The Washington herald., 1908-05-07
ASHFORDBASSAILED
Credibility Is Questioned by
Lawyer w. Il. White
IRONWORKER. ON THE STAND
Inconsistencies IN Working of Build
ing Inspectors office Told OF by
ant, z. f. Gibbs, scores Defendant
in Argument Before Commissioners.

THE whole case resolves itself into
whether the conduct Of Mr. Ashford is
consistent with his Office as building in
spector or not"
This is the way William H. White. at
torney for z. F. Gibbs, in the Gibbs-Ash-
ford hearing before the Commissioners
in the District Building yesterday sum
med up the case against Building Inspect
or Ashford.
At the second days hearing OF the
charges preferred by Mr.. Gibbs against
the building inspector before the Commits
sioners. at o'clock. Attorney White
made his argument OF the case, pointing
out that the man occupying the office Of
building inspector OF the District should
be above reproach and trustworthy in
every respect. Mr.. White also called at
tenton 10 the fact that Mr.. Ashford had
not only held ownership OF patents in
consistent with his office, but had done
several lndiscreet things, which can hard
| ly be classed as mere cOineidents.
CredfbilIty Is AssaiIed.
Il doubt whether we should believe Mr..
Ashford at ALL" said Mr.. White Mr.
Ashford wrote an indiscreet letter to the
Ritenhouse Brothers. in Baltimore. TO Sc
cure money. He also said he referred to
a former employe. when. as matter Of
fact. he meant present employe.
The brother-in-law Of Mr.. Ashford
worked in the Office of the building in
spector, and had access to official papers
that the public has not He, therefore.
got information In regard to contemplated
fire-escape erectiOns, which information
the ordinary person has not
Not only" continued Mr.. White, did
MT. Ashford have an interest in pretend
ed fre-escape. but it Is a regulation OF
the District that no such officer as the
building inspector shall have such an in
terest. Permission TO have such an inter
est was secured by Mr.. Ashford from
Capt Biddle and Capt. Harvey. Neither
OF them are here. Therefore, we have no
way OF proving except to accept Mr..
AshfOrd's word.
Il do not know whether we should ac-
ceDt Mr. Ashfords word OF not
White Cites Instances.
Capt Biddle told Mr.. Ashford he could
be permitted 10 have an interest in
patent fre-escape Of his own invention
If he did not charge for its erection in
the District OF Columbia In his letter to
the Rittenh0use Brothers, Mr.. Ashford
used the word local IN a way that can
! be construed to mean anything that he
wishes, and, in fact, ne used Il in a way
that is not in the dictionary. He also
made threats. saying he would have Mr.
/ Gibbs put in Jail"
] In the argument 1t was shown that Mr..
/ Gibbs had, as a citizen. before he had
come into contact with Mr.. Ashford writ
ten. proposing change in the regula-
| tions so as TO allow the erection Of chain
| If1re-escapes. This was disfavored by Mr..
Ashford who has admitted to the Com
missioners that the Gibbs fre-escape
complies with the regulations
Are all these facts merely coincidents,
and are We 10 believe Mr.. Aashford?"
asked Mr.. White.
as It for the good Of the District for
Mr.. Ashford to remain in Office as build
ing inspector?" he asked
Should he be retained in such a re-
sponsible position, dealing with questions
involving millions of dollars?"
BIatzhiem on Stand.
Charles BIatzhiem, an iron worker
who erected a fre-escape on the Cow
wood apaTtment-house. testified that he
went TO Mr.. Ashford for information as
TO f1re-escapes, and told Of the incon-
sistency with which the Office of building
inspector was conducted and the incon-
venience to which he was put by its
refusal to approve a fire-escape that had
been approved by the fire department
and which he was forced TO rebuild
Mr.. Blatzhiem testified that this incon-
venience cost him $40.
Mr.. Ashford testified he did not know
whether OF not the fre-escape Of his
| invention was used on the Raleigh and
Arlington hotels and the Congressional
and C0ywood apartment house lie. did
not know that the specifications for the
| installation of them on those buildings
had been filed.
It was pointed out by Afr. White that
in his letter to the Rittenhouse Bros
Mr.. Ashford had said the fire-escape of
his invention Is used on these buildings.
Henry z. Davis, attorney for Building
Inspector Ashford, remarked that Mr..
/ Whites remarks did not require any
| answer. and did not comment on them
at all
The hearing was then adjourned. The
Commissioners viii take the case under
consideration.
N