The Washington times., 1904-07-31

prior TO February % last. been ordered
out 10 sweep on slush as had been the
case that day.
Inspector Beymer corroborated most
OF Fruits testimony, and added hat
Stutler, when report was made to
him of the days operations, made his
own recommendation as to how much
work should be disallOwed. Witness I'D
not think enough was cut on, but H.
did not contradict the superintendent
Il think one-half should have been
cut on" he declared in explanation.
Inspector Barnes added to the other
evidence on this point that he believed
the machines had been used for sweep
ing slush from the streets on one OCca-
sion prior 10 February p last. Ii was
"a long time ago" he thought.
When asked by Mr. West If he had
signed a report on the slush sweeping
of February 22. he said he had. He rec
ognized the report, which was placed
before him
Did that report have on it the eras-
ures. which IL now bears?'
Il don't recOllect sir
What made you sign that report say
ing how much cutoff should be made
on the work p
Because Mr.. Stutler and Mr.. Beymer
said 1t was all right"
Then you would have signed any re-
port that Mr.. Stutler said was right
Superintendent Had Say.
u suppose so. sir. We generally think
the superintendent has the say in the
matter"
StutIer explained that he had put out
the machine sweepers February % last
in an attempt to get rid of the slush.
about which he had been "Overrun with
complaints"
The next morning. he said, the in
spectors of the work saw him in his
office at the District Building and told
him how much cutoff ought TO he
made against Rusk for not putting out
the broom men or carts TO follow the
sweepers 10 remove what had been
swept up
He denied having dictated to the in
spectors concerning the cutoff referred
to- This assertion was in direct contra
dictiOn of what the inspectors had just
sworn.
In reply TO rigid questioning by Mr.
West Stutler admitted that full pay
had been allowed to Rusk for sweep
ing certain streets in the Northwest
February % last although In all these
cases no broom men or carts had fol-
lowed the sweepers. In this way many
thousands of square yards Were paid for
In full although the cleaning was done
only by half. Stutler thought such a
course was justifiable.
His reason for allowing full payment
for half-done work on Pennsylvania
Avenue and Fourteenth Street was that
these roadways We're swept twice that
day. No such reason was advanced FOR
paying in fun for other streets, such as
Vermont Avenue.
did YOU ever consult me as TO what
was to be paid 10 Rusk for slush sweep
ing?" asked Mr.. West.
mo. sir. fixed il up with the con-
tractor myself
Charge No. I3.
The board then took up consideration
FL
in the early part of March, for sew
eral days In March 1901. Mr. Rusks
force for cleaning unimproved streets.
At S6I per day. was. by order OF Stutler,
engaged In helping Rusk clean paved
streets. and performed no service for the
District except 10 clean up the market
place Mr. Stutler caused vouchers 10
Issue for S64 pc. day Tess the wages OF
a few men who didn't work at all The
District was defrauded of about so per
day. Mr. Rusk was entitled 10 only such
proportion Of the $64 Is was earned by
the men who cleaned the markets Dur
ing the same time one OF the District
wagons was IN Mr.. Rusk's service.
In support OF this Robinson testified
that he knew the truth OF this by per
sOnaI observation. He had seen the
cleaning working Oh paved streets. he
expected TO prove by witnesses thaC this
had been done by Suffers orders.
Stutler admitted that the unimprOTed
street gang did work for two days on
the paved streets, but he said he dlG not
pay Rcsk doubly nor did ne pay the
contractor any money which was IN
earned.
The fact that the unlmproved street
gang was shifted TO the paved streets
was established by the evidence Of IN
spectOr Pruitt, who also said no deduc-
ton against the contractor was made
although one gang had 10 follow, and
help out. the machine sweepers. The
machines. he said. did no good, Dut
SO far as he knew. the contractor was
paid in fun.
Inspector Barnes then swore that he
knew OF the alleged doubling up Of the
different kinds OF street cleaning gangs.
Ordered by Stutler.
Inspector Claggett said he was in
charge OF the unimproved street clean
ing last winter. but on one occasion he
was ordered by the chief Inspector 10
take his gang OF wOrkmen TO the paved
streets. where he removed from the
rOadways dirt left there by the machine
sweepers- IN MS daily reports 10 the
superintendent he reported that his men
were working on unimproved streets,
while. as a matter OF fact, they worked
on the paved streets.
He saw no reason why these mislead-
ing reports should not have been sub
mitted.
When shown several Of his reports
that showed erasures and corrections,
Claggett said he had scratched out The
original figures This information was
given after he had put on his reading
glasses and his hat simultaneously
How do you know you made that cor
rsctionY' asked Acting Commissioner
Harding.
Well" responded the witness. doubt
fully, 1T looks like my scratching"
This sally provoked the first ouJburst
OF laughter Of the session.
George ". Mercer. a clerk in the
Street Cleaning Department testified
that, under sVch conditions as had been
described by the inspectors, when hand
cleaning men had had 10 follow the ma
chimes In order 10 get the streets clean.
the inspectors ought 10 have seen 20 IL
that the contractor was not paid fer the
machine work, as he would have. IN this
case. drawn double wages. one set for
the machines, one set for the hand
cleaning gang. He did not know that
such reductions had been made last
winter.
Records Show No Deductions.
A consultation OF the records Of the
department. suggested by Robinson,
led 70 the discovery that. in many
cases during the first week OF March.
no such reduction as described by Mer-
Ger had been made.
Mercer. who showed considerable ami
mostly against Robinson. admitted that