Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-07-28

sire to increase your knowledge of flush
ing?" asked Mr.. Mcfarland.
J. Yes 1 was des rous of learning all l
could about the subject
did you have in mind these charges
against Mr.. Stutler when you stayed up to
observe the flushing done by Mr.. Rusk:
asked Capt. Harding.
mo, SIR replied Mr. Robinson.
Witness was closely questioned by Mr..
Donaldson about his motive in staying up
until 2 o'clock in the morning to learn new
ideas about street flushing, when he consd-
cred that the work done by Rusk was poor.
Mr.. Robinson insisted that his motive was
to gain experience.
Concerning Removal of Ashes.
While waiting for other witnesses called
by Mr.. Robinson to testify as to charge
). the Commissioners proceeded to inquire
into the sixth count of the charge which
Is follows:
I'm 1903 the Commissioners advertised for
bids for removing ashes and trash from the
District buildings. M. J. Reidy bid 81 cents
per cubic yard. provided he be allowed the
use of the District dumps. r. V. Rusk bid
80 cents Internationally. The matter was
referred to Mr.. Stutler, as the dumps were
| under his supervision, and he reported
against allowing MIR. keidy the use of them.
for the alleged reason that suitable places
for dumps were difficult to obtain.
He said 1t is desirable that we make
our present dumps last long as possible,
and If Mr.. Ready were allowed to use them
it would result In filling them up much more
quickly. Not IL word about Mr.. Rusk,
although he knew that, contractor for
machine cleaning of paved streets, for
cleaning all alleys and unpaved streets, and
for the removal of ashes, Mr. Rusk was
ing the District dumps for the deposit of
thousands OF loads OF sweepings, scrapingS
and ashes. In this connection l beg to call
attention to clause in Mr.. Rusks CON
tracts, which says: The contractor must
provide place OF deposit for the sweepings
or scrapings. The said Commission
ers will not. at any time. undertake to pro-
vide dumps for the contractor.
Yet Mr.. Suffers report for 1903 shows
that he MAJ attained from fifteen to n1nei een
dumps. at an expense to the District OF SS-
t31. ~ although not more than one-third OF
that number necessary to the hand
cleaning force. All of them were open to,
ard used by, every trash hauier In the DIS
trict except Ready. His trash Is too bulky
filled up the dumps too rapidly. you know
Or was mis- exclusion inspired by the nope
that it would give Mr. Rusk the contract
at price ~ per cent higher imam HeaoS
bid?"
Superintendent Stutler admitted the
quotation of his report on the award OF
contract, also that all contractors had
been permitted to use the District dumps
With reference to Mr.. Suffers report for
1903, the superintendent declined 10 ad-
NIT the matters alleged.
Chief Inspector Doyle having arrived at
the board room the Commissioners called
him to the stand to. testify relative to the
matter alleged in charge No. D.
Denied by Mr.. Doyle.
Mr.. Doyle declared that he was an in
spector on the avenue when the flushing
was commenced and later. He testified
that extra men at extra expense were not
employed on the avenue for the purpose
of cleaning up after the flushing.
Mr.. Robinson endeavored to make In
spector Doyle remember having made
some disparaging remarks about the
flushing and street sweeping. Mr.. Doyle
admitted having said that he did not APP
prove of flushing, but emphatically de-
clared he had never said it had been nee
esSary to employ extra men to clean the
streets in the mornings after flushing at
night.
Witness did not know whether or not fines
had ever been imposed on the contractor be-
cause of poor flushing.
Superintendent Stutler said that owing to
the fact that the center of the pavement OF
Pennsylvania avenue al 18th street and
at 10th street Is lower than the cutters, II
was practically impossible to do good flush
ing at those points. as the water could not
run off to the cutters.
Witness said that whenever Inspector
Holland, who had charge of flushing re-
ported that any portion of the street was
improperly flushed. such area was dS-
Quoted This. he said. was equivalent to
fine Deductions were made on two differ
ent occasions.
No Extra Employees.
Mr.. Stutler declared that no extra men
were employed to clean the streets after
the flushing. Any extra broom men ever
placed on the work were employed entirely
at the expense of the contractor for hush
ing said Mr. Stutler During the first few
DAYS after the flushing was inaugurated.
Mr. Stutler said, fines were not imposed for
poor flushing. The experimental stage last
ed only few days he said
After the examination OF Mr.. Stutler was
concluded a recess was taken at 1:3J until
2;3O o'clock.
The Turkey Incident.
An interesting incident occurred during
the progress of the inquiry after The
Stars report closed late yesterday after
noon. and for a time the attention of the
Commissioners was diverted from the
charges against Superintendent Stutler
to the investigation of an intimatiOn that
Inspector Webster Beymer of the street
cleaning department. witness called by
Mr. Robinson, had been bribed by Rob-
insop when the latter was contractor for
street sweeping.
The incident occurred during the exam
nation of Inspector Beymer. In reply
to a question as to whether he had ever
received any present from Mr.. Robinson
Beymer said that he had received tur-
keys from the contractor He said prac-
few years until last year had received
turkeys every Thanksgiving day from
Contractor Robinson.
Upon hearing this testimony the Com
missioners Strengthened up in their up
holstered chairs. They had apparently
made a discovery. Mr.. Beymer was fur
Their questioned about the matter and
Superintendent Stutler was called on for
an explanation Of the turkey incident"
Mr.. Robinson also explained During the
progress of the several explanations 1t
developed that Inspector Beymer had at
one time been charged with showing ia
vors to Contractor Robinson, and that
Beymer had kept his horse at Robinson's
stable free of cost. Mr.. S. P. Bayly, man.
ager for r. v. Rusk, was mentioned as
having some knowledge of the implied
charge against Beymer, and he was put
on the stand.
Mr. Bayly denied having charged Bey-
mer with accepting a bride and also de-
MED knowing anything about the matter
of his own knowledge. He said he had
some trouble with Beginner in July, 1903,
and had heard some talk at the stables
relative to allegations against Beymer.
The Commissioners were not DESTROYS of
hearing about the trouble between Bayly
and Beginner. and Mr.. Bayly was excused,
the Commissioners stating they would take
up she matter later
Tho session Yesterday afternoon lasted