Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1876-04-21
The Odoriess Exeavatfny Apparatus
Com paDr.


MFssRs. EDITORS: Your Washington cor.
rekpordence Of April 10 and 10 has been mis-
led into such an unfair representation OF
i"e'S o. W matter referred 10 that with
cut Any disposition TO rush into print TO ad-
vertise the operations of our company, the
undersigned desire to correct in the main the
misstatement so far as they reflect on us.
Your correspondent states "it appears from
the testimony OF one Bradley, that repre-
senting company in Philadelphia, he put
in bid la 1873 for the removal of night SOL;
that his bid was the lowest, and that on the
payment OF 81 900 he withdrew his bid; that
stock company was formed and certain
persons received stock In consideration of
contracts" &C. The facts are briefly as fol-
lows;
To the spring OF 1873 the undersigned intro
duced to the public the improved apparstrs
for removing night soil, and havip- made
The acquaintance of Mr.. Bradley 40 deyelop-
ing TIE machine copartnership vas formed
between Us, we agreeing r. put in our i'm
provements and Mr.. Bradley representing
that be owned the "Strous patent" (which
was considered valuable,l agreed To assign
IL 10 US jointly as bis investment in the bus
mess. Failure on his part to assign said
patent developed the fact that other parties
claimed interests which we supposed were
controlled entirely by him. hr. Hooker, of
New York, first presented claim OF an in
terest in the "Strous patent" which MIR
Bradley admitted was valid, aud we yielded
10 q ecC nd division of interest.
A few Gays after DR.. Bliss, whom We had
never seen before, called at our Office ard
notified us that he and DR.. Cox owned one
sixth interest In the "Strous patent" outside
the District OF Columbia. AS we had no
knowledge of the status of the "StrouS
patent at that time we again requested
information from Mr.. Bradley, and he again
admitted that the fact stated by DIR. Bliss
was true, ramely, that he and DR.. Cox had
secured i'm New York city nesixth interest
in the Strous patent outside of the Dis
trict. Having no desire TO make an issue of
what we believed TO be true, and confirmed
by one of our own number equally interested
rnA srHf -.
of The new claimants, with the distinct
understanding, expressed by all the parties
interested, that they were to have no part or
interest in any operation in the District of
Columbia. The manner of defining or ap.
pOrtionipg their interest being a mOOted
question, was rot disposed of until June p,
an amount of preferred stock to satisfy the
claims of DrS. Cox and Bliss for the interest
which we in good faith had agreed they
should have, on account of the sixth Interest
the held In "the StrOus," which claim Mr.
Bradley had testified to us was correct anc
true. The assignment of the preferred stock
was therefore not consideration for either
the first or second contracts.
AS TO the division OF profits In Washington
we would state that after Mr.. Keller as
sumed control Of the funds there, which for
certain reasons was rendered necessary. he
made stated and regular divisions OF all
balances or profits accruing in Washington
to the holders OF common stock, making
eighteen such divisions in all, and running
into the year 1875, of which profits neither
Drs. Bliss or Cox ever received a penny, and
but for the bad faith OF certain member of
our company whose policy was "rule or
ruin" the said division of profits would be
continued TO the present day, which fact
would be ample testimony as showing who
received the profits from the District OF Co.
lumbia.
Referring TO the statement that the stock re-
ce1ved by Drs. Bliss and Cox had been pur-
chased either by or for the company at face
value, we would state that the stock passed
out OF their possession long since for less
than one fourth its par value, and does not
appear on the books of the company, nor did
the company purchase or hold any interest
IN said stock.
referring to the operations In the District
1T is proper TO state that the inducement
offered by us in the city of Washington was
proposition TO revOlutionize and wipe out
great nuisance, from the effects of which
the people were suffering, and at a cost 10
The citizens OF one dollar instead OF one dol
Jar and twenty five cents, which they paid
prior 10 the Introduction of our improved
apparatus.
The insinuation that a member of our
company essayed to make overtures TO the
health commissioned OF Baltimore allows us
the opportunity, though apparently forced
upon us, of defending both ourselves and the
honorable gentleman occupying tina position
from charges which have been made by the
advocates of the "night brigade" during the
recent con test between the Old and the new
systems in this city. While acknowledging
the obligations we are under 10 DR.. Jas. A .
Steuart for the assistance and encourage
ment afforded US In developing our appara-
tus, which we know was prompted not in
our interest, but In the interests Of the COM
munity at large, whose sanitary condi tion
ard comfort he has in keeping, we are graft
fed 10 have the opportunity of putting upon
record the fact that neither the health COM
missioner, his able assistant, or any person
connected with the health department, ever
had promised or implied a fraction of pecu-
mary interest in the operations OF our com
paDy.
Very respectfully, LEWIS K. KEIZER,
WIN. PAINTER,
Representing the o. f. 4. &.
Baltimore Sun, April q.