Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-08-01
regarding alley cleaning he Immediately O
dered It to cease.
Lonr-Drawn-Out Session.

Long-Drawn-Out Session.
When the District Commissioners de-
termined Saturday afternoon that they
would complete during the session then
commenced the taking of testimony rel
alive to the charges against Superintend-
ent Stutler, they evidently did not antici-
pate that the dawn of the Sabbath day
would be near before they had finished
| with the inquiry. Such was the case.
however, for 1t was after midnight when
the last witness had been examined and
the trial was brought to close.
The session had been continuous for a
period Of ten hours. and nearly every one
present, including the Commissioners, the
accuser the accused and his attorneys.
! the witnesses and the newspaper report
| ers. were almost exhausted by the strain.
| Saturday nights session proved to be
by far the most interesting, as well as
the most exhausting of the whole investi-
| cation. At that session Royal Robinson
introduced testimony relative to the cut
offs. the shifting of the laborers from I'M
| improved streets to the improved streets
| and alleged false reports. which was con-
| sidered as more damaging against Mr..
| Stutier than any previously produced
| The last three counts of the charges pre-
| ferred by Mr. Robinson did not specify
| instances or dates, and 1t was not known
| what sort OF testimony Mr. Robinson pro-
| posed to bring forward in support of his
| charges Mr.. Stutler therefore had no
| opportunity to prepare his defense
| those charges except in a general way
and he was unable at the eleventh hour
| to procure witnesses.
| The testimony Of three alley inspectors
showed that their daily reports did not ex-
| actly tally with the work done and that
| they had practically allowed the contractor
double pay for one cleaning. They said
| they did this because instructed to do so by
| the superintendent. Mr.. Stutler stoutly de-
| MED giving such orders.
| When the hearing was concluded
| shortly after midnight everyone present
| gave a sigh of relief as the session had
| been unusually firing and the heat Of the
night was keenly felt in the board ROOM
| Tho Evidence Adduced.
| The first witness Saturday afternoon was
Inspector Pruitt, who was called to testify
| to the matters alleged In charge No II.
ms charge asserts that 1.-The machines
were ordered out February p, 1904 to
| sweep slush from certain north and south
| streets where the sun was melting the
snow. AS no gutter men carts followed
the machines Mr.. Rusk should have been
paid for only one-third of the area swept.
Mr.. Stutler ordered that he be paid practi- /
| cally In full only a small deduction being
made. although he was fully informed as
| to the facts
Inspector Pruitt stated that the machines
We're out and at work on the date men,
toned. and that there were no cart or gut
ter men following the machines. The slush.
he said. was swept into the gutter line. and
1t ran into the sewers and left the streets
| fairly well cleaned. He said the following
morning he consulted with Inspectors Bey-
mer and Barnes In the front room of Mr
Suffers office relative to deductions for
the failure Of the contractor to supply
broom men and carts.
Pruitt said he then asked Superintendent
Stutler II the latter didn't think 1t would
be fair deduction to cut of the streets
scheduled for machine sweeping which
were north of street deduction amount
Ing to about one-third. He said he thought
MI Stutler agreed to this. The inspectors
subsequently, made the deduction men,
TONED and turned it In to the clerks in the
ONCE. pennsylvania avenue and 14th |
street. he said. were swept twice on Feb
ruary %. but allowance was made for only
one sweeping
Inspector Barnes was the next Witness
He said that the three inspectors had con-
suited over the deductions for the date |
mentioned. and that at the time he was of
sne OPINION that about one-half should be
qeoucted Barnes said he thought Mr.. |
Pruitt. after talking over the matter with
superintendent Stutler told himself and
5es Iher that the superintendent said to de-
quot one-thrd. He also said that PennsyJ-
Fania avenue and 18th street were swent
twice and only allowed once and that dur
ing I'M the day he and Inspector Pruitt met
superintendent StutIer on Massachusetts
avenue and told the superintendent that no
carts or men were out. and asked him what
they should do. The superintendent at
ma tnat time tod them. the witness said. to
aeauct what they considered right for the
ialiure OF the contractor to have carts and
broom men on the work f@'f
inspector Beymer admitted that the ave-
nue. ana I4th street had been swept twice
ana that the inspectors had allowed for
only one sweeping. He thought one-half
snouio De deducted for the entire sweeping
or streets that day, but that he did nnt
himself consult the superintendent ahout ~
He thought Mr.. Pruitt did speak to the
superintendent about it. and that Pruitt re-
deduct One-third ~ ii" "
All three inspectors stated in response IN
questions that the use of machines TO susan
s snis from the streets was an unusual
The Contractor Objects.
Mr.. Stutler said when he called ., NJ.
Rusk TO sweep. February % last. the con.
tractor objected because it was unusr.u,,
hard work on his horses and machines
mere mad been a large number of COM
paints, he said. about the condition Of the
streets. which were covered with an ac
cumulat1on of snow, dirt and sIush ,nd
10 r,n west had insisted that the
iatse machines be put on the street in an
eHort 10 clean them, especially Pennsylyania
avenue. This. he said. was done on one for
mer occasion, at which time Mr.. West drove
over the avenue with the witness and
saw the machines at work 0
ne contractor swept the avenue three
times that day. but was allowed for but one
s sweep ana to this the contractor OBJ
)ected, because of the unusual conditions
and thought he ought to be allowed more
than contract rate for regular sweeping
mere being no rate fixed for sweeping
slush. His objections were not sustained
witness said he personally saw the con-
tractor sweep the avenue and 14th street
twice February p, and he mentioned
meeting Pruitt and Barnes on Massachu- |
setts avenue. when he was Informed that
there were no carts or broom men follow
ing the machines. He told them he said
to deduct whatever they thought fair.
THE morning Of the 3d." witness said |
after the inspectors consulted in the
front offlce. Mr.. Pruitt asked me If l didn't
think 1t would be about right to cut off
streets north of street.. which were sched- |
uled for machine sweeping, the area south |
OF 8 being on the hand-sweeping schedule |
The streets north Of s. 1t should be noted |
were swept that day with machines |
told Pruitt that II the inspectors considered |
that deduction right to go ahead. did not |
see that report of the inspectors until these
charges were filed, as 1t had been turned |
over to the clerk who makes up the paw
vouchers for the work.
Mr.. West-"Mr. Stutler. do you think now
that the deduction was a proper one?''
Mr. Stutler-"I do, for the reason that |
the conditions under which the work was
done were unusually hard. and the fact |
that Pennsylvania avenue and 14th street |
tr.rN.