P 204 
 .J2 U3 
 Copy 1 
 
 PETITIONS 
 
 OF SrNDRY 
 
 CITIZENS OF WASHINGrON CITY, 
 
 IN RELATION TO TEE 
 
 LOCATION AND ERECTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW JAIL, 
 
 WITH GERTAIN PAPERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, 
 INCLUDING THE OPINIONS. OF 
 
 Chief- Justice Cartter and Judge Wylie, 
 
 IN THE INJUNCTION CASE, 
 
 AND PROCEEDINGS OF 
 
 BOAED OF COMMON COUNCILS. 
 
 W v . .. . . .• . 
 
 1867. 
 
11% 
 
 ^ 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Paob 
 
 Petition of A. Grant and others 8 — 4 
 
 Petition of S. P. Brown and others 6 — 7 
 
 Statements of Facts. 9-17 
 
 Exhibit B 10-14 
 
 Opinion of Judge Gartter 14-17 
 
 Extract from Specifications 19-20 
 
 Proceedings of Board of Common Council 21-23 
 
 Opinion of Judge Wylie 2S 
 
PETITIOl!^ OF A. GRANT AND OTHERS. 
 
 To the Honorable the Members of the TJ. 8. Seriate and Rous^ 
 of Representatives : 
 
 The undersigned beg leave to represent that by an act of 
 Congress, approved July 25th, 1866, and a joint resolution, 
 approved March 2d, 1867, the erection ol a jail in the Dis- 
 trict of Columbia was authorized upon a site to be selected 
 by the Secretary of the Interior. They represent that in the 
 month of October last, contracts were made by the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior, for the erection of a jail on a site at the 
 intersection of New Jersey and Yiigiuia avenues, south, 
 and about five blocks distant from the U. S. Capitol ; and 
 that the contractors are proceedii'g to erect a jail accord- 
 ingly ; but the undersigned regard it their duty to state that 
 not only were the proposals for letting of said contract made 
 without a strict regard to the law, but that its provisions 
 were seriously disregarded by the Secretary of the Interior, 
 among other particulars in these : 
 
 1st. The law required particular plans and specifications 
 of the building and of the material to be used therein ; in- 
 stead thereof, the plans and specifications are general, with- 
 out any indication of the material to be used. 
 
 2d. The law required and contemplated that the plans and 
 specifications should be approved by a board of three, of 
 which Quartermaster General il. C. ''eifirs and A. B. Mul- 
 lett, architect of the Treasury, should be two ; but instead of 
 obtaining this approval, as contemplated by law, the Secre- 
 tary of the Interior proceeded to advertise for bids for said 
 jail without the required approval, and he is proceeding to 
 have the jail erected without such approval. 
 
 3d. The building, as given out by the Secretary, is not of 
 the dimensions required by the law, and will not accommo- 
 date the minimum number of persons mentioned in the law. 
 
 They also represent that in consequence of the general 
 
specifications, the buildiDg will cost largely beyond the 
 amount appropriated, and instead of being erected on an 
 economical plan, is so contracted for as to allow for extras 
 and additional compensation, so that the burden of expenses 
 for tlie Government, as well as the District of Columbia, 
 will be greatly increased. There are a few of the particu- 
 lars to which they deem it important to direct your atten- 
 tion. They also represent that instead of giviag out the con- 
 tract to the lowest bidder, as the Secretary was advised to do 
 by Wm. E. Clark, architect of the Capitol, it was given out 
 to higher bidders, in disregard of the very letter of the law. 
 They also represent that the site is unsuitable, and in con- 
 sequence of its distance from the city court-house, it will be 
 expensive and burdensome as a prison, and that its nearaess 
 to the Capitol of the nation, is both improper and unsightly. 
 For these and other reasons, they earnestly pray for such 
 action as will suspend the executions of the contracts fi>r the 
 erection of a jail, until the allegations herein contained can 
 be fairly and justly examined. And they will ever pray, &c. 
 
 A. GKANT, Architect. 
 
 C. B. CLUSKEY, ArchH. d; Eng'T. 
 
 PAUL J. PELZ, ArchH. 
 
 N. G. STARKWEATHER, ArchH. 
 
 WALTER S. WEST, ArchH. 
 
 J. McMAKIN", ArchH. 
 
 GEO. R. PRICE, ArchH. 
 
PETITION" OF S. P. BROWN AND OTHERS. 
 
