The Washington times., 1911-02-25
TRUST IN
DISTRICT IS CHARGE
Accusation Made in Demand
for Municipal Plant
for Capital.
Continued from First Page.)


ing of what this provision was intend
| ed to accomplish.
In the first place, prior to last year,
| there were two or three asphalt corpo-
rations of this town that were engaged
| in competing with each other for the
| privilege of building our streets. Last
year those corporations combined.
| AT the time the combination was
affected the District had a contract
for $1.45 square yard for laying as
phalt pavements. Immediately the
price advanced so that under the next
contract made by the Commissioners
we were compelled to pay $1.77 a
! square yard.
Mr. oJhnson, that in the city of
! Washington, right under the nose of
| the Law Department of the United
| States. a contract has been made in
restraint of trade and competition and
that 1t has gone unnoticed?"
Facts Wanted.
THAT Is extraneous matter" re-
sponded Mr. Burleson. II cannot control
the action of the Department of Justice,
and neither can you. What this House
wants to know are the facts. The ad
vance was made. There was no legisla
tion coming from the District of COlum-
bia Committee at this session to meet
the situation, for some reason or other.
| do not know why-ether because the
House did not have confidence in the
committee or because the District Com
mittee weer neglectful of their duty;
anyway, no action was taken to relieve
the District of Columbia and the Gov
ernment from the execution of this
combination of asphalt concerns.
Now the question is squarely before
the House. When the Appropriations
Committee, dealing with this matter in
the interest of the finances OF the Dis
trict and the Government, brings a
proposition before this body that will
relieve the situation, is the House going
to vote it down."
Mr.. Burleson ridiculed the assumption
of several members who declared that
If the municipal plant were authorized
the streets would be filled with con-
Victs in stripes. No such plan was
contemplated, said Mr.. BurlesOn, except
at OCCopuan, where the convlCts might
break stone for use upon Washington
streets.
Representative Olcott, who took Mr.
Johnson's view that the matter was
one for the District Of Columbia Com
mittee to pass upon, arose and indig-
nantly protested against the criticism
OF the District Committee.
Olcott's PhOtest.
Il do not intend to go into the mer-
its of this asphalt proposition said
Mr.. Olcott, but I do intend to We
hemently and emphatically protest
against this everlasting criticism in
this House of its District Committee.
There is no more hard-wOrking COM
mittee than the District Committee, and
yet we have had bills here upon the
calendar that ought to have passed
weeks ago. We have been .steam-roI-
Tered and overrun and bill after bill
House because we were deprived of
District day. Under these Circum-
stances | will not sand up here and lis
ten to this everlasting criticism of the
District Committee"
Representative Fornes, for two terms
head of the aldermanic board in New
York, expressed surprise that the Dis
trict should have been paying such
prices for asphalt.
why it should be obliged to pay even
Sl45 is beyond my comprehension" said
Mr.. FOrnes 1t should not be more than
$l.25 to $1.35 at the outside, and some
cities pay only $1-10.
There seems TO be an unusually high
price paid here and it comes out of the
pockets of the people Of the District. l
favor the establishment of this asDhalt
nlant nOrder to break up this ccmbina-
ton"
Should Garry Weight.
Representatives Young of New York |
the House that the word of a |
man like Mr.. Fornes, with his expert |
enCe in municipal affairs, should carry |
weight
New York established a plant for its |
he added, land as a result |
We have had cheaper asphalt This is 4
a good principle, and it should be ap- |
this District. 1t is an opportunity for |
the House to put check upon this |
combination which is burdening the Dis |
triCt."
one of the cOnferees on the bill, again |
came to the front with a plea for the
plant.
The The merits of the proposition are
be jealously over the jurisdiction of the
legislation as between two committees
of this House."
Representatives Borland and johnson.
members of the District Committee, in
sisted that their committee had iuris-
diction and accused the Appropriations
committee of attempting to slip thrCNgh
legislation in money-carrying measure
JohnSon's Inquiry.
why did the Commissioners take this
route instead of the usual route?'' de-
manded Mr.. Johnson. piqued because
the legislation had not come from the
District Committee.
Because it was the only way open
to them and the only means of putttg
an immediate stop to these exhorbitant
charges" answered Mr. Formes, doubt
less aware of the fact that members of |
the District Committee are seldom able
to obtain a day in the House.
Mr.. Cullop of Indiana also protested
against what he termed would 'inau-
gurate new method of legislating in
this House"
Give us a chance to vote on soma
Of these items,' he demanded, in COM
mon with Mr.. Foster of Illinois.
Mr.. Foster announced that he was oI.-
posed to the increase of the CommiS-
Sioners salaries, which brought the re-
ioinder from Mr.. Gardner, of Michigan.
that if members of Congress are worth
S7 500 the Commissioners should at least
be worth 5000, considering the import
anCe of their work.
When Mr. Burleson's motion to sus-
pend the rules and agree to the con-
ference report failed, by a few votes,
Of obtaining the necessary two-thirds
vote of the House, the district bill was
ordered sent back to conference