Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-07-30
have secured permission to use them from

the owners.
It was clearly brought out in the examina-
ton Of Mr.. Stutler that Mr.. Rusk had not
been shown any favors in the matter OF
the use Of dumps. fnasmuch as the super.
intendent OF street cleaning has no authors
ty over the dumps and the District uses
them only because the owners grant tho
District permission to do So.
Collection Of Ashes.
Mr.. Robinson asked Mr.. Stutler if the
witness knew that Mr.. Rusk did not use
the three dumps under absolute control OF
the District. Mr. Stutler replied that he
was not in the habit Of standing around
the Districts dumps and watching TO see
that Mr.. Rusk did not use them. he salo'
however. that his subordlnates nave OK
piicit orders not to allow Mr.. Rusk or any
body else to use the three dumps.
Charge No. was then taken up. rms
was to the effect that according 10 MT.
Suffers report for 1908 the Washington
Fertilizer Company, contractor for collec
ton and disposal Of garbage, was fined ny
him in 80 per cent Of the cases OF COM
plant of poor service, while Mr.. Rusk, con-
tractor for collection and disposal OF ashes
and miscellaneous waste. was fined In Dut
10 per cent Of such cases.
Mr.. Robinson had no evidence to submit
other than reports. and Mr. Stutler ex-
planned the matter to the evident SAUSAGE
ton of the court
The witnesses relative to charge NO. IL
were not present when the court had nm
ished with the inquiry into charges T. and
Z. and the 18th count of the allegations was
then taken up.
This was to the effect that Mr. Rusk was
allowed the continuous use OF one OF the
District sprinkhng wagons for about Two
months.
Mr. Stutler admitted the charge. and
made an explanation which cleared up mat
ters his statement being corroborated by
the testimony Of Mr.. H. P. Baily. and the
explanation was not questioned.
Yesterday Afternoon.
The afternoon session Of the 1nvestigat-
ing tribunal yesterday continued until
nearly o'clock, the inquiry being princi-
pally with reference to the matters al
legged in charge No. 9, to the effect that the
tailed since Mr.. Rusk had been the con-
tractor, and also that the sprtnklers had
been sent out while 1t was raining.
The testimony Of the three inspectors
was to the effect that there had been no
change in the extent Of their authority
since Mr. Rusk became the mach1ne-sWeep-
ing contractor, but that the same rules as
governed under former contractors have
continued to prevail since July, 1903.
The first witness at the afternoon session
was Mr. Robinson. who was called In con-
nection with the charge against inspector
Beymer.
Attorney Gordon asked Mr.. Robinson now
much feed he had sold to Inspector Beymer.
Witness said he could not figure how much
feed he had sold the inspector; the only ac-
counts he ever kept of the transactions ne
said were little memoranda which were d e
stroyed at the end of each month. He dld
not think that Mr.. Beymer saved very much
money in buying feed from witness.
Attorney Donaldson questioned Mr. Rob
inson at length relative to his relations
with Beymer. Witness admitted he was
quite friendly with Beymer.
Mr. Stutler said that he had not been
aware. while Lilly Robinson had the con-
tract. that Reymer received feed from
Robinson. Mr.. West asked Mr.. Stutler IL
there had been anything to indicate that
Inspector Beymer did show favors or I'M
due leniency toward Mr.. Robinson. Wit
ness said that perhaps Mr.. Beymer had
shown a disposition to deduct area on ac-
count of poor sweeping under Mr.. Rusk 8
contract rather than obliging the contrac-
tors men to go over the work and sweep
the street better.
DO the records show that Mr.. Beginner
has been deducting a greater area under
Mr.. Rusk's contract than he deducted I'M
der Mr.. Robinson'sT' asked Mr.. West.
Yes. Mr.. West. they do" replied the
witness. "Al the inspectors have deducted
a greater area than was deducted under
Mr.. RobinSon's contract
Must Toe the Scratch.
James F. Warder. an employe Of Mr..
Rusk. was called to the stand He testified
that Beymer said to him:
you can't go to the dumps with half
loads. and you've got to toe the scratch
Inspectors Pruitt and Barnes testified in
effect that there has been change with
reference to their authority since Mr.. Rusk
became contractor; that they still work
under the rules obtaining under previous
contractors. The witness did not remem-
Der that streets were sprinkled during rain.
Inspector Beymer. when he was called
to the stand was questioned relative to his
business relations with Robinson. His
story Of the buying of feed. ETC.. was in
line with the testimony given on the sub
ject yesterday morning.
Inspectors Pruitt and Barnes were re-
called to testify with regard to Mr.. Slut
lers alleged remark in the presence of the
three inspectors. These two inspectors.
however. denied that Mr.. Stutler made the
statement reported by Beymer.
Maj. A. H. Davis. inspector Of sprinkling,
was the last witness. He said in sub
stance that about six weeks ago he found
two sprinklers at 9Th and L streets south
east just after a rain. He ordered them in,
and later, he said, Mr.. StutIer told him that
in the future when he saw sprinklers out
after a rain he might know they were
ordered out by him. and that he Davis)
should not order them in