 To the Honorahle^ the Mt,inhers of the Senate and House of 
 Representatives of the United States : 
 The undersigned, citizens of Washington and the District 
 of Columbia, and tax payers therein, respectfully represent, 
 that on the 25th of July, 1866, an act was passed by Con- 
 gress, entitled "• An Act antiiorizing the Construction of a 
 Jail in and for the Dissrict of Columbia," and that on the 2d 
 day of March, 1867, a joint resolution was passed in relation 
 to the erection of a jail, and that under the provisions of said 
 acts, the Hon. O. H. Browning, Secretary of the Interior, has 
 selected a site for the erection of said jail on a lot known as 
 Mint Lot, at the intersection of New Jersey and Virginia 
 avenues, south, about five blocks distant from the U. S. Cap- 
 itol. That the citizens residing in said neighborhood are op- 
 posed to the erection of a jail on said site, not only because 
 of its tendency to injure the property in the location, but 
 also because of its interference with the avenues aforesaid, 
 as well as with the probable extension of the Capitol grounds ; 
 and they beg leave particularly to state that the place se- 
 lected is distant from the City Hall or Court-house, and is 
 consequently botti inconvenient for witnesses and others who 
 may be temporarily confined in jail, as well as for the officers 
 of the Criminal court, and dangerous for the custody of the 
 prisoners, in consequence of the facilities which will be af- 
 forded for their escape and rescue in their removal from and 
 to the jail and cuurt-house, in the progress of the investiga- 
 tion of their cases. And they submit to your wisdom and 
 experience that these considerations alone are sufficient to 
 justify such action as will prevent the erection of the jail on 
 said site, and a selection of one less injurious to citizens, and 
 iiiore convenient and proper for the purposes of a prison. 
 .Vud th'-y further represent, that they are informed that on 
 o.- about the last day of October, 1867, contracts were made 
 
for the erection of a jail on said site, and that it will be 
 erected thereon unless your honorable body shall direct a 
 tempoi'ary suspension of said letting, so that a full and fair 
 consideration of the subject can be had. They also deem it 
 proper to state, that much dissatisfaction exists in regard to 
 the plans and specifications of said jail, which are stated to 
 be insufficient and defective, and not in accordance with the 
 aforesaid laws, but in disregard thereof in various and im- 
 portant particulars, involving an increased expenditure of 
 money and the suitableness of the building for the purposes 
 for which it was authorized to be erected by Congress. 
 
 Because of all of these and other considerations, they respect- 
 fully invoke such action on the part of your body as will pre- 
 vent the contemplated wrong against which they protest. 
 
 S. P. Brown, 
 B. M. Keyser, 
 F. J. Altemus, 
 Wm. Slater, 
 A. Richards, 
 Thos. A. Richards, 
 Samuel T. Ellis, 
 John Grinder, 
 Geo. F. Gulick, 
 J. B. Gardner, M. D., 
 Wm. G. Wheatley, 
 Thornton Smith, 
 J). C. Forney, 
 Enoch Totten, 
 Lewis Ladomus, 
 Thos. E. Lloyd, 
 A7m, S. Morse, 
 H. A. Brewster, 
 Wm. M. Ellis, 
 E. B. Berry, 
 
 W 111 lain iiuunliee, 
 Mary Peters, 
 J. H. Wise, 
 JfSi^e ppler, 
 Annie A. Altemus, 
 Mrs. IIoffeiTian, 
 Mrs. Mc^'eir, 
 
 N. V. Metzger, 
 L. C. Campbell, 
 E. Schwarzemberg, 
 C. F. McGill, 
 C. E. Harvey, 
 W. H. Harrover, 
 A. Bogus, 
 G. E. Kennedy, 
 Jno. Krafft, 
 L. Heilbrun & Bro. 
 John F. Webb, 
 Webb & Bevridge, 
 R. Cohen, Jr., 
 Rob't Cohen, 
 H. Browning, 
 Wm. H. Campbell, 
 Geo. Parker, Jr., 
 C. C. Meador, 
 Jackson, Bro. & Co., 
 Geo. J. SeuflFerle, 
 William Sauter, 
 B.n] DeWolfi; 
 M. W. Gait & Bro, 
 Wheeler & Browning, 
 E. Wheeler, 
 Wm Blanchard, 
 E. E. White, 
 Barbour & Hamilton, 
 
Mrs. H. E. Weaver, 
 
 1. M, Steever, 
 
 Edgar J, Steever, 
 
 Sam'l IS^orment, 
 
 T. A. King, 
 
 K. E. Parker, 
 
 Geo. Francis, 
 
 T. Hexter, 
 
 Kneessi & Norfleet, 
 
 Fred. G. Rohr, 
 
 Joseph Searich, jr. 
 
