The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-07-30

StutIer was having them kept up az
the Districts expense.
Robinson took the stand and repeated
the assertions made in the charges
Robinson Repeats Charge.
stutIer said he did not know when
Ready was a bidder for this contract
| that Rusk was a rival bidder He mere
/ ~ recommended that Ready be not al
| lowed 10 use the District dumps. His
reason for being ignorant Of Rusk's
! bid he claimed, was that the speci3od-
lions for the contract were prepared In
another department.
4 At this point questions from Commits
| sioner West elected from Stutler the adj
| missions that there are only three
dumping grounds, out of the total iif-
teen, over which Stutler has enough au-
thority 10 keep Ready of them; that In
reporting TO Mr. West on Readys BID,
he did not explain this, but reported as
! If he could, by law. keep Ready on ali
fifteen.
why didn't you say that you had
only three dumps which Ready could be
prevented from usingT
Il didn't like TO give him the tip.
said Stutler-
Status of Dumps.
On questions from Commissioner Mac
farland, Stut,er admitted that most of
the District dumps are. and have been,
open to the public for use; and that he
had no authority to keep Ready of any
dumps. save for the three controlled by
the District.
Rusk, he thought, had used and does
, use a good many of these dumps as
places for getting rid of trash taken
> from the streets.
, Have you ever provided Rusk with
r places TO be used as dumping sroundsT
asked Mr.. West.
4 NO, sir
] Why did you withhold. in reported Il
me on Ready's bid, the informal zion thai
{ so many dumps were open to Ready anc
I = had no desire to give Ready {
: chance to help Ill up the dumps quick
'"But what difference did that make to
1T saved the District trouble and ex
That was your only reason?"
Yes. sir ,,.
r the superintendent said he did not know
| whether or not Rusk used the thre
dumping grounds over which StuslS
| claimed absolute authority, ana iron
: which he meant to exclude Ready. II,
j. had ordered his men not to allow Rusi
;. | TO come on these three dumps, but n
u did not know that these orders had oeel
carried out.
= On Charge Seven.
,e Charge seven was then taken UP. an
n in support of it Robinson suomitte
Suffers annual report for 1905.
< The accusation leading to the impres
IS sion that Stutler again showed favor
" itism TO Rusk is that the ls9 repol
20 shows that the Washington feItilLL'
II Company contractor for COLLECTION an
s. disposal of garbage, was tned by ann
n. 50 per cent Of the cases of complaint /
ce hOusehOlders of poor service, Wnlle N
Rusk contractor for collection ana al
III 0osaI of ashes and miscellaneous vast
was fined in but 10 per cent OF sue
In his defense on this charge. Stutl'
IN said the difference In the percentage
:. fines was explained by the fact that NJ
~ many of the ash complaints were We
He then admitted the truth of Robil
20 sons twelfth charge. which Is IN
- Rusk was allowed continuous use OF
As district sprinkling wagon for Nv
ne months. His reason for this was IN,
Id the District had used one OF Su ISM
in sprinklers almost as long as ne hao use
r. the Districts.
Yesterdays Session
a The afternoon session was taken
II Yesterday with hearing the latter pa
as of the evidence submitted by >
ed BayIey. manager for Contractor II.
Rusk, In support OF the Pi"PO
Vi Robinson had allowed Beymer TO ha'
TO horse feed free or at unusually favoraS
DIS terms while Robinson was street clea
W ing contractor and Beymer was an /
let spector OF street cleaning for the ID
'er trict.
'or An attempt was also made 70
,td In all the evidence throwing hight
al -
nd CHURCH NOTICES.