The Indianapolis journal., 1903-05-09
FRED FUEHRING ON SWEEPING
He Alleges That He and furnas We're Disseminated
Against by Mayor Taesart in 1899.

clude the street sweeping contracts IN its
investigation The question was raised by
Mr.. Matson, attorney for L. ID. Logsdon
who cited the resolution passed by the
Council. 1t referred to the communication
from Mayor Bookwalter. This spoke of a
resolution adopted by the Board OF Public
Works asking for investigation as to
certain contracts" Mr.. Noel said he
would doubtless present several matters
to the committee that would not interest
Mr.. Matson and his client. He said the
committee could investigate any city af-
fairs being the standing committee for
that purpose.
Accordingly Mr.. Noel examined Fred w.
Fuehring at length as TO the sweeping con-
tracts He brought out the fact that Fuehr-
ing and John II. Furnas had secured the
sweeping contract two years during the
Taggart administration by having Charles
III. Stuckmeyer, former city clerk and a
leading Democratic politician, bid for the
contract. Mr.. Noel developed by persistent
questioning of Fuehring that in 1898 the
contract had been awarded TO Graves &
Jones. In 1899 Fuehring and Furnas bid
under the name of John IL. Furnas, and
were awarded the contract, being the lowest
bidder. Their bid took the contract from
Graves & Jones. Mr.. Fuehring said he
subsequently found that they had got the
contract "by mistake" This he explained
by saying that they made mistake in
bidding at all. but they did not discover
their mistake until the fines assessed
against them became excessive and oppres-
sve.
FINED SEVERAL THOUSAND DOL
LARS.
Mr.. Fuehring said, in answer to Mr..
Noel's question, that, while he did not like
to brag on himself, the sweeping of 1889
was the best ever done in the city. Yet
he said the sweepers were fined several
thousand dollars. Such fines had never
been assessed before or since, and he re-
garded 1t as strange that they should be
assessed when the work was so well done.
"As a matter of fact" asked Mr.. Noel,
''you believed that you were being fined
out of the business?''
"It seemed that way. I did not think
that at first, but after a while it seemed
that way
s"Well. you were fined so heavily that you
lost money on the contract, weren't your"
"Oh. yes sir: we lost money"
"And you suffered so from this treatment
that you decided not to bid in 1902
1--WE thought it was no use to bid for
work If we did it well and got fined so
heavy
"But you did bid in 19OO?'
"Mr. Stuckmeyer bid and got the con-
tract. We did the work.
Mr.. Fuehring explained that one day
early in 1900 Mr.. Stuckmeyer, with whom
he was well acquainted, came to him and
asked him If he had determined not to bid
again. Fuehring said he had. Stuckmeyer
asked him what he would do the work for
Fuehring said he would do it for IL cents
per 10000 square feet. Stuckmeyer then
asked him If he would do the work for that
price If Stuckmeyer bid and got the con-
tract. He said he would. Accordingly,
Stuckmeyer bid 1874 cents and got the con-
tract. He kept the difference between II
cents and 1874 cents as his compensation.
This amounted during 1900 and 1901 to about
$500.
PROFITABLE CONTRACTS.
Fuehring testified that in both 1900 and
1901 the sweeping was not so we'll done as in
1899. yet in 1900 he said he was not fined
one-sixth of the sum he was fined in 1899,
when the work was the best ever done in
the city and when he and Furnas had lost
contracts both years were profitable. Fueh-
ring said he was very glad to have Stuck
meyer interested in the contract.
He also explained that in 1899 the amount
of sweeping done was as great as that in
1898, yet had cost about 5000 less.
The contract of 1899 was the only one
where the whole city, for period of nine
months, was to be paid for by lump sum.
Furnas bid 1880 and bid 10 cents per TO-
900 square feet for the three winter months
"a period between Dec. Is and March Is,
when there is little swe ping.
Mr.. Noel examined Fuehring minutely as
to the sweeping history so as to familiarize
the committee with il. Mr.. Fuehring made
an interesting explanation of how more
money could be made when small price
is bid than when a large one is. He said
il 20 cents was the price the contractor
could sweep every night and keep his
equipment busy, while if he swept only
one or two nights a week and got 90 cents
he could not earn enough to pay the ex-
penses of his business.
Fuehring said a horse sweeper. of the
rotary brush kind, could sweep seventy
| five blocks in a night while pneumatic
sweeper. such as Furnas had invented,
could sweep lis to 120 blocks. After 1896
Fuehring had acquired the exclusive right
to this sweeper in Indianapolis for
period of seventeen years.
CHARACTER OF SPECIFICATIONS
Referring again to 1899 Fuehring said the
specifications were construed to mean that
the streets should be absolutely free from
dust at all times. Like this he said,
showing the back of his hand. His treat
ment was so Outrageous" that he and
Furnas decided not to bid again because
they felt that Mayor Taggart was trying
told the board they would not bid again.
Because of this treatment Fuehring had
objected to paying the campaign assess
ment i'm 1901 which Remington solicited
for the Mcguire campaign. Fuehring said
he had not asked Taggart If he was disap-
pointed when Graves & Jones did not
again secure the contract.
Fuehring said, however, that Stuckmeyer
had been more than a mere figurehead
TO procure the contract. Stuckmeyer, he
until late hours seeing how il was done.
He also overSaw the work OF the street
orderlies. This was handy, he said, as
Stuckmeyer was at that time putting in
his waste paper boxes. TO erect which he
procured franchise from the Taggart ad-
ministration.
Under the contract the city paid 50 for
the teams used In the removal Of collected
sweepings and paid the street orderlies.
The orderlies were by the contract re-