The Washington times., 1903-07-03
WARNER STUILER
PRESENTS HIS CASE
Replies to Garbage Collect
Or's Complaint.
FINE PROPERLY IMPOSED
Declares He Has No Desire to Do Ferti-
lizer Company Injustice, and Only
Carries Out the Law.


Street Cleaning Department. submitted
yesterday afternoon TO the District
Commissioners an answer to the charge
made against him and his department
by Louis Boyer. jr.. secretary OF the
Washington Fertilizer Company. MIR.
Boyer made strong objection TO 4 fine
OF SS06.25 imposed upon his company by
superintendent Stutler for alleged fail.
ure to perform proper service as garb-
age collectors. MFR. Stutler holds that
his position is correct and asks the
Commissioners to hear both sides OF the
controversy in board meeting
1--WE do not" says Mr.. Boyer. in his
complaint, recognize the justice OF Mr..
Suffers infliction of a further fine of
Ss06.25 for failure to render proper SER
vice during May. as the records of the
office tend 20 disprove his claim.
From a business standpoint. we can
not fail to recognize the fact that 1t is
entirely too costly not to comply with
the terms of our contract. and we be-
lieve that the injustice of Mr.. Suffers
fines must be apparent. We cannot un-
derstand why the penalties to the
amount imposed by Mr.. Stutler can be
so readily approved by the Commission
ers. We think them unreasonable, TN
just, and excessive.
Ask Remission of Fine.
I'VE have earnestly endeavored to
comply in every way with the require
ments and terms of our contract. and
since our service shows an increase in
collection over the former contractor of
2.S23 tons in four years, without any
particular increase in population, we
are justified In believing that we are en-
-itled to some credit for the work now
rendered. We would request the Board
Of Commissioners to remit the fnes
imposed. by reason of their being unjust
and excessive"
Mr.. Suffers Reply.
In answer to this. Mr. stutler submit
ted the following letter to Commission
er West:
Mr.. Boyer claims that the deduction
of $s06.25 made by me from their May
account is unreasonable, unjust, and ex
oessive. and that the records tend 10
prove the same. II Mr.. Boyer believes
that an injustice has been done his COM
pany. l would suggest that he call for a
board hearing for the purpose of pre-
senting his case. l shall be very glad TO
meet him at such hearing in order that
may lay before the Commissioners my
side OF the controversy.
In regard to the statement OF Mr..
Boyer that his company has removed
Z.S23 tons more garbage than did the
former contractor during a like period.
beg TO say that the latter had on seven
ty-two teams during the summer months.
and in addition to that. eighty-five pri-
vate collectors had permits TO collect
throughout the year. OF course. the
quantity of garbage collected by these
private parties was not credited TO the
former contractor.
Private Collections Prohibited.
From December 1. 1900. wnen the
present contract went into effect. until
about May. 1901. these eighty-flve pri-
vate collectors continued 10 remove
garbage. During the latter month this
Office prohibited the practice. and it was
accordingly discontinued. Because Of
the fact that the eighty-fve private
parties were also collecting for the first
few months of the present contract the
service was excellent. and l so stated in
my annual report for the fiscal year,
1901
After the private parties stopped col
lecting the company did not increase
the number of teams. and the conse-
quence was that complaints from house
holders began to pour In. At no time
since the contract went into effect has
the company had on more than sixty
two teams, and although the present
summer schedule went into effect on
! April 16, up to within a few days ago
the greatest number Of teams in ser
vice has been hfty-eight
Cause of the Fine.
The reduction OF Ss06.25 from the
! cOmpany's account for May. to which
/ Mr.. Boyer takes exception, was based
/ on the failure to make the number OF
! collections required by the contract,
and not on the quantity Of garbage col
/ lected. Householders make so much
| garbage each week. and whether the
/ company removes IL daily, or a less
/ number of times during the week. they
ultimately get the total quantity. as no
one else is allowed TO collect it. In
! other words, If they give a daily SER
vice they collect less garbage on each
particular trip than they would IL .hey
collected but three times per week. but
the total quantity collected is the same
in either case.
In conclusion. l may say that there
/ is no disposition on my part 10 do the
/ company an injustice, as in making the
| deductions referred 10 | have simply
carried out the provisions Of the con
I frng