Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-09-07

Monday morning before 7:30 o'clock, but
| that after Mr.. Rusk got the contract In
| July, 1903, he was not required to perform
| this work Monday mornings. With regard
! to this charge the attorneys say in their
brief:
This specification starts out with a
complaint that Stutler required of Lilly
& Robinson additional and unusual sweep
ing, but there Is no complaint that they
were not paid for the area swept. This
specification antagonizes the preceding one.
which complains that Stutler did not let
Lilly & Robinson sweep as many days as
they might have swept and thereby cut
down their compensation.
THE reason that Rusk was not required
to do this early Monday morning sweeping
but once was because the Rusk contract
provided for flushing Pennsylvania avenue
and 14th street every alternate night, and
Saturday night was one of the nights for
flushing. which rendered sweeping Monday
morning unnecessary.
THE evidence upon the point, taken as a
whole. shows that Rusk completed the
sweeping on the one Monday morning he
did it at about or soon after the usual
hour. But whether he did not is wholly
immaterial, except in far 1t reflects
upon the animus of Robinson. He seems
to be jealous of Rusk because he got the
contract and he seems to desire to hold
Stutler responsible for It, and to break
Rusk down contractor If he can"
Says Flushing Was Improperly Done.
IN the UItN SpeClllCdtlOU TkOUlHSOIl dutScu
that the flushing of Pennsylvania avenue
by Rusk was not properly done and that in
stead of imposing fines upon Rusk for poor
work. Superintendent Stutler ordered extra
men at the expense Of the District to clean
up the street. Mr.. Suffers attorneys state
in their brief that the evidence shows that
for the first two or three times the flushing
was not done as thoroughly as 1t was sub
sequently because the men were unaccus-
toned to the new work. On two or three
occasions the Districts hand-cleaning force
did help to clean the sediment on small
area on Pennsylvania avenue, but after
ward the contractor was obliged by the
superintendent to follow the flushing with
force of hand-sweepers and carts.
In the sixth specification 1t Is implied
that Mr. Stutler endeavored to prevent NJ.
]. Ready from getting the contract for re-
moving ashes from District buildings, to
the end that Readys bid might be rejected
and the contract awarded to Rusk With
reference to this charge the brief contains
the following:
1.-The facts developed at the investigation
and about which there can be no dispute,
are that Stutler had nothing to do with the
preparation of the specification or the let
ting of the contract for the removal of
ashes and trash from the District buildings.
That work was not at any time, under the
supervision Of the STRENGTHENING depart
ment, though 1t has since been transferred
there. The specifications were prepared by
the property clerk and the contract let un-
der his supervision and Stutler had no con-
nection Herewith or knowledge thereof
until after the contract had been awarded.
An Adverse Report Considered.
In commenting on the reference in the
charges to Mr. Suffers adverse report on
Ready's request to use the District dumps
and other matters alleged in the specifca-
ton the brief has the following to say
relative to Mr.. Robinson, who preferred
the charges:
This part of the specification is abso-
lute1y false. The records of the District
government so show. Robinson had, or
might have had, access to these records.
They are public IN their nature He made
oath to the charges and specifications that
the matters therein stated upon his own
knowledge were true and that those stated
upon information and belief he be-
lieved to be true. Men have been convicted
of perjury for swearing upon information
and belief that matter was true when it
was false, and the party might readily
have learned its falsity by inquiry
animation.
How easy 1t would have been for Rob-
inson to have ascertained the truth by ex-
so. then he knew the statement W as false
when he made the oath If he did not
anime them, where did he get his informa-
ton upon which he founded his belief and
his oath? He introduced no witness who
claimed to have such knowledge, and he
did not tell what his source of information
had no information upon the subject. When
a man makes oath to a fact upon informa-
ton and belief the legal presumption Is that
he has some information upon which to
found his belief. If he in fact had none 1t
Is a false oath.
However this may be- 1t shows the utter
recklessness with which the charges and
specifications were made. This is not an
Isolated case 1t is perhaps the most glar-
Ing of them, but he might have ascertained
the falsity of all the charges If he had
made reasonable inquiry. His charges in
this case constitute what is called in law
fishing BILL i. e., where a man does
not know of any fact to sustain his allie
cations, but makes them and calls upon
his adversary to answer, hoping that he
may develop something detrimental to him.
In fishing bill in law the person who files
1t is not required to, and generally does not,
make oath to it, even upon information and
belief. AS soon as fishing bill' has pro-
ceeded far enough for the court to see it's
character it is dismissed.
The Seventh Charge.
The seventh charge alleges that in 1903
the Washington Fertilizer Company, con-
tractor for collection and disposal of gar
bage, was fined by Stutler in so per cent of
the cases of complaint, while Mr.. Rusk
contractor for collection and disposal of
ashes, was fined in but 10 per cent of such
cases. The comment of the attorneys rela-
tive to the testimony on this charge is in
substance follows:
"Stutler testified that in case of every
complaint against the contractors for the
removal of ashes and garbage, respectively
the complaint was Investigated by two in
spectors one from his office and one from
the Office of the contractor against whom
the complaint is made, and upon their re-
ports the fine is imposed or withheld, ac-
cording to the particular circumstances of
each case, and that these reports are all on
file in his office.
Garbage and Ash Service Contrasted.
"a brief consideration of the difference
between garbage and ash service will show
that the number of well-grounded COM
plants in the former would naturally very
much exceed those Of the latter. The
garbage service has been in existence many
years and people have become familiar
with 1t and what they entitled to under
it. All in the District are entitled to
the garbage service, whether they be house,
holders or not In the city proper they are
entitled to daily service for more than half
the year and three times per week the re-
mainder of the time. So that a complaint
that service has not been rendered is quite
likely to be well founded If made in good
faith. The ash service is of very recent
origin, and. householders and private resi-
denceS onIy-nOt hotels and such like