F 198 
 
 • R79 The Washington City Ring, 
 
 Copy 2 — 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 HON. ROBERT B. ROOSEVELT, 
 
 OF NEW YORK, 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 
 
 FEBRUARY 11, 18T3; 
 
 ON THE AFFAIRS OF TOE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 F. & J. RIVES & GEO. A. BAILEY, 
 
 REPORTERS AND PRINTERS OE THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS. 
 
 1873. 
 
The Washington City Ring, 
 
 The House being in Committee of the Whole on 
 the state of the Union, and having under considera- 
 tion the Army appropriation bill- 
 Mr. ROOSEVELT said: 
 Mr. Chairman: I thank my colleague [Mr. 
 Wood] for his kindness in yielding me the 
 floor. I also wish to express my obligations 
 to the House for permitting me an opportunity 
 to reply to aspersions and malignities the 
 grossness of which has rarely and the untruth- 
 fulness of which has never been exceeded. 
 For weeks past the press of this city has been 
 filled with all manner of abusive and scurril- 
 ous attacks upon me for my course of action 
 in reference to the Board of Public Works in 
 this District ; for my efforts to expose the in- 
 iquities and outrages which are being perpe- 
 trated on the residents here, and the bold and 
 reckless way in which the money of the people 
 is being squandered by a ring of officials who 
 are appointed as a species of commission to 
 govern them, and whom they cannot remove. 
 I was fully prepared, in undertaking the 
 defense of the citizens of this District against 
 the Board of Public Works, to meet with 
 precisely the same treatment that I had en- 
 countered when battling against the prototype 
 of this board, the Tammany ring in the city 
 of New York. I anticipated that I should be 
 blackguarded and vilified. I anticipated that 
 a servile press would be used against me in 
 every possible way, and that all the influences 
 which could be brought to bear by the board 
 would be exerted either to force me out of the 
 contest, or to compel others from whom I had 
 to receive information to cease furnishing me 
 
 with it. But, sir, I have never yet been fright- 
 ened off by any such means. 
 
 We all know that a stream can never rise 
 above its source, and we may expect from foul 
 lips foul words. The gentleman who took 
 occasion — not the gentleman, I will not defile 
 the word by such a use of it — the person who 
 took occasion in one of the papers of the city a 
 short time ago to make most blackguard and 
 insulting allusions to me is the vice president 
 of the board, and as such is fond of building 
 sewers. I can only say that if he were to take 
 himself as a model he would make a sewer 
 that could carry more filth and dirt than the 
 thirty-foot Tiber span. A dunghill will be a 
 dunghill though you gild it an inch thieft 
 with gold stolen from the public treasury. 
 When ability seizes absolute power we admire, 
 although we may suffer and fear, but when 
 coarseness and vulgarity climb by devious 
 means and through roads leading directly 
 under the frowning walls of a State prison, 
 into prominence and influence, we expect them 
 to carry with them the slime and filth of the 
 gutter from which they sprang. I leave these 
 men to the laws. I make no attempt to bandy 
 words with them. I should not even have 
 noticed their attacks but that these were cal- 
 culated to affect legislation, and were care- 
 fully brought to the notice of all the members 
 of the House. By the connivance or neglect 
 of the Doorkeeper, and entirely contrary to 
 all propriety, the most contemptible of these 
 articles were allowed to be placed upon the 
 desk of every member, so that he could hardly 
 help seeing them. Apart from this, such scur- 
 
rilities, for they are nothing else, would not 
 be worthy of notice, for time will punish the 
 authors and vindicate my course of action. 
 
 Look at the Tammany ring in the city of 
 New York today. One man gone no one 
 knows whither ; lost to sight, but by no means 
 dear to memory, though he has been very dear 
 to the citizens of New York. Another one 
 standing face to face with the gloomy portals 
 of a prison. Others scattered, some here, some 
 there, their power broken, their followers 
 turning traitors and giving evidence against 
 them; the whole fabric of their evil grandeur 
 dissolved like a dream of the night, and pun- 
 ishment coming resistlessly and relentlessly 
 onward. I leave the board here to the same 
 fate, and wh^n I have closed these remarks I 
 shall have nothing further to 'say to them. 
 The laws will answer them much more effect- 
 ually than I can, and will answer them as cer- 
 tainly as retribution follows crime. It may 
 be sooner or later, but the titne will surely 
 arrive. I may not be a partaker in the triumph 
 of honesty. I may be even defeated, but 
 where I leave the work, other hands will take 
 it up and carry it forward. It will go on and 
 on until right and justice win the day. 
 "Though the mills of God grind slowly, yet 
 they grind exceeding small." 
 
 I shall now take up one or two of the 
 charges made in the newspaper press, such 
 only as I think worth answering, leaving the 
 rest to the contempt of silence, and occupying 
 the time of this House with personal matters 
 as little as possible. These charges are con- 
 tained in the publication of a pretended inter- 
 view with the person to whom I have already 
 referred. 
 
 The first charge brought against me by this 
 person was that I had applied for a position 
 for an individual by the name of Charles Riley 
 under the Board of Public Works. Is that a 
 charge of any consequence ? Is not every 
 member of the House guilty of the same act, 
 if it be an act to be ashamed of"? It is then 
 alleged that I was offended because his salary 
 was not sufficient, and a pretended conversa- 
 tion is given between him and some employe 
 of the board, in which he threatened them 
 with my vengeance. I have here the affidavit 
 of Mr. Riley utterly denying these charges of 
 threatening that I would attack the board if 
 he did not get an increase of salary, or avert- 
 
 ing that he had any influence over myself. He 
 denies the allegations made against him in 
 their whole scope and meaning, and he further 
 states what is the simple fact, and what I 
 hereby fully confirm, that from the day on 
 which he left the office to the time he made 
 this affidavit he has never spoken to me about 
 the Board of Public Works. I would not have 
 gone through the labor of this investigation 
 for ten times his salary, and the entire affair 
 is so trivial and so ridiculous that I shall not 
 even read his affidavit. 
 
 It is further intimated that I voted for a bill 
 to put the sum of $100,000 into the hands of 
 the Board of Public Works. They do not say 
 nor appear to know what that bill was, nor do 
 I ; but I can say this without trenching upon 
 the silence usually maintained regarding the 
 action of committees, that I believe I never 
 cast a vote for the Board of Public Works that 
 was not unanimous. But I am confident that 
 if I ever voted for such a bill, and it was so 
 profitable to the board, Mr. Riley would not 
 have been turned out of office by insufficiency 
 of salary. 
 
 It is further charged that I obtained by sur- 
 reptitious or indirect means proof-sheet copies 
 of the report of the board to the President, 
 that I had been using those proof-sheets dis- 
 honestly, deceiving this House, and doing in- 
 justice to the board. I have here on my desk, 
 and now hold up that members may see, 
 the four copies of the report of that board. 
 One of them, which was the first I obtained, 
 and I hence conclude the original one that 
 was issued and transmitted to the President, 
 has on it the name of the Philadelphia Ledger. 
 I do not know how it got to that office, and I 
 do not care to tell how it came into my hands. 
 Another has upon it the name of Hon. Luke 
 P. Poland, of Vermont. How I got it from 
 that gentleman is a matter between him and 
 me. But i f either of these was stolen from the 
 Board of Works or obtained by any improper 
 or indirect method, here is prima facie evi- 
 dence that it was so obtained by that gen- 
 tleman, or by some one iu the Philadelphia 
 Inquirer office. Of course the assertion, like 
 many others from the same source, is utterly 
 unfounded, and these reports were regularly 
 printed and issued. 
 
