Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-02-28

The Pr0p0stafoa. tn Abolish the Conc
tract System Of Street SweeHiag.


The Preposssfoa- tn Abolish the Con.
tract System Of Street SweeHing.
As announced in The Star yesterday. IT 10
the Intention OF the Commissioners, when
the present contracts expire, to assume
direct control OF the street sweeping, and
have the work performed by men employed
by the District. without the intervention OF
a contractor. The idea Of having theswork
done this way has been discussed for some
years. 1t was first officially proposed by
Maj. A. H. 8. Davis when superintendent OF
the street sweeping and cleaning depart
ment. In his annual report for the year
ended June 30 1893. Major Davis recon-
mended the adjustment of The contract
system. In that report he said:
Il am decidedly OF the opinion that the
work oil sweeping and cleaning our streets
and avenues. our alleys and the collecting
ana disposing Of garbage, ashes and dead
animals should be done directly by the city:
ana L most earnestly recommend that the
contract system be abolished as soon as IL
can De legally done. Our material and po-
htical interests are under the direction of
system OF government peculiarly non-par-
tisan In Its construction and workings, and
ponticai dfctation and influence have less
weight here than i'm other cities which gives
work Vino" ~ 'es' ''e
As a rule the contract system tends to
| cheapen and destroy effective labor Give
capitalist any class of work TO do because
ne Is the lowest bidder and as a matter of
| course. for his own protection he will in
turn employ the cheapest labor to be found
and nine times out of ten the results are
not what the interests of the community
demand In other words, the cheap con-
tracror is bound to slight his work when
ever and wherever he finds favorable OBJ
portunity. The cheaper he undertakes his
task the more he will slight the work the
poorer will be the material furnished and
the more the laborng man will suffer.
lf
the city to do the work of street cleaning
because of the purchase of the plant: but
once established in business for itself the
only difference in cost would come from the
tact that everything entering into the
makeup Of the establishment would be the
best the market afforded, and its emp,oyes
would receive better compensation for their
labor. The great majority of the taxpayers
do not desire to pinch the poor. They want
| good results, and would raise no objection
to paying the small difference between tho
cost of good and bad work, and certainly
no representative of a powerful govern
ment should hesitate TO vote an appropria-
| ton sufficient to cover the difference real
izfng that the laborer is worthy his hire
and that anything worth doing at all IS in
| the end cheapest If well done" Ii is not a
| manly argument to claim that because the
contractor procures laborers for 81. 20 day.
| therefore the government should PAY no
more. To get his daily bread. TO obtain
oven the common necessarles of life for
| those dependent upon him. man may be
compelled by the merciless contractor to
accept little better than starvation wages,
but certainly no branch of city OF national
| government should attempt such extortion.
The contractor may feel justified for his
course. but a government that undertakes
TO assist him In his work of degrading labor
| by insisting that specified work shall be
given to the lowest bidder can give no valid
| reason or excuse for it,
But the prime advantage TO the city in
doing its own work lies chiefly in the fact
| that when one Of its employees fails from
| amy cause to satisfactorily do his duty he
| may be dismissed Fault NAV be found
with the contractor and his men. but SUBJ
situations cannot he made without great
| annoyance and expense, because the con-
| tractor will permit no interference in mat
ters over which he claims sole jurisdiction"