 W. Eirhler, 
 
 Lansburg & Bro., 
 
 J. Rosenthel, 
 
 W. S.Tappan, 
 
 John Ogden, 
 
 Henry L. Hawkins, 
 
 James S. Topham & Co. 
 
 R. McMurry, 
 
 E. E. Seymore, 
 
 A. W. Townshend & Co. 
 
 T. W. Harlin, 
 
 A. W. H. Conroy, 
 
 W. H. Roglers, 
 
 Thomas E. Jacobs, jr. 
 
 John C. McConnell, 
 
 Geo. C. Ward, 
 
 G. W. Bunker, 
 
 Frank Cross, 
 
 J. P. Richardson, 
 
 A. Forrest Altemus, 
 
 Thomas Goodall, 
 
 W. Tillay, 
 
 A. H. Gage, 
 
 H. W. Hall, 
 
 H. F. Zimmerman & Co. 
 
 J. Thomas Petty & Co. 
 
 Geo. B. Wilson, 
 
 Louis D. Sheoffer, 
 
 Thomas W. Lanner, 
 
 E. J. Blinn, 
 
 J. Martin McFarland, 
 
 James S. Ely, 
 
 Ann C. Caudle, 
 
 D. A. Walterston, 
 
 J. C. Mattingly, 
 
 P. H. King, 
 
 Samuel L. King, 
 
 J. A. Martin, 
 
 John Angerman & Son, 
 
 J. W. Kennedy & Co. 
 
 Jno. E. Kendall, 
 
 Jno. Markriter, 
 
 James T. Walker, 
 
 R. W. Carter & Co. 
 
 Edwin H. Grant, 
 
 H. S. Benson, 
 
 Charles Dawson, 
 
 James Sutton, 
 
 John B. Scott, 
 
 Charles Broughton, 
 
 L. H. Yost, 
 
 Thomas Altemus, 
 
STATEMENT OF FACTS. 
 
 The construction of a jail in and for the District of Colum- 
 bia, was authorized by act of Congress, approved July 25, 
 1866. 
 
 The Secretary of the Interior advertised for plans, and fi- 
 nally a set were adopted. 
 
 The attention of Congress was called to them. Quarter- 
 master General Meigs and A. B. Mullet, architect of the 
 Treasury building and Ortley, Esq., were, by a com- 
 
 mittee of the House of Represent! ves requested to examine 
 the plans adopted and the others that had been offered. 
 
 They made such an examination, and in a report to the 
 committee, condemned the plans in the strongest terms and 
 in the same report indicated many essentials which, in their 
 opinion, ought to be provided for in such a building. 
 
 A joint resolution was at once passed, in fact, forbidding a 
 contract to be made for the erection of the jail, until perfected 
 plans for the entire work should have been completed and 
 approved by Quartermaster General Meigs, A. B. Mullet, 
 Esq., and one other disinterested competent engineer and 
 architect, and requiring that the letting of the contract should 
 be open to fair and equal competition, after such approval of 
 such new and perfected plans. 
 
 Proceedings 'before the Supreme Court. 
 
 Before the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, it 
 was, in substance, charged by several of the tax-payers of 
 the District, in October last, that the Secretary ot the Interior 
 has never had new and perfected plans of the entire work on 
 the said jail prepared ; that neither Quartermaster General 
 Meigs nor A. B. Mullet, Esq., has ever approved any plans 
 whatever for the said jail ; that a jail constructed in accord- 
 ance with the imperfect plans adopted by the Secretary, but 
 not approved as required, would not fulfil the conditions of 
 the law in that, before ready for use, it will cost more than 
 
10 
 
 the maximum allowed by Congress, viz. : $200,000 ; that it 
 would not accommodate 300 prisoners, as the law required 
 that it should, and that in many other respects it would fail 
 to fulfil the conditions of the law. 
 
 They also charged, in substance, that the Secretary of the 
 Interior was about to enter into contracts for the erection of 
 said jail, on the said plans, in a way that precluded the possi" 
 bility of fair and equal competition ; the plans and specifica- 
 tions being so indefinite and loose that no one but the archi- 
 tect could tell what they meant, and that he was so uuncer- 
 tain about them himself that he had put in as a condition, 
 that he should be privileged to make, as the work progressed, 
 such additions, alterations and omissions, as he should deem 
 proper, and that he should be authorised to decide without 
 appeal to any one, not even the Secretary, the amount extra 
 to be paid for such additions or alterations, or to be deducted 
 from the contract price on account of the omissions he might 
 determine to make, thus giving him the power to enrich a 
 favorite, who would divide, or to ruin a contractor who 
 would not divide the extras. 
 