 All these four volumes are apparently sim- 
 ilar. Th-y r.re brand in the same way, except 
 
 
the one bound in boards. They have the same 
 indorsement. To the eye they seem one and 
 the same thing, and yet they are all different. 
 No two of them are alike. The litle-page 
 upon each copy is the same: " Report of the 
 Board of Public Works of the District of 
 Columbia, from its organization until Novem- 
 ber 1, 1872;" and yet on examination we find 
 strange and curious dissimilarities. In plain 
 words, these reports have been altered for a 
 purpose. Changes have been made with the 
 express intention of misleading this House 
 and covering up errors and misstatements 
 which had been exposed. In a previous 
 speech, when I bad only two of these reports 
 in my possession, I alluded to the fact that in 
 one copy a portion of the report, that contained 
 on the last page and giving the cost of much 
 of the work, had been suppressed because per- 
 haps it was supposed that it contradicted the 
 ] -oard of Public Works, who were demanding 
 ,ar higher prices from the Government. To 
 meet this that page is reproduced in the third 
 report, if I may designate them by the order 
 in which they were apparently printed, while 
 other alterations are made to counterbalance 
 it. I will call attention to the fact that I have 
 made three addresses — they were so hastily 
 delivered I cannot call them speeches — three 
 desultory series of remarks, and that the board 
 has made three corrected reports. 
 
 After every one of my addresses they got 
 aut a different report, adding to or changing 
 che figures, and then undertake to go before the 
 people or come into this House and say I have 
 falsified the record. Because the figures I give 
 ire not iu their second report, they cast in- 
 sinuations, with a truculence which accompa- 
 nies successful guilt, upon my accuracy. But 
 I shall leave this matter, reverting to it more 
 .n detail when I come to point out the precise 
 ilterations, in reply to the speech of the Del- 
 egate from the District of Columbia, made in 
 defense of the board and printed in the Globe 
 3f February 9. 
 
 I shall now take up another scurrilous in- 
 sinuation which was intended to reflect upon 
 my election. I received the nomination of all 
 :he Democratic parties in my district except 
 3ne faction of Tammany Hall which was in 
 -ebellion and was largely composed of the 
 worst elements. My election took place after 
 .he United States election law was passed 
 
 which provided for the selection of two super- 
 visors and the appoinment of ten deputy 
 marshals at each polling place. The statute 
 provided that' one of the supervisors should 
 be taken from each party and that these two 
 should count the votes, but when I applied 
 for the appointment of those in my interest 
 I was told that they had all been ''given" 
 to my adversary. This fact was stated by 
 me at the time, in a letter to the public, and 
 admitted to be true; so that all the super- 
 visors were wholly in the interest of my op- 
 ponent, and were selected by him or his 
 friends. There were over seventy polling places 
 in my congressional district; so that there 
 were appointed nearly one thousand men to 
 work and vote against me, men who were paid 
 by the United States and who had all the power 
 and authority of the Government behind them. 
 This advantage was used ruthlessly, my sup- 
 porters being arrested on every species of pre- 
 text, with or without foundation, and held in 
 $10,000 bail each — a bail it was impossible 
 for them to give. In one case the person 
 who had charge of the tickets for an entire 
 ward was seized at four o'clock of election 
 morning simply because he had changed his 
 place of residence, although it was as well 
 known that he resided there as that Horace 
 Greeley resided at Chappaqua. This was 
 carried so far that I was compelled to resort 
 to my rights under a State law which author- 
 ized candidates to appoint a person at each 
 poll to see the ballots counted. Under this 
 provision, I selected friends to discharge the, 
 duty of seeing a fair cu unt. They were refused 
 admittance to a few polls, which in every case 
 gave a heavy majority against me. In spite 
 of these difficulties, however, I carried every 
 ward included within my district and polled 
 10,702 votes, while my opponent only received 
 5,501, although he had the Republican nom- 
 ination, which usually carries between four 
 and five thousand. 
 
 But as insinuations have been made against 
 the integrity of my past public career, I will, 
 if the House will excuse the egotism, go over 
 a part of my personal history. I was always 
 a Democrat as I understood the meaning of 
 that term, a free-trade representative of the 
 rights of the people. During the rebellion I 
 was a war Democrat, being active in organ- 
 izing the war Democracy and being treasurer 
 
6 
 
 of the great meeting held in Cooper Institute. 
 I never believed that the old-fashioned fighting 
 Democracy should be led by or surrendered to 
 traitors, and gave time and money to help re- 
 cruit our armies. I helped organize the Loyal 
 National League, being president of the ward 
 association in my ward, and was one of the 
 founders of the Union League Club, leaving it 
 only when it became not a national but a parti- 
 san body. In local politics I was a reformer, 
 being one of the founders of the Citizens Asso- 
 ciation and on its executive committee till I 
 entered into more active political life. Then I 
 took part in the opposition to Tammany su- 
 premacy and became one of the leaders of the 
 party which was striving to purify Democracy. 
 When the grand uprising against the corrup- 
 tions of the Tammany ring took place I was 
 one of the two Democrats who spoke at the 
 first meeting at Cooper Institute at a time 
 when the enemy were still all-powerful and 
 when such a proceeding was a bold and dan- 
 gerous step. I was selected one of the Com- 
 mittee of Seventy, and was last fall intrusted 
 by my associates with the sole charge of organ- 
 izing the canvass for the reform candidate 
 at the mayoralty election, which resulted in 
 the crowning success of the work of reform. 
 Under such circumstances, and with such a 
 record, is it any wonder that I oppose the 
 Board of Public Works in this District. I 
 have grown into such a confirmed reformer 
 that I have even tried to reform the rules of 
 this House which make it so difficult for me 
 ever to get the floor, and to save the time 
 wasted in calling the yeas and nays, and to im- 
 prove the ventillation of this Chamber where 
 we are hourly being stifled by bad air. Such, 
 if the House will excuse me for referring to it, 
 is a brief record of my public life. Can the 
 gentleman who represents the District on this 
 floor point to a better one? I will at least 
 do him the justice to say that he also is cred- 
 ited with having had something to do with 
 recruiting. 
 
 I have now done with the charges contained 
 in the paper referred to, not answering the 
 rest simply because they are unworthy of a 
 reply. Lest the House should be misled, how- 
 ever, by the unanimity of the press in this 
 District in favor of the Board of Public 
 Works, I will refer to a fact that was proved 
 before thai committee of investigation last 
 
 year. An organized plan was made to subsi- 
 dize the press, $143,635 62 being paid nom- 
 inally in seven months, but really in about 
 three months, for that purpose. This was 
 mostly incurred when the board were try- 
 ing to induce the people to vote for their 
 $4,000,000 loan bill, and was spent in adver- 
 tising that loan, although it was perfectly under- 
 stood all the while. that not a dollar of it would 
 be negotiated in the District. 
 
