Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-08-01
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Superintendent Stutler Asks
Permission to Submit It.
{
REQUEST FILED TODAY
FORMAL ACTION TAKEN BY AT
ToRNEY c. c. COLE.
Absence Of Mr.. Suffers Assistant,
Whose Records Are Desired,
Cited as Reason.
REQUEST FILED TODAY

| The developments at the Distr1ct DuiIoinS
this afternoon in connection with the in
| vestigation into the charges against Super
intendent Warner Stutler of the street
cleaning department make it apparent that
the inquiry is not yet finished. as was the
belief when the court adjourned after mid
night Saturday. Former Judge C. e. Cole.
| attorney for Mr.. Stutler. late this after
noon requested permission from the Com
missioners to submit additional evidence
relative to charge fourteen. alleging in
substance that the contractor was allowed
pay for alley cleaning which he had not
performed.
Judge Cole asked that in Mr.. Stutler's
defense as to the fourteenth charge As
! sistant Superintendent Twohey Of the street
| cleaning department., who is now out of
! the city on leave be examined Before the
Commissioners. and that Inspector w. f.
Dubant be recalled for further examina-
| ton.
The Commissioners late this afternoon
| are holding session to decide as to
| whether or not they will grant the request
| of Mr.. Suffers counsel 1t Is understood
| that the sentiment among the Commission
ers is to grant the request. and 1t Is an
| ticfpated this will be done. 1t Is considered
| that If the Commissioners decide to listen to
| additional evidence that they desire the
| hearing to take place the latter part of
| the present week rather than later In Au-
| gust. as suggested by Judge Cole.
| Judge Cole called on Commissioner Mac
| farland shortly after II o'clock today and
| discussed the matter of his request FOR
permission to submit additional testi-
| mony in his clients defense. He stated
| that since the charge did not specify in
| stances and dates Mr.. Stutler did not
| know what specific charges he would be
| expected to refute and that when the
| alley work was brought up late Saturday
| night it was too late for him to secure
| the attendance of Mr.. Twohey and pro-
| cure other evidence. such as reports and
| records. which have been in Mr.. Twoheys
| charge.
Commissioner mcfarland mentioned to
Judge Cole that the witnesses who were
to testify as to the fourteenth charge
were named about the middle of last
week. and that it would be presumed that
the alley inspectors would be asked to
testify as to alley work. and that Mr..
Stutler might have prepared on that pre-
sumption.
Text of the Paper
After discussing the matter Judge Cole
left the Commissioners office and pre-
pared a written request which was sub
mitted to the Commissioners. The text
of the request is as follows:
Calling your attention to the 18th charge
against Mr.. Stutler. in the following langu-
age, in several instances other than those
mentioned In paragraph 13, Mr.. Stutler has
caused vouchers to issue in favor of Mr.
Rusk for work that he knew had not been
done. l desire to say the charge was and
Is very general and gives no Indication of
what the vouchers referred to therein are
Mr.. TwOhey, Mr.. Suffers assistant was
at the time. and still Is. out of the city on
MS vacation. He Is an important witness in
relation to matters that were developed
In the investigation of that charge. We
have also been Informed since the ad-
JOurnment Saturday night that 1t is fact
m r Sf1fIa
charges against William E. Dubant, one of
the witnesses IN relation to that charge he
threatened violence against Mr.. StutleY and
was known to walk back and forth in the
night time in front of Mr. Suffers house.
thereby giving evidence of his intention to
carry his threats into execution
In view of these facts. we have to re-
quest that upon the return of Mr.. Twohey
to the city that he may be examined upon
the matters In charge No. IA. and that Mr.
Dubant will also be recalled as witness
at that time for the purpose of examining
MIN In relation to his threats and conduct
toward Mr.. Stutler, and if he shall deny
them. that we be permitted to prove them
In connection with this matter l desire
70 state that l am informed that although
Mr.. Dubant testified that he cut out from
his schedule all of the alleys which his
| force was not able to clean In emergency
times. an examination Of the reports now
on file in the office of Mr.. Stutler shows
that he did not cut out any on such occa-
sions; that, as he testified that he always
did cut out when he did not complete the
schedule. that Is an indication that they
were completed in each instance, and if he
could complete his there was no reason
why the others did not complete theirs the
others being the same. and the territory
covered about the same in each instance.
Date Of Mr.. Twohey's Return.
1--WE are informed that Mr.. Twohey will
| return to the city the 9th of August. and
the examination herein suggested can be
had soon after his return as will suit
| the convenience of the Commissioners, and
ought not to take more than an hour all
told.
"Inasmuch this will not in any way de-
lay the final disposition of the Commission
ers. we hope that in justice to Mr.. Stutler
this request will be granted"
The decision of the District Commission
ers relative to the charges will probably
not be announced before early In Septem-
Der. Commissioner West will leave the
city on his annual vacation next Sunday.
and Commissioner Macfarland will take his
vacation beginning about the LIST Of Septem-
Der. Attorney Cole has been allowed two
weeks time In which to prepare. If he so
desires. a review Of the trial on behalf of
Mr.. Stutler Each of the three Commits
sioners will be furnished with a copy of
the stenOgraphic report of the inquiry. and
Commissioner West will take with him on
HIS vacation trip this report. together with
Judge Coles review of the trial, IL he sub
mits one.
Comment Upon the Inquiry
Persons who have carefully followed the
proceedings Of the investigation express
| the opinion that the inquiry has not devel-
| oped that any collision existed between
| Superintendent Stutler and Contractor
Rusk. They also express the opinion that
| 1t has not been shown during the inquiry
| that the superintendent of street cleaning
| Intentionally favored the contractor or wit
| tingly allowed him for more work than he
| has performed. 1t is considered that moth
| Ing has been developed to indicate that
| Mr.. Stutler has profited financially by any
| advantage that may have resulted to the
| contractor owing to some of the methods
and practices in vogue in connection with
| the street cleaning work. 1t Is the opinion
| however, of some persons who have close
| ly followed the investigation that from the
| testimony 1t appears that Superintendent
| Stutler may have been at fault in not ex-
| ercising closer and more immediate super
| vision over his inspectors the street
cleaning.
Superintendent Suffers defense to this
| view of the case Is that his many other
executive duties in connection with the ad
| ministration Of his department renders 1t
| practically impossible for him to personally
| follow the actual work Of his inspectors.
| and that he. therefore. Is obliged to rely
| upon their honesty and on their reports OF