 They asked the court, by injunction, to restrain the Secre- 
 tary from letting the contract. 
 
 The allegations were sworn to, and the specifications and 
 advertisement for proposals were oifered in evidence. 
 
 Exhibit B, filed with the case, before the Supreme Court 
 of the District, shows the character of the specifications. 
 
 The following is a copy of that exhibit : 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 Memoranda of defects, omissions, etc., etc., in the " plans 
 and specifications," of Mr. Eben Faxon, for the proposed 
 new jail in and for the District of Columbia. 
 
 Ist. The " elevation," and external appearance are unsuit- 
 able, unsightly, and behind the age ; would, if erected, prove 
 absolutely discreditable, in a building of such magnitude and 
 cost, at the National Capital. 
 
 2d. A jail on this plan will not make humane or reasona- 
 
11 
 
 ble provision for the health of the prisoners, because there is 
 no center passage or corridor between the rows of cells, and 
 no passage of air through them, as they are open on one side 
 only ; because, there are no horizontal pipes to bring pure 
 air from without to tlie cells, and no provision for forcing pure 
 air into or through the cells ; because the cells are too small, 
 not being nearly so large (little more than half o.^ large,) as 
 they could easily be made in a building of the same size, and 
 containing the like number of cells, if properly planned ; 
 because all the cells lack light and air, for the reason that they 
 do not come to the outer walls, and therefore admit neither 
 light nor air directly from the open atmosphere ; the light 
 must always be dim, and the air stagnant, impairing and en- 
 dangering health and lives of the prisoners ; because the 
 privies are so placed that they add to the foetid state of the 
 atmosphere in the passages and cells, (in connection with the 
 use, unnecessarily, of night-buckets, substituted for water- 
 woiks, in the separate cells) ; and, because, there are no 
 rooms provided for exercise, which is indispensable to the 
 health of prisoners in a jail of detention. 
 
 3d. There is no proper provision for the absolute safe-keep- 
 ing of prisoners^ nor for the saving of life, in case an inside 
 fire should destroy the combustible portions of the building ; 
 because, there are no stone or iron floors to prevent the most 
 usual method of escape from the lower tier of cells, by tun- 
 neling out, under the walls ; because the small brick pier be- 
 tween the window and door of each cell, is easily broken and 
 removed to allow escape ; also, because, in case of an inside 
 fire, within the jail building, the wooden structure over the 
 block of cells, if on fire, (as well as the falling in of wooden 
 roof,) would almost be certain to prevent the unlocking of 
 cells, while the wooden cupolas and wooden floors, of the 
 centre building, once fired would cut off outside help, and 
 together would, beyond doubt, greatly imperil the lives of 
 prisoners, and render the saving of all, little short of a 
 miracle. 
 
 4th. There is no provision or accommodation for classify- 
 ing the prisoners, but all alike, (with exception of the meagre 
 
12 
 
 provision of three small witness rooms,) whether they be har- 
 dened and convicted criminals, persons accused waiting trial, 
 or even those unfortunate enough to be committed for exam- 
 ination only, against whom there may be, neither serious 
 charge, nor any evidence, are without distinction (even of 
 sex) to be confined in the same close, dark, unwholesome cells. 
 There is no chaplain's room, no magistrate's room, no clerk's 
 room, no matron's room, no apothecary's or surgeon's room, 
 and no adequate or suitable hospital. The " plan," in all its 
 leading features, is, in matter of prison architecture and con- 
 struction, a hundred years behind the age ; and the new jail 
 for the District of Columbia, if erected on any such plan, 
 would of necessity, within a very few years, be torn down and 
 rsbuilt, as having proven totally unworthy a place among the 
 public buildings of the National Capital. 
 
 With the above " Memoranda " of signal defects, omissions 
 and short-comings of Mr. Eben Faxon's " plans and specifica- 
 tions," the matter might well rest, were it not that, addition- 
 ally, the gross lack of detail, and the wide door left open, 
 whether intentionally or not, to fraud and collusion, would 
 seem to call imperatively, for the further, more definite, and 
 precise explanations and illustrations, as follows : 
 
 That, in Mr. Faxon's printed specifications, under the head 
 of " masonry work, etc.," it is not specified whether the walls 
 are to be laid in rubble range work or in courses (except in 
 regard to the " facing,") or whether the stone is to be dressed, 
 rough-hammered, or left entirely undressed, a differeece in 
 price of the work, ranging all the way up, from $8 00 to 
 $25 00 per perch, and which might make a diiference in 
 actual cost to the contractor, of from, say, $50,000 to $75,000; 
 likewise, in the cut stone, (whether marble or granite,) sizes 
 and workmanship are so vaguely specified, as to permit the 
 varying of perhaps 100 per cent., another very large item of 
 uncertain cost to the bidder or contractor. 
 