 While speaking of that loan I may as well 
 explain why it was so generally approved — a 
 point that has been made against me on several 
 occasions. Tickets for and against the bill 
 were printed by the government; those in favor 
 of it were distributed, and those against it were 
 suppressed. The scheme was simple but effect- 
 ive, as every member of this House who has run 
 in a city district well knows. It was in speak- 
 ing of this attempt at purchasing the press 
 that I incurred the displeasure of my friend 
 Donn Piatt of the Capital, which had a hit at 
 me the other day. I have always admired the 
 brilliant editor of the Capital, and could for- 
 give his injustice for his wit ; but last year, in 
 a speech on District affairs, I mentioned the 
 fact that his paper had received its share of 
 the plunder. I said the Capital had received 
 $2,144 64 — I had almost forgotten the cents — 
 and that Donn Piatt seemed to have gone dog 
 cheap, for I considered him worth twice the 
 money. So I do ; but if he differs from me I 
 will retract and apologize ; he ought certainly 
 to know best. I owe an apology also to another 
 gentleman, from whom I received the follow- 
 ing note : 
 
 No. 1209, Sixteenth street, Northwest^ 
 Washington, D. C, June 8, 1872. 
 
 Dear Sir; I find in this morning's Patriot the 
 concluding portion of your speech upon frauds in 
 the District, delivered in the House of Bepresenta- 
 tives May 17, 1872, where the following inaccuracy 
 occurs: "Every paper, no matter bow petty or 
 worthless, had a share of the spoils;" also, of 
 course, the following sweeping sentence: "The 
 watch-dogs, great and small." &c, referring to the 
 papers aforementioned. 
 
 The truth in the case is that The Little Christian 
 Magazine, now suspended, of which I was the pub- 
 lisher, did not receive a single penny from these 
 spoils; neither could the whole of it. to use your 
 own expression, have bought it up. No, sir; it will 
 dye first, lean most positively assure you. You have 
 wronged me, sir. 
 
 Yours, very truly, VICTOR HANNOT. 
 
 Hon. B. B. Boosevelt, M. C. 
 
 I can only say that, to judge by the fact tha 
 the editor of The Little Christain Magazine 
 intended to "dye first," either he must have 
 been a " little off color" before, or I had some 
 
color for my charges. Seriously, however, I 
 do not mean to charge that respectable and 
 honorable papers may not receive advertising 
 from a person or a public body without sell- 
 ing their independence. But I do say that 
 $143,000 spent in this small city in a few 
 months only needed the confirmation of sub- 
 sequent acts of servility to be converted from, a 
 payment into a bribe. 
 
 I will now leave these personal matters and 
 proceed to answer the speech of the Delegate 
 from the District of Columbia, which was in- 
 tended as a reply to my first exposure of the 
 misstatements contained in the report of the 
 Board of Public Works. I shall confine my- 
 self to argument, paying no more attention to 
 his numerous unparliamentary insinuations 
 than I would to the barking of a yellow dog 
 running down Pennsylvania avenue. 
 
 He first charges me with making a misrep- 
 resentation, because I computed the hun- 
 dred and fifteen miles of pavement at thirty- 
 two feet wide. There is no doubt about there 
 being a misrepresentation, nor as to who made 
 it. .1 simply took it from the report of the 
 Board of Works, which contains these words : 
 
 " One hundred and fifteen and thirty-sixth hun- 
 dredths miles of improved carriage-way pavements, 
 resuming the same at thirty-two feet wide." (Page 8.) 
 
 If these figures are false, as I dare say they 
 are, I did not make them. The facts are known 
 only to the board, who put them in any way to 
 suit themselves. 
 
 He next denies my calculations of the 
 cost of improvements, pretending with true 
 Pecksniffian obliquity of mind to understand 
 me as referring to the expense of pavements 
 alone. I repeat that my calculations, which 
 were mainly based on the figures in the report, 
 were correct ; but I will now confirm them by 
 others. I said the board must have spent 
 from twelve to fourteen millions on streets 
 alone, and gave several modes of estimating 
 the amount. Without going over them again, 
 which would confirm them, but take too long, 
 I will add three other methods of computa- 
 tion. The reports of the board — all of them, 
 for a wonder — contain a table of the cost of 
 improving twenty-nine streets and one alley, a 
 length of 91,608 front feet— not linear feet, be 
 it understood, a deception which the board 
 will use unless I anticipate it. A comparison 
 of the distances on the accompanying tables 
 proves conclusively that a fost front is meant : 
 
 in other words, that both sides of the street 
 are measured. Half of 91,608 feet is eight 
 and a half miles, to which should be added by 
 the board's own estimate twenty per cent, for 
 intersections, giving about ten miles. At that 
 rate fifty-six miles would cost $13,337,995. 
 
 Again, I have received the assessments for 
 improvements on eight streets and two avenues 
 in addition to the four streets and one avenue 
 I gave before. These average $46 39, making 
 a total of $13,708,073. The gentleman who 
 gave me these tells me he asked for a copy 
 of all the assessments at the office of the 
 board, but was refused. This morning I was 
 handed three more assessments, the average 
 of which is still higher. 
 
 Mr. CHIPMAN. Will the gentleman state 
 from whom he received those assessments? 
 
 Mr. ROOSEVELT. No, I will not ; for I 
 understand that the Board of Public Works 
 would persecute the man. Men have come to 
 me with fear and trembling and asked me to 
 continue my efforts in this matter, but not to 
 disclose their instrumentality, because they do 
 not know what might happen to them. They 
 feel assured they would be nunished whenever 
 it might be within the power of the Board of 
 Public Works. 
 
 Now, gentlemen, these are not my figures ; 
 I have not made them up. I have taken them 
 from the board, either in the report or such 
 assessments as I have been able to get, or 
 which have been brought to me voluntarily by 
 gentlemen interested in this matter. 
 
 It is impossible to bring out any less result, 
 and the attempts of the gentleman only prove 
 this, for he has selected the two cheapest 
 streets in the city — Fourth and Twelfth — 19 
 be used to refute my calculations. On Fourth 
 street there was no grading and no sewering 
 to be done, and on Twelfth street only $300 
 for sewering, and very little grading. This 
 evasion on his part is practically a confession 
 of the truth of my assertions. I have taken 
 the assessment on every street I could get 
 hold of, omitting none and only asking for 
 more. He would select the two cheapest in 
 the city. In confirmation, I have been told 
 of an assessment on one house of twenty-five 
 feet wide of $1,000, and on a lot which cost 
 $350 of $850. This beats the finest efforts 
 of New York fleecers in their palmiest days. 
 There, where two thirds and not one third is 
 
8 
 
 charged to the property, a thousand-dollar 
 assessment on a hundred-foot corner lot was 
 regarded as excessive and was the highest I 
 ever heard of. 
 
