Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-08-01

tractors pay when an alley. which ordinar-
lily should have been cleaned, did not need
sweeping and was not cleaned. He said
this practice had also been discontinued at
the order of Superintendent Stutler. He
did not remember whether this order was
given last spring or in the spring of the
preceding year.
Inspector Weir said that the superin-
tendent had ordered the alley inspectors to
rearrange their schedules for alley work
Superintendent on the Stand.
Superintendent Stutler then took the
stand to testify with reference to the alley
work.
Last spring a year ago. he said. this
practice of cleaning alleys was called to my
attention by Assistant Superintendent
Twohey. the circumstances connected with
the discovery Of the practice being as fol-
lows: A citizen complained that an alley on
Mr.. Gaddis' route had not been cleaned on
the scheduled day. Mr.. Twohey looked up
the inspectors report and found the alley
reported as cleaned on the proper day. and
so notified the complainant, who replied
that the Office was in error, that the alley
had not been cleaned as reported.
II thereupon sent out the CHIEF inspector,
who verified the statement or the complain
ant.
II called Mr. Gaddis to explain the mat
ter of the erroneous report. He said IL
was the custom of the alley inspectors tnat
If they failed to get all of the schedule
cleaned on the proper day that allowance
was made for the whole work and the un-
finished portion was cleaned the next DAY,
as the daily schedules were not uniform.
the schedule requiring more work on some
days than on others Mr.. Gaddis said this
practice was followed In order to avoid
complications in figuring deductions and
areas.
'At that time, after learning of the prac-
tice notified the alley inspectors that the
old practice must be discontinued and that
they should rearrange their schedules SO
that each days work during the week
should be equal and then there would De
no occasion for allowing for work on a day
it had not been performed
Mr. West-'When you learned OF TINS
practice did you go over the back reports to
see whether more had been allowed than
should have been?
Mr.. Stutler-"No, Mr.. West l did not
because l could not know that the allow
ances were incorrectly reported unless
had seen the work, which did not had
to rely upon the statements OF my IN
spectors. .
tice discontinued. did you go out yourseiI
or send out your chief inspector to see that
YOUR orders were being followed?
Mr. Stutler-"I have been through tne
alIeys and the chief inspector has also. but
n would be practically impossible to tell
whether the schedules had been foiowed:
would have been obliged to follow the IN
spectors daily for the entire week In order
to ascertain by personal observation that
the inspectors reports agreed win tneiI
work / could not do this and therefore
had to rely on the honesty OF the inspectors.
I believe, however, that my orders were
carried out.
Charges Against Dubant.
Mr.. Stutler mentioned that last fall he
filed charges with Commissioner West
against Inspector Dubant, charging the In
spector with willful violation of orders and
raInt two
to leave OF absence. The superintendent
explained the circumstances. and stated that
no action has as yet been taken on the
charges.
Another Charge Considered.
The examination of Mr.. Stutler concluded
the inquiry into the fourteenth charge and
the court proceeded to investigate the mat
ters alleged under the fifteenth count,
which charged Mr.. Stutler with converting
to his own use material and labor belong
ing to the District.
A. ]. Holt, foreman Of repairs In the
street cleaning department. and o. NJ. But
Ter, colered messenger in Mr.. Suffers
office, were called to testify relative to this
charge. Both witnesses stated that they
had done work for Mr.. Stutler, but that
they had done 1t outside OF their hours OF
service for the District. and that Mr.. Slut
Ter had paid them for their work. Mr.. Slut
ler's statement corroborated the testimony
of the other witnesses on this subject.
Alleged False Reports.
The sixteenth and hast charge alleged
"that Mr.. Stutler had purposely and with
intent to deceive the Commissioners pub
lished false reports as to the cost OF hand
cleaning. which has been in excess Of the
limit named by Congress in the acts au-
thorizing the Commissioners to do such
work without contract.
Both Mr.. Robinson and Superintendent
Stutler submitted documentary evidence in
support of their respective sides Of the case.
This evidence included figures and state
ments
Mr.. Robinson brought the Commissioners