Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-08-24
OFFICIALS DISAGREE
Differences Concerning the Dumpage
on Half Street.
THE MATTER OF RESPONSIBILITY
Superintendent Stutler Replies to
Assistant Engineer Commissioner.
A LLEG ED REEL LECTION s

Mr.. Warner Stutler, the superintendent of
street cleaning for the District of Column
bia. has made reply to what he declares
were insinuations and reflections against
the street cleaning department, made by
Capt. H. c. Newcomer, U.SA assistant to
the Engineer Commissioner. in an indorse-
ment on the papers regarding the removal
of refuse from Half street between l and K
streets southwest. The deposits upon this
street have been the cause of a rather
sharp controversy between the street clean
Ing department and the surface or street
division of the engineer department. Both
have denied responsibility for allowing the
dumping of refuse at the place, and both
have been 10th to undertake Its removal.
The major portion of the deposits were
made, 1t is claimed, by Daggett & Dugan
when that firm had the contract for sweep
ing the streets of Washington. The engi-
neer department declares the dumping to
have been a violation of contract, and in
reporting upon the matter Capt. Newcomer
recently wrote the following Endorsement:
Respectfully forwarded to the Engineer
Commissioner of the District of Columbia,
requesting decision. as to the department
and appropriation that are responsible for
removing these street sweepings. The sur
face division is not responsible for the en-
forcement Of the provisions of street clean
ing contracts. though 1t Is glad to re-
port any violation of these contracts that
may come within it's observation. The fact
that final payment was made under this
contract, though the contractors had not
fully compiled with its requirements would
indicate lack of necessary supervision on
the part of the department having charge
Of the contract. The removal OF this ma
terial Is not a matter of grading, but Of
requiring a proper disposition of street
sweepings, which is a necessary incident to
street cleaning. 1t is merely a belated at
tempt to enforce the contract and hold the
sureties responsible for its violation. 1t is
needless to say that the surface division is
perfectly willing to bear It's own burdens,
but 1t is unwilling to assume those Of an
other department unless its authority is cor
respondingly extended
Capt. Gaillard's Comment.
Under date of August %. Captain Gail
lard, the acting engineer commissioner. for
warded the papers in the case to Commits
sioner Ross with the following indorse-
ment:
1T appears from what precedes that the
street in question has been partly filled with
unsuitable material deposited thereupon by
Messrs. Daggett & Dugan. contra ctOrs
for street cleaning. The street is about to
be improved under the operation of the
street Improvement schedule, and 1t be-
comes necessary to remove the material in
question. the estimated cost of which is
700 The material appears to have been
deposited in violation of the specifications
of the contract with Messrs. Daggett &
Dugan In view of this fact 1t would seem
that the street cleaning department is re-
Sponsible for the matter, and ii Is respect
fully suggested that the engineer depart
ment be authorized to remove the deposits
the expense thereof to be paid from the
appropriation for street cleaning, with the
idea that the street cleaning department
shall recover by bringing suit against the
bondsmen of the contractors"
The superintendent's Rejoinder.
Mr.. Suffers rejoinder, just filed, is very
pointed. He says:
LAS I read Capt Newcomers indorse-
ment, can see nothing in it but insinua-
tons and reflections against the street
cleaning department, all of which are
without cause, as can be readily shown
This department does not object to the
surface division, or any other. reporting
any violations of It's duties, if there be
any, provided 1t is done in proper spirit;
but 1t might be only fair to suggest that
If the surface division would spend more
energy In looking after violations of its
own contracts (Which can be readily point
ed ouD, perhaps citizens interested and
other departments, upon whom are en-
tailed additional burdens. would be as
highly pleased as Capt. Newcomer seems
to be In alleging incompetence against this
department.
The street cleaning department Is well
aware of the fact that the surface division
is not responsible for the enforcement of
its contracts; and 1T has not called. and
hopes never to call, upon the officials in
that department to aid 1t in that respect
We are also gratified to learn that the sur
face division is willing to bear its own bur-
dens; and We shall be very glad to turn
over work done by this department which
should be looked after by it.
tr I1~1
tiens as that it is entirely helpless in the
matter Of inforcing penalty for viola
ton Of the contract in the sixteenth in
dorsement, and that final payment was
tractors had not fully complied with It's re-
quirements would indicate lack of nee
essary supervision on the part Of the de-
partment having charge of the contract
IN the eighteenth Endorsement.
Surface Division Responsible.
1.-The surface division is entirely respon-
sibie for the dumping in controversy and
not the street cleaning department, as they
gave Messrs. Daggett Dugan permission
to use the street Tor what ought to be a
streeD for that purpose. This permission
was given without consulting the superin-
tendent of street cleaning, and was entirely
independent Of the terms and specifications
of the street cleaning contract With such
permission granted by those in authority II
would appear that the contractors did not
violate the terms of their contract with this
department.
This street and locality has been used
for dumping purposes for more than five
years. not only by Daggett & Dugan. but
by other persons hauling all kinds Of ma
terfal, such as ashes, dirt combustible
waste etc. none of which has ever been
superintendent by a dumpman of this de-
partment; and, further. the dumping by
Daggett & Dugan forms only a small por-
ton of the material dumped Therefore, we
are in no wise responsible for the present
condition OF the street. The accumulations
are possibly three feet or more in depth;
and have the honor to maintain that the
street cleaning appropriation can no more
be used for grading this street than it can
be used for paving, repairing or opening I'D