The evening times., 1896-02-26

The sealed bids for cremating the Dis
trict refuse opened today numbered six,
and the amounts stated were pretty closc
together. One bidder inclosed q certified
check for 81 900. in accordance with GUS
tom. but which was not required on this oc-
caston.
There were four proposals asked for, the
first calling for one furnace for q certain
territory, the city being laid off in districts
with prescribed boundaries: another was
FOR two furnaces, a third for three furnaces
and the fourth was to cover the entire
service, under stipulaIons that have here
tofore been explained in The Times.
The bidders were: Mccoy & Co., residence
not stated, $4,000 for two furnaces;
R. H. Hood, of Washington. for one fur
mace, 50 ,095; two furnaces, S11, 1886;
three furnaces, $15,995; Mowbray & Bal
ley, Philadelphia, No. proposal, SIS 900;
No. 2, $4,000; No. 8, $4,000; No. 4, 3d.
900; Frederick Kohimey New York No. 1
proposal, $50 900; No. 2, $50, 600: No. 8,
$4,000; No. 4. $4,000; j. n. warfield,
Washington, No. 1, S4,OO;; No. g, no bid;
No. 3, $4,000; No. 3. $4,000; George C.
Demo, representing A. W Colwell, New York,
No. 1, $4,000; No. 2, $4,000; No. 8,
5000. No. 4, $4,000. The latter bid
der gave the District the privilege of buy
ing the outfit after construction at 20 per
cent advance on the cost.
Under the terms Of the advertisements
each OF the bidders named the kind of crema-
tory he proposed to introduce. located it
approximately, and stated the time within
which 1t would be erected.
The transaction of offering and receiv-
ing proposals is binding on neither the Com
mlssioners nor the bidders. but the data
will be used In preparation of an estimate
for an appropriation.
REQUEST Is REFUSED.
Private r. T. Preston, who was dis
missed from the police force by order dated
May 10, 1895, recently made an appeal
for a reEearing of his case upon the grounds
that the findings of the trial board were
based upon the alleged false evidence of n
woman. who, he says, was known to be of
i'll repute. The Commissioners decline to
accede to the request.
Mr.. Preston denies utterly the charges
made by the woman, which charges were in
substance that he had been unduly familiar
at her domicile. He says the inspector then
serving In his precinct gives him the repu-
tation of being always on duty and other
wise substantiated his claim OF a good
record. His showing, II correct, evidences
that circumstances have dealt him but
little mercy.
The formal allegations as made to the
trial bc&Sd were of conduct unbecoming an
officer and gross neglect of duty, but
Preston says The whole case rested upon the
statement OF the single witness. who al
legged that she had reported edhimthreemonths
before the trial, giving his description to
Night Stationkeepcr Shepherd, who fur
nished her his name.
As an offset to this Preston files a charge
against Shepherd. which he says can be
easily proved. and says something implying
his kno wiedge of q violation of The Edmunds
law.
SENATOR DANIELS LETTER.
Senator Daniel, who was influenced by
an appeal to him from trustworthy people,
wrote letter to the board requesting, IL
consistent with the rules OF the department,
that Preston be given another chance to
disprove the charges.
The papers were referred to Major Moore,
who, upon investigation OF. the circum-
stances. returned them with the mdorse-
mcnt that, In his Judgment, there is no.
good reason for reopening the case after
the lapse Of ten months, and this opinion
is formally approved by the Commissioners.
Municipal ownership OF the plant for
sprinkling and sweeping the streets ard
alleys Of Washington Is subject that Is