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

deducted and he says that he adopted their
suggestions.
In this connection it is proper to call at
tentiOn to the fact that Beymer appeared
to be hostile to Stutler. 1t is not intended
by this suggestion to intimate that he
knowingly swore falsely to any fact, but it
must have been apparent to all who heard
him that he testified with evident bias in
favor of Robinson and against Stutler.
Suffers action in placing another man
over Beymer as leading inspector after he
had been such himself for some time, and
the favors admittedly shown Beymer by
Robinson while the latter contractor,
in furnishing him feed for his horses at
wholesale prices, and in other ways, fur
nish the reasons for the bias on the part
of Beymer. Nor is it intended by this re-
mark to insinuate that Robinson bribed or
intended to bride Beymer by the favors
shown him, or that Beymer favored Robin
son to the detrment of the District.
Not Without Compensation.
In the twelfth specification 1t is alleged
that Mr.. Rusk was allowed continuous use
Of one of the District sprinkling wagons
for about two months. The attorneys in
their brief admit that Rusk had the Of
one Of the Districts sprinklers at night.
but it is not admitted that he had 1t with
out compensation. The testimony shows,
1t is declared. that during about twenty
i've days the District had the use of one
of Mr.. Rusks sprinklers in the day time,
and in addition the District had the use OF
three of the contractors wagons for about
twenty days The use of Mr.. Rusk's
wagons by the District, 1T is argued, offsets
the use of the one sprinkler.
Mr. Robinson alleged in the thirteenth
specification that for several days during
the early part Of March last the force
which Rusk furnished for cleaning unim-
proved streets at $64 day was engaged
in helping Rusk to clean paved streets.
The brief declares that there was no evil
dence given to establish the allegations or
1ofG M f,rfCn &c toe
as set forth in the brief, is to the effect
that owing to the condition of the weather
scarcely any machine sweeping was done
from December % to February 20. During
the early part of March Rusk was allowed
to use his machines on certain streets, and
succeeded in sweeping and removing the
dirt, excepting the 9th and 9th of
March, when the dirt was left in piles in
the cutters
What Custom Required.
With reference to this the brief says:
Under the customary practice one-third
the area would have been deducted because
the streets had been swept and the dirt
piled, but not carried away. The superin-
tendent, however, refused to allow Rusk
anything, but cut out the entire area OF
the streets above mentioned, and the area
so cut out was 237 11S square yards, for
which Rusk received no pay whatever
1.-The object Of these charges is, of course,
to show that Mr.. Stutler was favortng Mr..
Rusk and allowing him pay for work, when
Robinson while he had the contract would
not have been allowed pay, and also that
Mr.. Stutler was Intentionally allowing
Rusk for work not done by him. One of the
strongest facts which was shown to dis
prove this statement, absolutely, is that
during the three years ending June ~,
1903, while Lilly & Robinson had the
contract for machine sweeping, there was
cut or disallowed to Lilly Robinson
only 1921 square yards of sweeping, while
for the single year ending June 80, 1904,
there was cut out or dlSalloWed Mr.. RuSk
9S2 1907 square yards.
According to our views of it this situa-
ton does not at all indicate that Mr.. slut
Ter was discriminating in favor OF Mr.. Rusk
as against Lilly & Robinson FOR any other
District contractors.
The Fourteenth Specification.
The fourteenth specification Is as follows:
I'm several instances other than those
mentioned in paragraph ID Stutler has
caused vouchers to issue in favor Of Rusk
for work which he knew had not been
DONE"
In regard to this charge the brief says:
"Under this specification the evidence of
Dubant, Gaddis and Weir. inspectors of the |
work of cleaning public alleys, was intro
duced, tending to prove that in the SPRING |
time, after some time had elapsed without |
the alleys being cleaned because of the |
incemency of the weather, perhaps occa- |
sionally during the winter, when there |
would be a thaw enabling some work to be |
done In the alleys, these inspectors would |
find it impossible to clean the alleys men, |
toned in their daily schedules in day, and |
that it would take them from eight or nine |
to twelve days to do the work that was |
done under ordinary circumstances in six |
days. there being schedule of alleys to be |
cleaned by each one of the gangs under |
each of the inspectors each week day, so /
that the alleys were in that way cleaned |
once per week when the weather permitted. |
Their evidence showed that in these |
emergency times, after time had |
elapsed without cleaning, as above speci- |
fed, that when they were unable to fully
clean the daily schedule in one day they |
reported 1t as cleaned, and the contractor |
was paid for 1t. and that the following day |
they commenced where they left OF the /
day before. and so kept on until the whole |
six schedules were cleaned. That Stutler