 Having pretty effectually disposed of that, 
 I will now take up the nest point. I stated in 
 my last speech that there were sixteen con- 
 tracts extended, but for which no additional 
 charge was carried out, and on these there was 
 a difference of $530,905 72 of excess of liabil- 
 ities not accounted for. These have been criti- 
 cised in a statement of the Delegate from the 
 District, and the amount put, not at $530,000, 
 but only at $243,414 56. Now, that is a mod- 
 erate mistake in sixteen contracts, is it not? 
 But it is not the mistake they really make, 
 because they doctored those contracts. My 
 statement was strictly correct except one error 
 made by the Globe proof-reader, and a mistake 
 of eighty- one dollars made in running a line 
 across. But after my speech was delivered a 
 new report was issued and additional amounts 
 inserted. Then they had the impudence delib- 
 erately to compare those with my statements 
 and pretend I had blundered. But there was 
 a difficulty in their way they had not consid- 
 ered, for after all there is some virtue in fig- 
 ures. They had previously inserted the sum 
 total of their statement at $6,387,033 15, 
 which is substantially correct, for it has been 
 gone over by my associate on the committee, 
 the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Crebs,] and 
 found as near right as the board can make any- 
 thing; that is, only a couple of hundred dollars 
 out of the way. They add $170,000 to that 
 amount ; but the trouble is that then their 
 figures will not add up right. They carry out 
 the total the same, no changes being made in 
 that; but they put in $170,000 that they have 
 not accounted for. I suppose they thought I 
 was not good at addition, and in that they were 
 pretty near the truth. The way these alterations 
 were made is this, and the changes probably 
 involved the stereotyping of an entirely new 
 report : beneath the figures which I gave they 
 interlined others and connected the two with a 
 bracket. On page 2, beneath D. Hudnell's con- 
 tract of $753 68, they interlined $11,294 10; 
 beneath Patrick Cullinane's contract of 
 $19,969 40 and $8,499 they interlined $70,500 ; 
 beneath Crowley's contract for $2,331 88 they 
 interlined $10,868 50; beneath Neitzey's con- 
 tract for $7,917 25 they interlined $51,465 80 ; 
 
 beneath Campbell's $2,757 24 they interlined 
 $21,964 56, and beneath Stafford's contract 
 of $592 they interlined $8,246 30. None of 
 these amounts were in the original report, and 
 my statements were positively accurate. Any 
 gentleman can see this by referring to this 
 report, which I have gone over again care- 
 fully, the only two mistakes beiDgone of eight 
 cents, made probably in copying, and the sec- 
 ond being an error of $81 69. 
 
 In connection with one contract, however, 
 that of George W. Linville, I want to point 
 out another performance of this most respect- 
 able and ingenuous board ; for I take it that 
 the board is responsible for these figures, not 
 the Delegate from the District. I referred to 
 the contracts' made with Faetz and Murphy, 
 and assigned by them to George W. Linville, 
 and expressly so stated, referring to the two 
 contracts that had been assigned by the pages 
 of the original report, as there were no num- 
 bers to these contracts in that report, and I 
 could designate them in no more accurate 
 way. In his reply it was said the amount 
 was $101,076 70, and he referred to the con- 
 tract of George W. Linville of that amount. 
 But, sir, this is a different contract, and it is 
 hardly possible to suppose the person who gel 
 up the reply did not know it. I had given the 
 pages at 4 and 11, and they give the page at 
 15, one being a direct contract to Mr. Linville, 
 and the other two contracts assigned to him 
 and described as such. So gentlemen will 
 see this is another and most grossly palpable 
 evasion. 
 
 They have admitted errors even under this 
 new statement of $243,414 56; but, as they 
 contend, there is omitted on the other side of 
 canceled contracts, which you will recollect I 
 referred to, but the amount I could not give 
 because it is nowhere stated, an equal amount 
 there is no error at all. They argue that as 
 they made an error of $243,000 on the one side 
 and $267,000 on the other side, I am guilty 
 of a blunder of $540,000 in accusing them of 
 making any mistake at all ; which conclusion 
 is barefaced and impudent enough to be ftinny. 
 I do think the gentleman who prints such 
 things or who utters such statements on the 
 floor of this House should be held to respons- 
 ibility for them. It seems almost incredible 
 that any one should be bold enough to take 
 such a stand, and only shows the calm confi- 
 
dence of the Board of Works that they are not 
 
 only above reach, but above criticism. The 
 
 gentleman sums up the result in these words: 
 
 "This, bear in mind, Mr. Speaker, where the 
 member from New York claims a discrepancy 
 against the board of 8530,987 33 in sixteen contracts : 
 a trifling misrepresentation on his partof $554,648 20." 
 
 In other words, because they admit they 
 have blundered on the both sides, those two 
 blunders balance one another, and my state- 
 ment of their blunders is not only incorrect, 
 but a misrepresentation. 
 
 But they have not explained all of these 
 omissions even now; they have only picked 
 out a few, about fifteen, and undertaken to 
 give us here and there what you may call 
 their rerevised report as to these. There are 
 about seventy contracts which were extended, 
 and about seventy canceled, and they have 
 pretended to correct sixteen. Perhaps the 
 rest bear the same average, perhaps not. 
 Who knows? Certainly neither this House 
 nor myself. They claim they have omitted 
 on sixteen so much money on the debit side, 
 and on about twenty-five so much money on 
 ihe credit side ; but they say nothing of the 
 idditional forty on one side and fifty on the 
 )ther, which are not carried out either as to 
 
 heir extension or cancellation. 
 The following is a list of extensions of con- 
 
 racts against which no sum is set down in 
 
 he column of liabilities: 
 
 Six extensions on page 2, eleven extensions on 
 age 3, eleven extensions on page 4, nine extensions 
 n page 5, five extensions on page 6, eight exten- 
 ions on page 7, four extensions on page 8, seven 
 . xtensions on page 9, two extensions on page 10, 
 )ur extensions on page 11, five extensions on page 
 !, four extensions on page 13, seven extensions on 
 age 14, six extensions on page 15, four extensions on 
 age 16, eight extensions on page 17, three exten- 
 ons on page 18, two extensions on page 19, eight 
 ^tensions on page 20, eight extensions on page 21, 
 x extensions on page 22, six extensions on page 23, 
 even extensions on page 24, six extensions on page 
 :, four extensions on page 25, three extensions on 
 ige 27, two extensions on page 28, one extension on 
 igo 29, one extension on page 30, one extension on 
 ige 31, one extension on page 32, four extensions 
 i page 23, two extensions on page 34, two extensions 
 l page 35, two extensions on page 36, three exten- 
 ans on page 37— seventy-seven contracts extended. 
 
 Even in this amended statement they have 
 
 ade no effort to explain a vast number of 
 
 her omissions. There are numerous ori- 
 
 ' al contracts against which no sum was car- 
 
 • out in their first or last statements, three 
 
 ing on page 15 alone. I point out No. 271, 
 
 ge 17, six feet six inch brick barrel sewer, 
 
 :. , to Samuel Strong, no amount carried out, 
 
 -hough the expense must have been very 
 
 •ge. I will not attempt to particularize, how- 
 
 ever, and will merely say there are dozens of 
 contracts in the same condition. 
 
