.