The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-08-25

provisions of the.sueet cleaning contracts.
though it is glad TO report any violation
of these contracts. that may come within
its observation. The fact that final pay
ment wGs made under this contract.
though the contractor had not complied
with its requirements, would indicate a
lack Ct necessary supervision On the part
OF the depa! ttaent having charge Of the
contract.
The removal Of this material Is not a
matter CT grading. but Of requiring prop
G. disposition OF street sweepings. which Il
n necessary ilCilsut to street cleaning II
is merely a bs.ated attempt to enforce the
contract and hold the GuTeties responsible
Ger rs violation. 1t Is needless to say that
the surface division is perfectly willing +
bear its own burders, but it is unwilling
TO assume those Of cno.h5r department
unless lis authority is corrc5pondingly ex-
tended"
ii this point n the argument Capt. d.
u. C. Hard, Acting Engineer Commission
cr, tC1l- q had IL tLa game, and forwarded
TIE Noiculncu5 series Of endorsements to
Commissioner Ross, with the eaection:
IL arp -scs frcn what p.scc9es that the
street. n QUESTION has been partly filed
VIII Unsuitable material deposited there
OF b Mass-s. Dagsett & DuEan. con-
tractors for the Street Cleaning Depart
mcnt. The street is about to be in roved
urde- the operation CT the street in rove
ment schedule, and it becomes necessary to
remove the material in question the esti
mated cost Of which is $500.
The material appears TO have been de
posted in violation OF the specifications Of
the contract with Messrs Daggett & Du-
gan. In view OF this fact it would seem
that the Street. Cleaning Department is re-
sporsible for the matter, and ii is respect
fully suggested that the Engineer Depart
meIt 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 tie
bondsmen Of the contractors.
With this recommendation the papers 4
the case were referred back to Nj. Stutlsr
for the twenty-frst, and. up to date the
last endorsement, in which the compli-
ments of Captain Newcomer to the Street
Clearing Department, were thus reviewed:
Unjust Insinuations and Reflections.
"As l read Captain Newcomers eight
zenith endorsement" says Mr.. Stutler, II
can see nothing~in it but insinuations and
reflections against the Street Cleaning De-
partment. all Of which are without cause,
as can be readily shown. This department
does not chieet TO the surface division
OF any other party reporting violations of
its duties, if there be any. provided IL IS
dcle in the right spirit. But il might be
only fair 10 suggest that if the surface
division would spend more energy in look
ing after violations of its own contracts,
which can be readily pointed out. perhaps
citizens interested in other departments,
apon whom are entailed additional bur-
dens, would be as highly pleased as Cap
tain Newcomer seams 10 be in alleging
incompetence against this department.
The Street Cleaning Department is
well aware &C the fact that the surface di-
vision is not responsible for the enforce
ment OF It's contracts. ano 1t has not, and
hopes I5Yer, TO call upon them to aid it
in that respect. We are also gratihed to
learn Ii I The Surface division IS willing
to bear y own burdens and We shall be
very glf to turn over work done by this
depar;m nj which should be looked after
by them.
This department resents such allega-
tions as that ii is entirely helpless in the
matter of enforcing a penalty for the
violation of the contract and that final
payment was made under this contract,
though the contractors had not fully COM
piled with the requirements would indi-
cate lack of necessary supervision on
the department having charge of the
contract.
The Surface Division is entirely re-
sponsible for the dumping in controversy
and not the Street Cleaning Department.
as they gave Messrs. Daggett & Dugan per-
mission to use the street, or what ought to
be a street. for that purpose. This per-
mission was given without consulting the
of the Street Cleaning De-
partment, and was entirely independent of
the terms and specifications OF the street
cleaning contract. With such permission
granted by those in authority IL would APP
pear that the contractors did not violate
he terms of their contract with this de-
This street and locality have been used
Ior dumping purposes more than FIVE
years. not only by Messrs. Daggett & Du-
gan, but by other persons, hauling all
kinds Of material, such as ashes, dirt,
waste. etc. none of which mas
ever been superintendent by dumpman of
this department. Further the dumping of
Daggett & Dugan forms only small part
IF the material dumped. Therefore, we are
In no wise responsible for the present con-
iition OF the street. The aeeumulations
are possibly three feet or more deep, 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, and opening
streets"