 Again, under the same head (" Masonry work, etc.,") it 
 will be noted that no foundations, whatever are provided for, 
 a most extraordinarj'", unprofessional, and culpable omission 
 of Mr. Faxon. 
 
13 
 
 That, under the head of " carpenter- work, etc.," no sizes are 
 given, either on Mr. Faxon's ''plan," or in the printed specifi- 
 cations for the roof -timbers, leaving this as mere guess work 
 to the bidder. Again, the "Chapel" has no seats, desk or pul- 
 pit provided tor — would be a useless room, for its specific 
 purpose, and must be made an "extra," (unnecessarily,) of 
 from $2,000 or $3,000. 
 
 That, in "plumbing," etc , no sizes whatever are giv^en in 
 Mr. Faxon's specifications for either the plumber or gas-fit- 
 ter, and no drain-pipes are specified for; nothing is stipulated 
 as to the strength or kind of material to be used ; and the 
 whole might range in entire uncertainty all the way up, from 
 say, $3,000 or $4,000, to say, $20,000, or $25,000. " 
 
 That, Mr. Faxon's printed specifications, as a whole, are so 
 loose and indefinite, that he has made fair and honorable com- 
 petition out of the question, inasmuch as he can, in his dis- 
 cretion, as supervising architect, vary the actual cost of the 
 w^ork, to the contractor, say from $50,000 to $100,000, and 
 that too, merely upon the work he has so loosely and indefi- 
 nitely specified, or provided for in the new jail building. 
 
 Finally, under the head of "general clauses and conditions," 
 Mr. Faxon makes himself sole umpire, stipulating for full 
 power, without even consulting the Secretary of the Interior, 
 or any other officials, to order, as the work progresses, 
 " any alterations, additions, or omissions, he may deem 
 proper or necessary, * * * * 
 
 the value of such additions, alterations, or omissions, to be 
 determined (alone) by the architect, whose decision thereon 
 shall be final" — an unprofessional, unheard-of, and monstrous 
 assumption of power, which, by its abuse, might easily en-, 
 rich a favorite, or break down and ruin a contractor, distaste- 
 ful to, or who might, for any reason be so unfortunate as to 
 incur his displeasure ; an arbitrary power, wholly irresponsi- 
 ble, which could bid defiance to all " estimates," or even ap- 
 proximations towards the cost of the "new jail," until that 
 indefinite period of time, when it shall have reached final 
 completion, and which, in any case, would open the widest 
 possible door to fraud and collusion — or the suspicion of thete 
 — as between the supervising architect and contractors. 
 
14 
 
 It remains, only, in very few words and figures, to note 
 certain specific " omissions" in Mr. Faxon's " plans and 
 printed specifications," which, although of large cost, and 
 certainly indispensable, even under his own general " plan," 
 will be fouud, on the closest scrutiny, not specified or pro- 
 vided for, but to have been (whether intentionally or other- 
 wise), wholly and specifically omitted, as follows : 
 Ist. No fences or wall enclosure around the jail 
 
 yard — would cost (properly built), say $20,000 00 
 
 2d. No stone or iron floors, to prevent the most 
 usual method of escape, by tunnelling out 
 
 —cost, say 10,000.00 
 
 3d. No water-works, or bowls, etc., for the sepa- 
 rate cells of prisoners, (properly construct- 
 ed)— cost, say 5,000 00 
 
 4th. No heating apparatus, or pipes, throughout 
 
 the jail — would cost (if properly put in), say 12,000 00 
 5th. Sundry " omissions," of many small items, 
 in detail, including the fitting up of 
 " Chapel,"etc., etc. — would certainly cost, 
 in " extras," say 25,000 00 
 
 An " aggregate cost," of specific " omissions," say $72,000 00 
 
 ALBERT GRANT, 
 
 Architect. 
 Washington, D. C, October 22, 1867. 
 
 The case was argued before the court on the part of the 
 complainants by Messrs. Cook, Burgess, and Barrett ; on the 
 part of the Secretary, by Mr. Wilson, the Assistant District 
 Attorney. 
 
 Chief Justice Cartter, after consultation, rendered the fol- 
 lowing decision : 
 
 Opinion of Judge Cartter. 
 
