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

On March 10, 1900. n report found its
way to the Computing Engineer Of the
District relative to certain deposits CT IN
suitable filing material in Half Street
southwest, between l and Streets, and
ire suggestion was embodied in the report
that the responsible parties be notified 10
remove the same.
The report in question was a harmless
locking affair. and no one could then have
predicted that 1t would be the recipient of
twenty-one endorsements and would &C.
cupy the attention of various officials of
the District government ali summer. Yet
/. such is the fact, and from present appear
snces the snow of December will fly be
fore the questions at issue between the
Engineer Department and that of street
cleaning have settled their differences. IN
less the Commissioners step in to take the
matter out of the realm CT discussion. The
trouble seems to have begun when the
Computing Engineer forwarded the letter
TO his chief with the suggestion that it be
referred to the Street Cleaning Department
for the purpose Of the accomplishment of
the recommendation contained in the re-
port. The matter passed through several
Stages Ol report anu
to July g. when the fourteenth endorse
ment appeared over the signature of the
Computing Engineer. in which the infor-
nation was forwarded to the Commission
ers that Daggett & Dugan were the con-
tractors responsible for the deposit of ma
terial in Half Street southwest and that
their sureties, the Fidelity and Deposit
Company of Maryland, had been notified
to cause the removal of the said objec-
II 1
err said the Engineer, and in accord
ance with the intent of the Commissioners,
and with the advice Of their Attorney, that
this material should now be removed by
the District and the cost of such work col
lCcted in the manner advised by the Attor-
ney. This work of removal believe should
be carried on under the Superintendent of
Street Cleaning and the original cost
should be charged 10 appropriations under
his control, for the reason that the aecu-
mutations to be removed are the result of
operations Of contractors under him.
To this statement Warner Stutler, the
Superintendent of Street Cleaning. re-
piled that he had no funds available for
the purpose, and that it would seem that
the work was more in the nature Of
grading than of cleaning. and should be
done by the Street Department.
Captain Newcomer's Views.
At this stage of the controversy Capt.
H. C. Newcomer Assistant to the En-
gineer Commissioner wrote the sixteenth
endorsement in which he said: 1.-The
materials to be removed from this public
street are street sweepings, which were
deposited there by the street sweeping
contractors in violation of their contract.
1t would appear that the Street Cleaning
Department should be responsible for re-
quring the observance of the terms Of
its contracts for street sweeping and
should not be entirely helpless in the
matter of enforcing a penalty for the
violation of the contract. The Surface
Division has not been given any authority
over the contractors for the street sweep
ing which would appear to justify the use
Of its appropriations for removing deposits
unlawfully made under such contracts OF
the Street Cleaning Department
In the seventeenth endorsement Mr..
Stutler replied; The contractors, Daggett F..
& Dugan, have been using the street in
question as temporary deposit for street 4
cleaning for the past five years, tae ma
-erial having been hauled away by farm
FRS. The contractors reported to this Of
bee that permission was granted them by I
he Engineer Department of Streets to use
the street for the purpose named. The
Street Cleaning Department has always
understood this TO be the case, and no
complaint previous TO the one in question
has ever been made 10 this department by
the Street Department during the entire
period to my knowledge. II the dumping
was violation Of the law and the Street Z
Department knew it. they should have
the matter 10 this department
prior 10 the expiration of the street clean 1
ing contract. The accusation that this I
dc partment is helpless in enforcing it's
contracts Is an injustice. The power
given to this Office to enforce the terms |
Df the contract was the right TO with I
hold the money due them. or by fine, |
neither Of which remedies can be applied |
al tkis time. for the reason that the con-
tract has expired and the contractors have |
been paid in full.
The condition Of the street is such !
that grading is required instead of clean /
ng; therefore. the appropriation for street /
,leaning is not available"
To these reflections by the superinten-
dent of street cleaning, Captain Newcomer
paid his respects in the following Ian
guage: Respectfully forwarded to the
Engineer Commissioner, requesting a de-
cision 10 the department and appropria-
ton that are responsible for removing |
these sweepings. The surface division is I
not responsible for the enforcement OF the 1
Il |