Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-22
EXHIBITS HIS JOURNAL
Royal Robinson's Effort to
Support Charges of Blackmail'
THE INQUIRY TODAY
TWO WITNESSES FAIL TO COR
RoBoRATE ROBINSON.
Developments in the Hearing of War
ner Stutler, Superintendent
Of Street Cleaning.

There were several important develop
ments at today's session of the Commission
ers inquiry into the charges of blackmail
preferred by Royal Robinson against Supt
Stutler of the street cleaning department
One piece of evidence that was considered
as of Importance was the presentation by
Robinson of an entry In the journal of Lilly
& Robinson, wherein. under date of October
II. 1899. John NJ. Lilly Is given credit OF
800 by bills receivable" and this entry
bears the explanation that it is for mote
at sixty days OF w. s."
At the session of the inquiry Saturday Mr.
Robinson stated that in June, 1899, Mr.. Lilly
loaned Stutler 500 and took the latter note
for the amount. and that later the note was
assigned to the firm of Lilly & Robinson.
Mr.. Robinson said that about six months
after the first alleged loan he loaned Stutler
$3.50 on a note. and that several months
later he refused to loan Stutler 500. He
said that he believed Mr. Suffers name did
not appear at all on the firms books.
The discovery of the initials. ''W. s." in
the explanatory note on the S400 entry, Mr.
Robinson said, was surprise to him, and
he declared that wv s. stood for warner
Stutler.' The entry was examined with a
great deal of interest by the Commission
ers, as were also several other entries on
the books of the firm, which Mr.. Robinson
offered in Substantiation of his. testimony
given at the hearing Saturday. Among
other things two different check stubs for
$50 and $780, respectively, were produced,
and in Lilly 4 Robinson's journal entries
Were found wherein expense charged
with $500 and $3.50 respectively.
These entries Robinson alleged represent
ed loans TO Mr.. Stutler, reduction in the
note which he said Lilly 4 Robinson held
and the final surrender of the note. which,
he said. he held against Mr.. Stutler.
Fail to Support Allegations.
On the other hand two witnesses Con-
tractor r. v. Rusk and Mr.. Thomas N.
Conrad. who were called at the instance
of Mr. Robinson, failed to corroborate Mr..
Robinson's statement that they had in
formation relating to his allegation that
Stutler had given Mr. Rusk Information as
TO what Lilly IL Robinsons bid would be
prior to the awarding of the contract. Not
only did these witnesses deny that they had
knowledge and had heard of the matters al
legged. but Mr. Rusk stated empha tically
that Mr.. Stutler had never given him any
information of any kind whatsoever rela-
tive to the bidding or awarding of the
street-sweeping contract.
Further than this Mr.. Rusk stated that
in 1900 when Robinson's contract had been
finished, Robinson told the witness that he
had found Stutler one of the "fairest men
he ever met. notwithstanding he had been
told when he first came to Washington that
Stutler and his inspectors would do up
Lilly & Robinson This statement Robin
s9n admitted.
The hearing last evening developed sensa-
tional charges against Robinson. Superin
tendent Stutier alleged that on three diff
ferent occasions Robinson underworld to
bride him. The investigation of this charge
took up considerable time.
Mr.. S. B. Bayley, manager for r: v.
Rusk has been called to Washington from
Markham. Va, by the Commissioners. to
alleged by Robinson with reference to
Suffers giving Rusk advance information
on the proposed bids. The hearing Will be
resumed tomorrow at $50 O'Clock ana 1t
is expected the examination of witnesses
and the inspection OF Lilly & Robinsons
books will be then concluded.
Fails to Recall Statement.
The first witness at the session this morn
ing was T. n. Conrad. Witness said he did
not fecall making any statement to anyone
relative to the bids for street cleaning. He
said that several months ago he had told
r. Conrad Dodge that he had heard that
Senators Scott and Elkins had written Com
missioner Macfariand telling the Commits
sioners to keep hands on MI. Stutier ana
not disturb him In his position
At this point Commissioner mcfarland
said: -.
II want to state here, so that it will APP
pear In the record, that neither senator
Elkins nor Senator Scott has written me
asking that Mr.. Stutler be retained IN MS
present position,
In reply to questions of Mr.. Robinson. Mr..
Conrad stated he never heard Mr.. - b.
Rayley say that Stutler had visited Robin
son in the interests of r. v. Rusk.
Mr.. Rusk was then called to the stand
and was questioned as to the incident whicn
Mr. Robinson said took place prior to the
award OF the street sweeping contract three
He said that MI stutler had never given
him any information whatever as 70 wnat
Lilly & Robinson proposed TO bid for the
sweeping three years ago. he safd that
he never heard from anybody that Lilly &
Robinson proposed to bid II cents Tor the
work
"How did you come to bid 16 1915 cents
for the work." asked Commissioner Mac
farland.
II figured on the job and found could
do the work for that price?' said the wit
Tess.
Mr.. Rusk said he frequently has fractions
of cents in his bids.
The answers of the witness to other ques-
lions were to the effect that he never had
any conversation with Stutler on the mat
ter of the street sweeping contracts.
In reply to questions by Mr.. Robinson.
Mr.. Rusk said that in June. 1900, after he
began his street sweeping contract. Rob-
inson said to the witness that when we
came to Washington we were told that
Stutler and his inspectors would do US up,
but / want to say that have never found
any man more fair and square than slut
Ter"
THAT is the only conversation had with
Mr.. Robinson about Stutler," said Mr..
Rusk
II suppose you will admit that you said
that to me. Mr.. Robinson, said the wit
ness, turning to Mr. Robinson.
II am not on the stand now" answered
Robinson.
Later. when Mr.. Rusk7 left the stand,
Robinson voluntarily made the statement
that he did make the remark to Mr.. Rusk
about Stutler. as mentioned by Rusk ex-
cept that he characterized Stutler as fair"
instead of square"
Creates q Surprise.
The admission by Robinson that at the
close Of his contract here he had remarked
that Stutler was fair man was appar-
emily surprising piece of information.
Attorney Donaldson for Mt. Stutler then
proceeded to question Robinson relating to
what had operated to change the witness
opinion OF Stutler since 1899, especially
slice Robinson had alleged that Stutler
attempted to blackmail Lilly & Robinson In
1899
Mr.. Robinson stated at this point that
his books had arrived from INDIANAPOLIS.
and he proceeded at the request of the
Commissioners. to explain entries which he
offered In substantiation of his charge that
he and Mr.. Lilly had loaned Stutler
money
Robinson submitted a book of hank
check stuhhs n I.fyty a pahin.o. LII