 Chief Justice Cartter said : 
 
 "The Court are unanimously of the opinion that the appli- 
 cation for an injunction in this case is premature, and must, 
 
15 
 
 therefore, be rejected. The act which provides for a new jai 
 in this District, entrusts to the Secretary of the Interior the 
 supervision of the work under limitations of law, and there 
 is no particular embarrassment on the part of the Court in 
 cautiously exercising a limited jurisdiction over this officer 
 in the case at bar. I believe it to be the judgment of the 
 Court that wherever Congress entrusts the exeuction of a 
 power to one of the heads of departments, they make the 
 exercise of that power amenable to the law in all cases where 
 the duty confided is not executive in its character, and does 
 not grow out of a trust charged by the Constitution, So far 
 as that feature of the act giving the Secretary of the Interior 
 power to levy taxes is concerned, I hold that levying and col- 
 lecting taxes are the highest badges of legislative sovereignty 
 know to our theory of government, and they belong to legis- 
 lative sovereignty alone. I hvae no doubt that, under the 
 operations of that law, the Secretary is amenable to the super- 
 vision of the Courts. 
 
 The Court have not come to the conclusion they have in 
 this case from a conviction that this law has been complied 
 with. 
 
 If the charges made in the bill of complaint be true, there 
 has been either a designed or heedless disregard of the law, 
 and for the purpose of the motion pending before us, the 
 allegations are taken to be true. It is an ex parte proceeding, 
 although each party has had a hearing. That precautionary 
 provision in the law, giving a full, definite and detailed 
 specification in the work to be performed, if the allegations 
 of the bill be true, has been most carelessly or culpably 
 omitted in the proposals for advancing this work. The pre- 
 cautionary measures adopted by Congress on advice and with 
 a view to remedy the evil of extravagant and wastful expen- 
 diture, if the allegations of the bill be true, have been totally 
 disregarded. Another condition of the bill is made a con- 
 dition precedent to the initiation of this work, and judges of 
 the fitness of the structure selected by law are imperatively 
 made parties in judgment upon the plans. It is not because 
 the Court are satisfied that the law has been complied with, 
 
16 
 
 or that there may not great mischief ensue to the pnbb'c from 
 the want of compliaace, that the Court have I'ejecfed the mo- 
 tion for injunction ; for takinfr the allegations of the bill to be 
 true, they are forced to the convictions that the law iias not 
 been complied with. What has chiefly ruled the mind of the 
 Court in the determination it has resolved, is the conviction 
 that at present the complainants, upon their own showing, 
 have no standing in court. The subject of the complaint 
 does not bring them within reach of the relief they seek. 
 This law provides for the erection of a jail for the District of 
 Columbia at an expense of $200,000, seeking to charge the 
 cost on the Federal Treasury and the Federal city, payment 
 of one half ($100,000) is charged upon the citizens and pro- 
 perty of the District, the other half upon the Federal Trea- 
 sury. For the purpose of convenience, and perhaps economy, 
 the bill provides for the payment by the Federal Govern- 
 ment, out of the Federal Treasury, of the whole amount, the 
 Treasury to be repaid out of the property of the District for 
 $100,000. The contribution of the $100,000 by the District 
 is made subordinate to the payment by the Federal Treasury 
 of the whole amount and is treated as a re-imbui-sement ; it 
 having been provided by the bill that contemporaneously 
 with the progress of the structure, the Secretary of the In- 
 terior might compel the contributions of the moiety of the 
 District by a tax on its citizens and property. This condition 
 of the law raises the question, at what period may the citizen 
 of the District supervene for his protection from its violation, 
 if he can interfere at all ? Can he anticipate his liability to 
 the impost, or is he postponed until the functionary of Gov- 
 ernment sees fit to enforce his contribution ? Now, we think, 
 if he has a standing in Court, it comes with the contribution. 
 He can't take such standing in advance on a mere threaten- 
 ing. There must be a personal liability in fact. The burden 
 must be direct and attach to him before he can make i^" 
 available as a ground for higal interference. That tiuin !;a!; 
 not arrived, and by the light of aurhoiity. when nr ln.w 
 soon it will arrive, seems to be unsettled, and to be ieti to 
 the wisdom of the chancellor as well as the law. 
 
