Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-09-01
THE STUTLER HEARING
Testimony Adduced Today
Before Commissioners.
DOCUMENTARY PROOF
ALLEGED DISCREPANCY CALLED
TO ATTENTION.
Witness Dubant Tells Of Disagreement
With Superintendent - Private
Business Matters Disclosed.
DOCUMENTARY PROC


the board room at the District building rhe
hearing was principally with reference to
the fourteenth charge. which alleged tha'
Mr.. Stutler had allowed Contractor Rusk
for alley cleaning which it was declared Mr.
Stutler knew had never been performed.
Commissioners Mcfarland. West ana
Riddle composed the tribunal, and Corpof-
alton Counsel Duvall was present as iegai
advisor to the Commissioners. Mr. Stutier
was represented by Attorney Z. Z. Sole'
and Mr.. Robinson appeared 10 look ailei
his own interests in the hearing.
The principal incident of interest at the
session this morning was the discovery py
Commissioner West of discrepancy Ill the
testimony of Supt. Stutler given August .
and given this morning with reference 10
the time when Mr.. Stutler first had knoWl-
edge of the practice of alley inspectors IN
allowing for the full schedule When the
same had not been completed.
Mr. Stutler said he had been mistaken IN
the date. At the previous hearing he had
said the matter was called to his attention
a year ago last spring, according to the
transcript of the testimony. This morning
however, he said that he first learned or the
inspectors practice last March. he hxeo
the date by means of complaint of citl-
zen with reference to the condition of an
alley, the investigation Of which led TO the
discovery of the practice.
Three Witnesses Examined.
Mr.. Stutler. Inspector William E. Dubant
and Mr. NJ R. Ready were the only wit
nesses today At 1 o'clock this afternoon
a recess was taken until $50 o'clock, when
the Commissioners gave Mr. Stutler permis-
sion to submit statement to the diff
ference in the amount of extra work done
by various street sweeping contractors in
different years. This statement was sub
mitted as testimony for Mr.. Stutler in con-
nection with the second count in Mr.. Rob-
inson's charges. wherein it is intima ted that
the superintendent of street cleaning favor
ed Contractor Rnsk with extra work.
Not Needed on Point Involved
Immediately after the formal opening OF
the session Judge Cole stated that Mr..
Stutler would not find it necessary to call
Assistant Superintendent Twohey to the
stand to testify as to the fourteenth charge
as he had found certain correspondence
and records which he desired to present.
Mr.. Suffers evidence Attorney Cole SAID,
would be principally documentary.
Superintendent Stutler then produced the
complaints made by a Mr.. Crews relative
to the failure of the contractor to sweep
alley which one of the inspectors had
reported as cleaned. The report was also
produced. The nvestiga ton Of this COM
plant of Mr. Crews. Superintendent Stutler
said. led to his discovery of the practice
of the alley inspectors in allowing for the
full daily schedule when the work had not
been entirely completed. This CORE
spondence. which was dated in March, 1904
led to the first knowledge Mr.. Stutler had
of the inspectors practice. according to his
testimony.
Mr. Stutler said that in certain months Of
the year when the grass grew a.bundantly
in the alleys it had always been the Gus
tom to allow for the full cleaning of the
alley when the full force of cleaners was
at work pulling the grass. although the
whole schedule was not completed. In eX-
planning why this allowance was made, NJ.
Stutler said the contractor was not Obliged
by his contract to clean out the grass at
all and that it was unusually difficult and
slow work The contractor he said. while
not obliged to clean out the grass from the
alleys, did so upon request. and 1t was con-
sidered only fair to allow him full pay
when his full force of men was engaged
Upon work which exceedingly laborious
and not required by his contract.
The Only Instance.
In response to questions of Commissioner
mcfarland. Supt. Stutler said that he never
gave his inspectors instructions or author
ity to allow full pay for uncompleted sched-
ules excepting in the instance just explain
ed.
Whose duty is it TO that the reports
Of the inspectors not Incorrect" asked
Commissioner Mcfarland.
1T is the duty of the superintendent re-
piled the witness. He stated that his chief
inspector frequently drove over the work
and that he himself occasionally did so and
obtained general idea as to the chara cter
of the work done.
Alleged Discrepancy.
At this point. Commissioner West, who
had been reading over the transcript of the
testimony given at the former sessions of
the tribunal, called attention to a discrep-
Ter previously and those made this morning
with reference to the time he first obtained
knowledge of the practice of the alley in
spectors in allowing for uncompleted daily
schedules.
"Mr. Stutler.' said Mr. West. there is
quite discrepancy between your testimony
of this morning and that given by you when
the hearing closed the 9th Of August You
stated this morning that the first YOU ever
heard of the alley inspectors practice was
last March. On the 9th of August you
testified that this matter first came to your
attention last spring year ago. when you
gave the inspectors orders to discontinue
the practice and that again this spring you
gave orders to Inspector Gaddis that he
could not allow for cleaning not performed.
How do you account for that?"
Mr.. Stutler stated that he had simply
made a mistake in dates-that his memory
had been at fault. He said when he testi-
fed August 9Th he was under the impress
sion That he nTSt learned of tho practice
in the spring of 1903
Then do you want to change your for
mer testimony Mr. West asked
mo. sir Mr.. West" said the witness
II wish to say that l merely made a mis-
take as to the time of the complaint which
called my attention to the practice of the
inspectors in incorrectly reporting alley
work"
Then when you say that twice-Once
year ago and once again this last spring
you instructed the inspectors not to allow
for work not done that statement is not
in fact true?"
Mr.. Stutler declined to admit that the
statement he made at the former session
was not true. He said he had been mis-
taken as to the time of the incident He
said, however. that he was positive he did
give instructions twice to his inspectors
not to allow for work not performed
II merely want to straighten out the
discrepancy" said Commissioner West
Mr.. Suffers Explanation.
THAT is an easy matter" replied Mr.
Stutler, reaching for the complaint of Mr.
Crews. previously referred to. Mr. Stutier
then proceeded to relate the circumstances
surrounding his receiving the complaint
and his discovery of the practice of the
inspectors. He said he supposed the in
spectors made incorrect reports in order
10 avoid the difficulty of figuring off the