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

cutters on q few Of the machine-swept
streets and on a great many of the hand
cleaned streets. 1t was brought out that
one of thef unimproved street cleaning
gangs worked" altogether two days on this
work and another gang worked a total OF
one day. the cost Of which, 1t was stated,
would not exceed $4J for that class of work.
Mr.. George w. MERCER a clerk In Mr..
Suffers office. said in effect that he knew
| that by orders of the superintendent pen
atty was imposed on the contractor for fall
ing to take!up: the piles of dirt mentioned.
Superintendent Stutler admitted that I'M
improved street cleaning gangs had taken
up frozen piles of sweepings from the gut
ters as stated by the inspectors, and that
he had ordered this work DONE He show
ed, however, that on certain dates In March
last he had imposed penalty on the con-
tractor who had swept and piled dirt on
certain streets and had failed to remove IT.
This penalty, he showed, consisted of al
lowing the contractor no pay whatever FOR
sweeping and piling dirt on an area 29O,O0O
square yards in extent. This deduction or
hne amounted to about $50 The reports of
the inspectors and the pay vouchers pro-
duced at this point showed that the stated
deduction was made
Mr.. Stutler at this point made a state
ment which was made part of the record
of the inquiry to the effect that during
a period of three years, while Lilly & Rob
inson were contractors, $4,000 square yards
were deducted on account of poor work.
while during one year that Mr. Rusk was
contractor over $4,000 square yards had
been deducted for the same cause Mr..
StutIer asked If this showing indicated
that he had been favoring Rusk.
Alleged Vouchers for Work Not Per-
formed.
The Commissioners then proceeded to the
Investigation of charge IA. which alleged
that "in several other instances than those
mentioned In paragraph 13 Mr.. Stutler has
caused vouchers to issue In favor of Mr..
Rusk for work which he knew had not
been done"
Mr.. Robinson told the Commissioners that
he had no personal knowledge Of the inn
proper vouchers, but was told by Mr.. Du-
barit. one of the alley inspectors, that Mr..
Rusk had been allowed for work in alleys
which had not been performed. He said
he expected to prove this charge by the
three alley inspectors, and especially by
Mr.. Dubant
Questions from Judge Cole brought re-
niles from Robinson to the effect that he
had talked with Mr.. Dubant prior to and
after the charges lad been filed The in
terviews. he said. were at Mr. Dubants
house He said he had not known Mr.. Du-
bant prior to the first conversation on the
subject of the charges. but that he went to
see him because he had heard Dubant was
not friendly toward Mr.. Stutler.
william E. Dubant was then called to the
stand and the most damaging testimony
AGAINST Mr.. Stutler during the entire hear
ing was given within the next hour. Du-
bant said he was an inspector on alley
cleaning and he swore that Stutler had
told him several times that II Rusk's men
could not complete the regular daily sched-
Me Of work he should allow 1t anyway.
He told Stutler. he said, that he wouldn't
do business in that way. but would cut
or, ali work thai was not done.
On cross-examination by Judge Cole wit
ness said StatleI had given him this order
You are sure Of this?" asked Judge Cole.
II distinctly saio that, judge, and dis
tinctly swear to it,,
In reply to further questions Of Judge
Cole Dubapt admitted that he was no
friend of Stutlerts. He also admitted that
Stutler hadIpreferred charges against MIN
for willful ;YiDiatfon of orders and for de-
ceivinR Commissioner West in connection
with leave of absence.
At this point MIR. Stuter produced copy
of the charges; which had been preferred
against Dubanu
inspector Gaddis Testifes.
Inspector George H. Gaddis, also on the
alley work.. was next called. He said he
thought tina Mr. Stutler had told the alley
inspectors to- allow the full days schedule
in the spr1ng of the year whether the
work was completed that day or not, pro-
vided the full force Of cleaners was out.
He said however, that at times during the
spring OF the year 1t would take a day and
half to complete one days schedule, and
sometimes It took twelve days to complete
a six days schedule He said this practice
was followed under the direction Of former
superintsndents, Maj. Davis and Mr. Nc
Kenzie He said he made deductions for
unfinished schedules except in the spring
INSPECTOR Gaddis admitted that once, he
did not remember when. Mr. Stutler had
told him not TO continue the former prac-
tice with regard to alley work, and that he
has not done 1t since that time
INSPECTOR Alexander Weir cOrroborated
Gaddis' testimony. relative to the practice
obtaining with regard to alley cleaning in
former years. He said that 1t had also been
the custom to not deduct from the coIl-