The law merely settles that the injustice must be upon the 
 party and be irreparable. The general principal is clearly 
 announced in the books ; but when it begins and where it 
 terminates is very difficult to deteririine. It seems to be 
 postponed to the judgment of the chancellor in the case en- 
 lightened by the facts. However difficult it is to determine 
 when it begins, the'Court are unanimously of opinion it has 
 not begun here. The attempt to collect taxes has not been 
 made, and the case has not matured. Without attempting to 
 anticipate the judgment of the Court if the time should ever 
 arrive when that period begins, it is sufficient to pronounce 
 that it has not yet arrived. An attempt to subject the peo- 
 ple to the operation of a transgressed law and the payment 
 of a wastful, vagrant appropriation of money is not before 
 the Court at this time. Sufficient unto the day is the evil 
 thereof." 
 
 GEO. BURGESS, 
 O. D. BARRETT, 
 Atfys for Petioners. 
 
EXTRACTS FROM SPECIFICATIONS. 
 
 The following are extracts from the specifications, under 
 which the contracts were made, and show the dangerous 
 power conferred upon the architect: 
 
 " In all cases of uncertainty or dispute in the execution of 
 the work, the architect is the umpire to decide upon the 
 matter. He is also the person to decide and give directions 
 in all things where the words " as may be directed," or " as 
 directed," are used or applied; also where the words "proper," 
 " suitable," or " required," or words of similar import are 
 used, the decision as to what constitutes such propriety, suit- 
 ableness, requirement, &c., is in all cases to be with the ar- 
 chitect." 
 
 General Clauses and Conditions. 
 "1st. All the works above described are to be executed and 
 finished by the party or parties contracting for them, in all 
 respects according to the true intent and meaning of the va- 
 rious drawings, and such direction and other working draw- 
 ings for their exact performance as may be given from time 
 to time, as the work progresses, by the architect in charge of 
 the works, and whose directions shall in all cases be strictly 
 adhered to. The plans, elevations, sections, and other work- 
 ing drawings are intended to embrace all the necessary in- 
 formation for the due performance of the work ; but should 
 there appear on the plans, elevations, sections, or other draw- 
 ings, any part not described in the specifications, or described 
 in the specifications and not shown on the plans, elevations, 
 sections or other drawings, it is contended that the contractor 
 or contractors shall consider the same in the formation of his 
 or their estimates, as much as if the same had been particu- 
 larly set forth and shown in both. 
 
 "2d. It is not anticipated that there will be any alterations, 
 additions, or omissions in the works herein specified, but 
 rhould the architect deem them proper or necessary during 
 
20 
 
 the progress of the work, such alterations, additions, or omis- 
 sions are to be acceded to by the contractor or contractors 
 and carried into effect, without vitiating or annulling, in any 
 respect, any contract or contracts before entered into or made 
 for the works ; and the value of such alterations, additions, 
 or omissions is to be determined by the architect, whose de- 
 cision thereon shall be final ; and the sum or value thus de- 
 termined upon is to be added or deducted from (either way, 
 as the case may be) the contract by endorsement thereon. 
 
 "3d. It is to be fully understood by the contractor or con- 
 tractors that, in the execution of the several works herein 
 specified, no materials of an inferior description will in any 
 case be allowed to be used ; but that all the said materials, of 
 whatsoever description they may be, are to be of the best 
 qualities. 
 
 " And the superintendent to be appointed to remain upon 
 the building and examine practically the details of the work 
 as it progresses, and see that they are carried out according to 
 the drawings and specifications of the architect, shall, with 
 the concurrence of the architect, have the power to reject any 
 material that may be deemed objectionable or unfit for the 
 building." 
 
PEOCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF COMMON 
 COUNCILS OF WASHINGTON CITY. 
 
 Monday, November 4, 1867. 
 
 Mr. S. S. Baker introduced the following preamble and 
 resolutions, and moved their reference to a special committee ; 
 which was agreed : 
 
 " Whereas, Congress has authorised the erection of a new 
 jail in the District of Columbia, at a cost not exceeding two- 
 hundred thousand dollars, one-half of which is to be paid- 
 back to the United States Government by the District, sev- • 
 enty-five thousand dollars of the amount by the city of" 
 Washington ; and whereas, it is represented in sworn records 
 of the Supreme Court of the District, that the provisions of 
 the law have been greatly disregarded in the preparation of 
 plans and specifications for said jail, as well as otherwise, . 
 whereby the final cost will be increased above the two hun- 
 dred thousand dollars, of which increase the city will be re- > 
 quired to pay a large part, in addition of the seventy-eight 
 thousand dollars above named ; and whereas, it is represented 
 that the contract for said jail was withheld from the lowest 
 bidder against the recommendation of Mr. Clark, " Architect • 
 of the Capitol," and given to higher bidders, in apparent* 
 violation of law ; and whereas, it is our duty to use all law-, 
 ful means in our power to prevent oppressive and illegal 
 burdens being placed on tax payers ; and whereas, the facts 
 set forth lay the ground for believing that the erection of the 
 jail, as now proposed, will have this effect : therefore — 
 
 '• Resolved^ That a committee of three be appointed to in- 
 quire without delay into the matter, and, in conjunction with 
 the Mayor, to take such steps, in law or otherwise, as may be 
 necessary to prevent the erection of the jail on the plans and 
 specifications alleged to be adopted, and on the contracts re- 
 ported as having been given out to citizens oi Baltimore." 
 