 I will now examine the voucher on which 
 the $1,240,000 appropriation of the United 
 States was paid. Gentlemen will remember 
 that a demand was made against the Govern- 
 ment on the ground that a large amount of 
 work bad been done by the Board of Works in 
 front of United States property. The items 
 of this work were given in detail in the report 
 to the President, even to feet and half feet of 
 extent, but in the act appropriating the money 
 a remeasurement was ordered to be made 
 under the supervision of General Babcock. I 
 expressly declared in the course of my previous 
 remarks, and I renew the declaration now, 
 that I cast no reflection on General Babcock. 
 There may be differences of opinion between 
 us, in which I am as likely to be wrong as him- 
 self; and I recognize the extreme difficulty 
 under which he labored to get at accurate in- 
 formation, it being almost impossible to meas- 
 ure grading after the work has been done and 
 the surface lines obliterated. It was not pos- 
 sible for him to dig up a sewer to ascertain the 
 size of the pipe or the d^pth at which it had 
 been laid, and in such matters he had mainly 
 to rely on the assertions of the board. If they 
 told him a sewer was an eighteen-iuch tile pipe 
 when it was only twelve, or that it was laid ten 
 feet deep when it was only five, he had no 
 means of detecting the imposition. 
 
 I think I can clearly show that he was mis- 
 led or mistaken in certain matters, but by 
 doing so I by no means intend charging him 
 with complicity. Take, for instance, the sewer 
 on G street along the City Hall reservation, for 
 which he has allowed $3,290, whereas the 
 contract (p. 13) is only for $1,571. So with 
 the rate allowed for sewering, which he has 
 put at $4 70 a lineal foot, whereas by looking 
 over the tables of expenditures for sewers, 
 including laying manholes, traps, and all com- 
 plete, it never exceeds $3 50, and averages 
 only about $2 50. These, however, are minor 
 matters. I accept his measurement as sub- 
 stantially correct. 
 
 You will bear in mind that when I referred 
 to General Babcock's voucher I explicitly 
 said I had seen it in the Treasury Department, 
 but that I had not examined it critically. I 
 had merely glanced it, and had not gone over 
 its details, but had been told by the clerk who 
 
10 
 
 showed it to me that it proved the board's report 
 to be correct to a dollar and a foot. Since then I 
 have obtained a copy in full, which I hold here in 
 my hand, and asyou will see, itconsists of sixty- 
 six quarto pages, almost entirely composed of fig- 
 ures, so that it was utterly impossible for me in a 
 momentary glance to make out what was in it. 
 But I do not want any better evidence than 
 that very voucher for what I have stated about 
 the utter worthlessness of the report of the 
 Board of Works, and perhaps all but the blind 
 adherents of the board will be surprised when I 
 announce the fact that there is but a single 
 item in the voucher of General Babcock, 
 that I have been able to find, which accords with 
 any item in their report. To give you a speci- 
 men of this, aud to prove that I am correct, I 
 will take up the matter of grading, not going 
 into that of sewerage, or curbing, or anything 
 else, as one class of work will answer for all. 
 I have here a list of the items for grading, as 
 charged by the Board of Public Works against 
 the United States, contrasted with the amounts 
 allowed by General Babcock, and I repeat that 
 in only one instance is there any similarity: 
 
 Comparative stafement of grading, as measured by the 
 Board of Public Works and by General Babcock : 
 
 Gen. B. . B. of W. 
 
 Cubic Locality. Cubic 
 
 yards. yards. 
 
 2 505 - B enns 5"l van i a av -> 21st st. to Rock) jo 000 
 
 ( CrGGK. J 
 
 12,970 Pennsylvania av. ,1st, 2d, and 3d sts. None. 
 
 34.491 Pennsylvania av., 4th to 6th sts. 11,206 
 
 6,631 Pennsylvania av., 7th to 9th sts. 11,206 
 
 41,025 Fifteenth st. n. w.. N. Y. av., &c. 33,000 
 
 11.4S0 Columbia Hospital.^ None. 
 
 2,1US Pennsylvania av. and K st. None. 
 
 4,5 8 P street circle. None. 
 
 31,908 Scott square. 31,000 
 
 4,280 Rawlins square. None. 
 
 18,030 Sixth st. s. w., B to B sts. 38,000 
 
 Not down. Mississippi av., 6th to 3d st. 9,932 
 
 Not down. Maine av., 6th to 3d st. 9,932 
 
 SJ.ii {New York and New Jersey!. Not dis- 
 
 I avenues. J tinguished. 
 
 (Jost lumped by board $7,510 
 
 Cost lumped by Gen. Babcock... i2,919 
 
 ' 1 at same place as last item. 
 
 7,170 Post Office. 11,200 
 
 None. Stanton place. 27,7S0 
 
 None. Marine barracks. 4,270 
 
 23,000 Providence Hospital. 23,000 
 
 21,905 Winder's building. 12.000 
 
 1,508 National Home. 3,000 
 
 7,370 Massachusetts av., 11th and 12th sts. None. 
 
 7,370 Massachusetts av., 10th and 11th sts. None. 
 
 4,009 Massachusetts av., 3d and 4th sts. None. 
 
 5,860 Four-and-a-half street. None. 
 
 11,777 Third street. None. 
 
 3,346 Connecticut avenue. Not down. 
 
 11,688 Connecticut av., 2d st. to R st. Not down. 
 
 418 Massachusetts av. to M st. east. Not down. 
 
 1,837 Massachusetts av. to M. st. west. Notdown. 
 
 430 Reservation No. 7. Not down. 
 
 295,227 Totals 
 
 235,526 
 
 Difference, 59,701 at forty cents, $25,SS0 40. 
 
 The item in relation to Providence park in 
 both reports is $23,000, a round set of figures 
 which look suspiciously as if arranged so as to 
 mislead General Babcock. Now, gentlemen 
 may say how did General Babcock make the 
 amoui.l larger than the Board of Public Works 
 claim it to be? Because he allowed them for 
 additional charges that they did not make in 
 their report, and which they seem to have for- 
 gotten all about. This raises the very grave 
 question whether he had any authority to do 
 so ; whether in his measurement of the work 
 submitted to Congress, and for which Congress 
 agreed to pay, he was not confined to those 
 precise matters. But it is far more strange 
 that the board should have omitted claims 
 against the Government of hundreds of thou- 
 sands of dollars at a time when they were 
 stretching every point to get as much money 
 as possible. 
 
 The position I take, however, and which 
 this voucher entirely confirms, is that the re- 
 port of the board is ntterly unreliable, and 
 that the figures it contains might as well have 
 been drawn from a hat, so far as accuracy is 
 concerned. A favorite performance of the 
 defunct New York ring was to meet all investi- 
 gations by a mass of incomprehensible and 
 contradictory figures. When anybody " wanted 
 to know, you know," they overwhelmed him 
 with a mass of tables, accounts, and statements, 
 dumped out anyhow and everyhow, and if he 
 waded through them they gave him as many 
 more, ever ready with a new batch, and 
 explanations, and corrections, and continua- 
 tions as extensive as the original supply, till 
 the investigator was crushed into silence and 
 submission. 
 
