The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1903-07-26
Manager Marshalls Statement.

In explanation of the foregoing letter
Mr.. Marshall made the following state
ment last night:
"A monopoly has existed for a num-
Der OF years in the towel and laundry
work OF the police and fire departments
The work has never been open for bids
and competition has not been allowed.
The Tolman Laundry has had the inside
track and obtains a much larger price
for its work than would be asked by
other lanadries.
II understand that that company gets
81 per hundred for towels in small guam
titles, and never less than 81 per hun
dred in large Quantities II that work
were awarded IN open competition. it
would be done for less than 30 cents.
This same laundry. for other work OF
the same class. charges hotels and
restaurants so cents per hundred The
District government is losing at least
100 per cent on this work, and as it ag-
gregates something like $1,000 per year.
the excess is considerable.
Procured Share by Threats.
Il have good authority for the state
ment that some time ago the Star
laundry learned of this monopoly ana
went TO the Tolman management with
the proposition that II the work was
not divided. an exposure would be made
of the whole crooked business. At any
rate the Star laundry was given a good
~ portion OF the District work, and the
exposure was never made.
81 might add that a short time ago. in
open competition. the Gem Laundry was
awarded the same class of work for the
Postofice Department for 2s55 cents per
100. The Government is not only being
defrauded, but the laundries of the city
are beinS shut out OF competition by
favoritism- The matter win stand in
vestigatin-"
Not Pubiic's Concern.
The manager Of the Tolman Laundry
was faced with this statement. but told
the reporter for The Times that the
company's business was not any affair
of the public
The president of the company. James
p. Tolman was more communicative.
/ and said that he did some work for the
/ District. and that the rates charged were
81 and 81 per hundred for towels. Moth
/ ing could be ascertained. however. a.
/ to tire reason fol the apparent ploEopoly
/ enjoyed by the Tolman company.
/ The manager OF the Gem Laundry was
next interviewed. and Immediately ad-
mitted having been awarded a contract
/ for the same class OF work for 2Sls
cents per hundred. He explained that
I this figure could not be taken as
{ basis for figuring. because he was los
ing money on the contract.
Wanted the Contract.
Il bid that figure" he said. because
l wanted the contract. 1t costs about 60
cents to do the work. SO you see l am
not getting Iich. I have. however. a
contract foF more Of the same class Of
work. for which 1 get STA cents per
/ hundred. This was obtained in COM
( petitive bidding. and / consider that Ii
is an easy money making figure
Il have often wondered how the Police
and Fire Department work was awarded.
and lave never been given an oppor-
\ tunlty TO bid On the work. II il Is done
I for 81 per hundred now. I know half
dozen lGundries which will do it for less.
would be glad to get the job at 50 cents
per hundred"
TIE manager OF the Star Laundry
could not be seen last evening, In re-
gard to the alleged "divvy" on the Dis
| trict work