 Messrs. S. S. Baker, A. P. Clark, and Nalley were ap- 
 pointed by the Chair. 
 
22 
 
 Monday, November 18, 1867. 
 
 Mr. S. S. Baker submitted the report of the special com- 
 mittee on the constraction of the new jail. 
 
 The committee find that the construction of a new jail was 
 authorised bj act ot Congress, approved July 25, 1866. A 
 joint resolution, in relation to the construction, was passed 
 March 2, 1867. 
 
 These laws, in order to avoid any unnecessary expenditure 
 of money, provide among other things, that " complete spe- 
 cifications of the work and the materials to be used " shall be 
 done towards the construction until perfected plans for the 
 entire work shall have been completed and approved by a 
 board of three, of which General M. C. Meigs and A. B. 
 Mullet shall be two. 
 
 The cost is limited to $200,000, of which the District is re- 
 quired to pay one-half, and the city of Washington $78,000, 
 to be collected by taxation. 
 
 It is alleged in several papers in the Supreme Court, and the 
 allegations are uncontradicted, that the contracts have been 
 given out without the complete specifications required, and 
 that instead thereof general plans and specifications are sub- 
 stituted, which will increase the cost of the jail upward of $70,- 
 000. Besides, it appears there has been no approval of the 
 plans and specifications, as the law requires. The result will 
 be, if the contract is carried out, not only will the tax payers 
 of the city be burdened to the extent of $78,000, but as the 
 jail will in the end cost largely beyond the present appro- 
 priation, they will, in all probability, be taxed a large addi- 
 tional sum for its completion. 
 
 These considerations of themselves justify our interference. 
 But, besides, it is alleged that the present plans are greatly 
 defective, and that the building, when completed, will not be 
 such as Congress designed to have erected as regards to size 
 or otherwise ; nor should it be overlooked that the location 
 selected is distant from the City Hall or court room, and in- 
 creased expenses by requiring an additional number of officers 
 and conveyances to take persons to and from the court-house. 
 
 A large number of the best citizens are opposed to the loca- 
 tion selected. 
 
23 
 
 Judge Wylie said : " I hope that in some way or other 
 these proceeding may be delayed, because if they are not in- 
 terfered with, and this jail is erected upon the site that has 
 been selected, it will be a waste of money and a public incon- 
 venience, and no accommodation to the court. I think I 
 express the opinion of both of my brethern when I say that 
 we would prefer for the present the inconvenience of the old 
 jail rather than have a new jail upon the site that has been 
 selected." 
 
 In view of all the facts, your committee consider it a duty 
 devolving on this Council to so act that the city shall be 
 saved from unjust taxation ; and if a new jail be erected, 
 that it be in compliance with the law, and in a proper loca- 
 tion ; therefore — 
 
 Be it resolved^ That a committee of three be appointed, to 
 act with a similar committee of the Board of Aldermen, to 
 take such action in law or before Congress as shall correct 
 the evils herein set forth, and arrest any proceeding or work 
 under the present contract for the jail. 
 
 Mr. O. S. Baker moved to strike out that portion of the 
 resolution relating to a committee on the part of the Board 
 of Aldermen, and to provide that the committee shall con- 
 sist of three members of this Board ; which was agreed to. 
 The report was then adopted by the following vote : 
 Yeas — Messrs. Arrison, O. S. Baker, S. S. Baker, Beall, 
 A. P. Clark, N. B. Clark, Connolly, Crocker, Knight, L. B. S. 
 Miller, Parker, Pfau, Kutherford, Slowen, and Tilley^— 15. 
 
 Nays — Messrs. Ball, George W^ Miller, Nalley, and tljp 
 President — 4. 
 
 The President appointed Messrs. Arrison, S. S. Baker, and * 
 Ball as the committee, as provided for in the above reso- » 
 lution. \ 
 
 I 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 lllllllllllllllllllllllllllill 
 
 014 369 195 
 
 x'^ 
 
 
 < 
 
 'r 
 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 I Hill mil 
 
 014 369 195 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 Lig-Free® Type I