 The Washington ring seems to be pursuing 
 the same tactics, and when you observe that 
 in five pages of closely segregated figures there 
 is hardly one true one you can judge of the 
 difficulty of exposing all their misstatements. 
 General Babcock convicts or condemns the 
 board and their report more fully and com- 
 pletely than I have done, and nothing more 
 is needed than his statement to show that all 
 their accounts ought to be overhauled. 
 
 I have heard of monstrous overcharges out- 
 side of those made against the Government, 
 but of these I can offer no positive proof; they 
 are assertions, not official evidence. In one 
 instance it was alleged that nine thousand feet 
 
11 
 
 of curbing was charged for while only three 
 thousand was laid ; in another, that incredible 
 amounts of grading were paid for while but little 
 was done, and that there are enormous over- 
 measurements of street pavements. Property- 
 holders openly allege that they have had the 
 work estimated for which they are charged in 
 their assessments for improvements, and that 
 the one third they are required to pay amounts 
 to more than the total cost should have been. 
 These facts I cannot prove, but General Bab- 
 cock proves all I want. 
 
 In old days when it was asserted that one 
 half the money paid by the tax-payers of New 
 York was squandered the charge was pooh- 
 poohed as impossible ; it was said such asser- 
 tions were preposterous ; but when the matter 
 came before the judicial tribunals it was con- 
 clusively proved that all but fifteen per cent. 
 was misappropriated. I can only say I doubt 
 if this city even gets fifteen per cent, in value 
 for the money expended. Congress has now 
 been investigating this board since January 
 last, and yet can any one say that anything is 
 known of their operations ? We see streets 
 dug down everywhere, shade-trees ruthlessly 
 destroyed, sidewalks torn up and worthless 
 pavements laid, but have we any idea of the 
 cost or extent of these performances or of the 
 financial condition of the board? After all 
 these reports are we any wiser than when we 
 began ? 
 
 The board's undertakings are on the most 
 magnificent scale. After expending their van- 
 dalism on the streets they attacked the harbor 
 and proposed a so-called improvement which 
 would have given a profit to the lucky specu- 
 lators of $30,000,000. 
 
 They have before us — not before us, but 
 they have talked of — a scheme to move the 
 President's Mansion from where it is up to 
 what is called the Little farm, involving per- 
 haps $20,000,000 more of profit. They have 
 grasped at the railroads of this city, and got 
 possession of them all but the Pennsylvania 
 line, I believe. And they have attempted to 
 take the Globe printing. They are grabbing 
 for everything, and they intend when they 
 have got through to be the sole owners of 
 property in the District of Columbia, and 
 that no poor men shall reside in the capital 
 of this great nation which has heretofore been 
 
 regarded as the asylum for the poor of the 
 world. 
 
 I am not opposed to improving and beauti- 
 fying this city. I am desirous even that the 
 debts contracted by this board should be paid, 
 especially to the laboring men who are not 
 expected to discriminate in matters of author- 
 ity when employed to do work ; but I insist 
 that such operations shall be carried on care- 
 fully, honestly, economically, and according 
 to law. I insist that Congress shall not be 
 insulted and the President misled by such 
 fabricated reports, such manuals of spoliation 
 as they should more properly be called ; 
 that there shall be no concealments, but that 
 what is done shall be known to the people to 
 be judged by them. 
 
 The law as originally passed by Congress 
 provided that no improvements should be 
 made except in pursuance of specific ap- 
 propriations by the District Legislature, but 
 this requirement has been utterly set at 
 naught. The comprehensive plan as sub- 
 mitted to the Legislature and there ap- 
 proved was not a bad oiie, and had it been 
 carried out gradually it would have met general 
 approval ; but it has been utterly disregarded. 
 
 The prices of all the work were first raised 
 to suit a system by which contracts were given 
 out to favorites and not let to the lowest bid- 
 der. By the original plan grading was to be 
 twenty-five cents a cubic yard;that wa3 increased 
 to forty cents ; curbing was raised from a dollar 
 to a dollar and a half; macadamizing from a 
 dollar to a dollar and a half; the Tiber sew- 
 ering from sixty dollars a foot to $102 50, and 
 so on. Moreover it was expressly stipulated 
 and provided that no work should be done 
 unless at a rate twenty per cent, less than 
 even these prices as first adopted. In practice, 
 hardly any work has been done as provided by 
 the "comprehensive plan" approved by the 
 Legislature, and none at the prices therein 
 established and for which appropriations were 
 made. The total of all improvements author- 
 ized was $8,222,996, from which twenty per 
 cent., $1,644,559, was to be deducted, leaving 
 $6,578,397 to pay for certain results and 
 not to be expended unless it would produce 
 those results. Instead of that, totally differ- 
 ent works have been done at greatly increased 
 prices. 
 
12 
 
 Congress has just authorized the Secretary 
 of the Navy to build six vessels of war, and 
 appropriated so much money for the purpose. 
 Suppose he were to build a fort instead, what 
 would Congress say? But, again, suppose he 
 spent it in beautifying public grounds near his 
 own property and to its benefit, would not 
 Congress at once demand his removal ? This 
 is precisely what the Board of Works has 
 done. Take the matter of wooden pavement. 
 All they were authorized to lay was as fol- 
 lows, there being no discretion left them to 
 vary the kind of work or substitute different 
 pavements : 
 
 Wooden pavements by comprehensive plan. 
 
 G street, 30.000 yards, at $2 per yard £60.000 
 
 Fourteenth street, 55,000 yards, at$4per yard, 220.000 
 
 K street, 8,000 yards, at $2 per yard 10,000 
 
 Four-and-a-half street, 50,600 yards, at§2 per 
 
 yard . 101,200 
 
 Seventh street, 23,194 yards, at $4- per yard... 92,776 
 Pennsylvania avenue, 63,530 yards, at $4 per 
 
 yard 264,120 
 
 Pennsylvania avenue, 50,000 yards, at $2 per 
 
 yard 100,000 
 
 Total $854,096 
 
 In the report to the President they state they 
 have laid 762,903 yards at $3 50, equal to 
 $2,670,160, an excess of almost $2,000,000 
 over the appropriation. The species of work 
 was in all cases set out in the plan, which con- 
 tained separate columns for that purpose, and 
 where there was a pavement to be laid its kind 
 was specified. In the matter of concrete pave- 
 ments the disregard of law is still more flagrant, 
 for there is no concrete whatever provided for 
 under the act of the Legislature, actually no 
 column for it in the "comprehensive plan," 
 and yet they have laid sixteen miles of it 
 according to their own report. This is a 
 monstrous assumption of power and abuse of 
 trust. An attempt is made to justify it under 
 the report of a board of engineers which in a 
 qualified way indorses concrete against the ex- 
 perience of every city in the United States. 
 But who gave any bod}' of such experts author- 
 ity to change an act of the Assembly, or make 
 legal what was otherwise prohibited ? That 
 report, however, will do them little good ; it 
 comes at once too soon and too late. It is 
 dated May 15, 1872, before which time they 
 had been laying concrete extensively, and 
 since which time they have laid wooden pave- 
 ments. That report condemns wooden pave- 
 ments ; and if it is to be authority, no more 
 
 wooden ones should be used, and yet two con- 
 tracts for them have been entered into since 
 November 1, 1872, as appears by the sup- 
 plementary statement made to the Committee 
 for the District of Columbia by the Board of 
 Works, that for Second and Third streets east, 
 November 15, Phillip's wooden pavement, 
 $10,310, and November 18, De Golyer wooden 
 pavement, $33,250. 
 
 The fact is, as was proved in the investiga- 
 tion last year, that concrete pavement laid as 
 it is here only costs about seventy cents a yard, 
 leaving a clear profit for somebody of $2 50. 
 That it is utterly worthless needs no board of 
 experts to prove. A man with a stout- pair of 
 boots could with them alone dig up half the 
 concrete pavement in Washington before he 
 wore the heels off. The model piece in front 
 of the Arlington Hotel, which was laid at 
 great expense, and by its endurance brought 
 so much evil on the city, has been extended 
 by the same parties through Scott square under 
 the authority of the Board of Works, but so 
 badly that on a dry day it is like a country 
 road, and the foul and injurious dust is what 
 would be popularly called ankle deep. In 
 windy weather this dust, driven into the houses, 
 will ruin everything it touches; it will fill cur- 
 tains, carpe's, and furniture ; and then melting 
 under the heat of fires, will run like tar, and 
 defile whatever may come in contact with it. 
 As for wooden pavements, the Board of Works 
 have themselves given their opinion about 
 them in their notes to their original compre- 
 hensive plan, as follows: 
 
 "The board is satisfied, upon careful consideration, 
 that a.s a rule the value of property in the District 
 will not warrant the general introduction of wood 
 or other expensive pavements, and that, if at nil 
 used, they should be confined to a few of the princi- 
 pal avenues of communication. It is believed that 
 road-beds of stone, more durable and equally free 
 from dust and mud, can be constructed at less cost 
 than has usually been paid for the most ordinary 
 kind - of stone pavements." 
 
 In disposing of this subject I warn residents 
 in this District not to be deceived by appear- 
 ances; nothing is more beautiful than a con- 
 crete plaster when first put down. It is as 
 handsome as a mustard-plaster, and both are 
 about equally nasty when they have been 
 applied for a short time. The, improvements 
 made by the board are like life : '' life is all a 
 fleeting show," and so are they. In two years 
 every concrete abomination will have returned 
 
13 
 
 to dust, and in two more the wooden affairs 
 will have resolved themselves into typhoid 
 fever. 
 
 The Delegate from the District has stated 
 in his speech that the certificates of assess- 
 ment have been tested before the supreme 
 court of this District and pronounced valid. 
 In this he is mistaken. Actions were com- 
 menced by property-holders for injunctions, 
 and the court merely decided that these suits 
 were premature and unnecessary, on the ground 
 that there was a good defense at law if an 
 attempt should be made to enforce them. 
 Had the gentleman been a lawyer he would 
 have been acquainted with the familiar rule of 
 practice, that no application can be made to 
 the equity side of a court where there is a legal 
 defense which is broad enough to cover the 
 requirements of the case. Otherwise a person, 
 instead of defending a suit on a note, might 
 ask the court to enjoin the holder from suing 
 
 it, and thus practically do away with legal 
 jurisdiction. So far from these certificates 
 being held valid, it was strongly intimated in 
 the opinion of the court, if I am not mistaken, 
 that they were void; and such would certaiuly 
 be the opinion of lawyers generally. 
 
 I cannot follow the gentleman through all 
 his other vagaries of assertion, and point out 
 his omissions or mistakes ; as where he quotes 
 the opinion of Mr. Blair in favor of improve- 
 ments, but does not add that Mr. Blair stated 
 he expected the improvements to cost $30,- 
 000,000; or where he says that the taxes have 
 not been increased, but does not add that they 
 never are, so long as a city is borrowing money 
 and can pay its interest from its principal. As 
 an evidence of the expenses of the District 
 government, I will, however, quote a table 
 from a speech made by me last year which 
 settles the matter of economical administra- 
 tion : 
 
 Statement showing the amount appropriated for executive officers, printing, advertising, and 
 contingencies by the folloioing States during the year 1871, and by the District of Columbia 
 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1872 ; also, showing the population and number of square 
 miles in each. 
 
 States. 
 
 New York 
 
 Maine 
 
 JNew Hampshire 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 Ohio 
 
 Wisconsin , 
 
 Iowa 
 
 Illinois 
 
 District of Columbia 
 
 Popula- 
 tion of 
 the last 
 census. 
 
 Square 
 miles. 
 
 47,000 
 
 31.760 
 
 9,280 
 
 7,800 
 
 1,300 
 
 4,670 
 
 8.320 
 
 30.000 
 
 53,920 
 
 53.040 
 
 55,410 
 
 60 
 
 Salaries 
 of ex- 
 ecutive 
 officers. 
 
 $139,550 
 65,133 
 12.341 
 
 234.205 
 16.908 
 59.800 
 46,187 
 73,275 
 65,963 
 41.205 
 26,753 
 
 449,220 
 
 Printing 
 and ad- 
 vertis- 
 ing. 
 
 $175,000 
 35,000 
 
 9.830 
 9S.531 
 
 3,500 
 98,875 
 82,625 
 75,300 
 54,569 
 49,495 
 50,000 
 143,635 
 
 Contin- 
 gencies. 
 
 $19,200 
 
 17,400 
 
 2,099 
 
 30,300 
 
 Included. 
 
 Included. 
 
 7,653 
 
 13,250 
 
 17,008 
 
 22.433 
 
 39.10S 
 
 200,000 
 
 Total 
 amount. 
 
 $323,750 
 117,533 
 
 24,270 
 363.036 
 
 20,408 
 15S.675 
 136,468 
 183,925 
 137,540 
 113,133 
 115.861 
 792,855 
 
 He has introduced into his speech a most 
 outrageous and uncalled for attack on a gen- 
 tleman in this city who has given me some 
 assistance, and to whom lam and the District 
 ought to be obliged for it, and I now speak in 
 order to defend him as a matter of justice. 
 He has stated that Mr. Crane was accused in 
 a criminal trial in court of being unworthy of 
 belief, and that a number of witnesses were 
 called to testify to this fact. That is true, but 
 is it the whole truth? On the contrary, is 
 
 it not a clear case of what lawyers call sup- 
 pressio veri? It is true, some dozen of wit- 
 nesses were called from among the followers 
 of the Board of Public Works or contractors, 
 who had been denounced by him for fraudu- 
 lent practices when he was in official position, 
 who said they would not believe him under 
 oath. He did not add, however, that this so- 
 called criminal trial was a prosecution insti- 
 tuted by Mr. Crane for libel, and that when Iris 
 character was attacked he summoned eighty- 
 
14 
 
 five of the leading gentlemen of this city, 
 even 7 one of whom testified to his character 
 as being above reproach. Among these were 
 Mayor Wallach, Mayor Emery, George W. 
 Biggs, John D. Blake, and other gentlemen 
 of the highest standing, who sustained him 
 so strongly, that before he got through with 
 calling them as witnesses the judge stopped 
 him, and told him it was no longer necessary. 
 Bear in mind that this reflection is made on 
 an honest man by the Board of Works. See 
 how they strike at him because he opposed their 
 operations. Judge, then, why I do not receive 
 more public assistance from residents in this 
 District. Yet I assure you residents came to 
 me privately, enough of them ; not Democrats, 
 but Republicans, nine out of ten of them, for 
 I have always said fraud was no question of 
 party ; not whites alone, but very often negroes ; 
 especially men of no great wealth, who seethe 
 certainty of the property they have accumu- 
 lated passing out of their hands into the hands 
 of this grasping Board of Public Works. 
 
 Shall I desert these men ? Shall I sit silent 
 as a member of a committee before which such 
 things come and allow them to go on without 
 my protest? It is true my constituents are 
 not robbed, but they are largely of Irish and 
 German birth or descent, and I can answer for 
 the generous sympathy of the Irish heart and 
 the strong Teutonic hatred of dishonesty, that 
 they will thank me for my efforts almost as 
 much as though they had been made in their 
 behalf. To show how downtrodden and intim- 
 idated the citizens of Washington are, I will 
 read a letter I have just received: 
 
 "Washington, February 10, 1873. 
 Dear Sir: As a taxpayer of this District I have 
 been much interested in the discussions in the House 
 of Representatives in regard to the expenditures of 
 the Board of Public Works of this District, and hav- 
 ing accidentally got hold of a leaf of a pamphlet 
 which I suppose to be part of the report of the Board 
 of Public Works to Congress at the first of the pres- 
 ent session, I thought I would call your attention 
 to what seems to me very strange items in the " ex- 
 penditures of James A. Magruder." This leaf being 
 pages 63 and 64. On page 63, dated, I believe, Octo- 
 ber 15, 1872, (this is page 159 of the report of the Board 
 
 of Public Works,) was the following item : " To 
 
 Buckley, S street south, from First to Seventh streets 
 west, 11,300." Now, a glance et any map of the city 
 will show you that S street south does not exist be- 
 yond Four-and-a-half street on the west, and as the 
 arsenal wall comes up to P street, all of S street west 
 of the James Creek canal is three squares within the 
 arsenal grounds ; and as for reaching Seventh street 
 west by way of S street south, you would have to pave 
 and grade across the channel of the river, as Seventh 
 street strikes the river bank iabout L street. There 
 is also another item, though small, on the samepage, 
 thus : "October 17, 1872, to B. Smith & Co., brick for 
 
 S street south, from Third to Four-and-a-half 
 street." This you will observe is within the arsenal 
 grounds entirely. 
 
 If they claim that the printer made a mistake and 
 put south for north, it is just as bad, for although S 
 street north does reach Seventh street west, a glance 
 at the map will show you that it does not reach First 
 street by two or three squares, it striking the bound- 
 ary about Third or Fourth. 
 
 This report, I believe, was reprinted at the Gov- 
 ernment Printing Office, and though the page num- 
 ber may be different, you can find these items by the 
 dates. If such a number of evidences of Iraud can 
 be found on a single page casually picked up, what 
 a vast number there must be in the whole docu- 
 ment? 
 
 As I am in a situation to be materially injured 
 by '"Boss" Aleck, I feel constrained to make this an 
 anonymous communication. 
 
 Yours, &c, A TAXPAYER. 
 
 Hon. R. B. Roosevelt. 
 
 It may be asked why do these men come to 
 me. I shall not assume to say. Perhaps 
 they think their own Representative neglectful 
 of them ; perhaps they thought he was against 
 them when they came before the committee 
 of investigation, or perhaps they think he is 
 too firm a believer in the immaculate purity 
 of the Board of Works. Certain it is, that so 
 long as the board remain in power he will be 
 the Delegate from the District. That gentle- 
 man has in his speech indulged in sundry 
 hackneyed quotations. I would advise him 
 to buy a dictionary of quotations before he 
 tries again, that he may get them nearer right. 
 In one of these he couples me in the future 
 state of existence with Mr. Crane. When that 
 time comes the company of an honest, though 
 a poor man, will not be despised. But I am 
 afraid if the gentlemnn selects his companions 
 there as he has here he will find his quarters 
 uncomfortably warm, even in days as cold as 
 those of the past severe winter. 
 
 It has been charged that I have animosity 
 against the members of the Board of Public 
 Works. I have none. Their acts alone are 
 what I condemn. Last Thursday week the 
 Committee for the District of Columbia ad- 
 dressed them certain questions. Receiving no 
 answer last Thursday, they were requested to 
 answer forthwith such of them as they could 
 answer at once. Four days have expired since 
 then, and yet no reply has been received to a 
 single interrogatory. Among these were, in 
 substance, whether they had used up the fund 
 of the District appropriated for police, fire, 
 and school purposes ; whether they had bor- 
 rowed money, how much they owed thei: 
 laborers, and how much of the appropriatioi 
 of Congress was still unexpended. 
 
15 
 
 It is clear these could be answered at once, 
 and among all there were at most two that 
 could by any construction involve a delay of 
 twenty- four hours. So Congress is still kept 
 in the dark, while day after day come up 
 schemes for giving the board more money. 
 They have stated in their accounts there was 
 abalance to their credit. We have given them 
 $1,240,000 more, and yet they are clamoring 
 for an additional $2,000,000. On their state- 
 ment the following report was made, under 
 my motion to inquire into the debt of the 
 District : 
 
 "3d. As to the third inquiry involved in the reso- 
 lution, to wit, 'what sum will be required to finish 
 the work undertaken by the board?' the committee 
 report that from the communications herewith sub- 
 mitted, and the printed report of the board, no 
 further sums will be required to complete the work 
 undertaken, and for lohich liabilities have been in- 
 curred, than those included in the foregoing esti- 
 mates." 
 
 Let gentlemen bear this in mind when the 
 ever recurring cry of " Give, give I" is raised 
 again. Let us believe that the board occa- 
 
 sionally tells the truth. Tammany Hall wai 
 twelve years in reaching its worst state o: 
 corruption, but the Board of Public Works iu 
 the District of Columbia set'ms to have keen 
 born rotten. 
 
 I have done, and hope never agwin to be called 
 upon to say a word more on this subject. The 
 responsibility is now with the House, and 
 my duty is finished. These facts have come 
 before me from my official position. Congress 
 is in possession of them. In making ♦hem 
 public I have earned the hate of vulgar power. 
 But there is justice in the skies, and when it 
 falls dishonesty will slink away into its nat\ 
 ural obscurity. Amid this wilderness of fig- 
 ures I should expect to have blundered. In 
 picking out these numerous contradictions I 
 might readily have gone wrong; but so far not 
 one mistake has been brought home to me. 
 The labor involved has been great, and it is 
 with sincere sense of relief that I find myself 
 discharged from further responsibility. 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 369 592 A