Evening star., 1927-05-31

"In our opinion" said MIR. Brown
that company should be absolved
from any criticism in it's dealings with
the District of Columbia. 1t is true
the company submitted for payment
a voucher under the first contract
describing in part material not
shipped although correct in money
value. However, the company origin
ally submitted q voucher which did
enumerate the material actually fur
nished, but that voucher was re.
turned by Col. Noller with instruc.
tions to submit revised bill for the
specific items set forth in the con.
| tracts instead of for the items actually
shipped. The company was further in.
formed by Col. Moller at that time
that he had taken up the after
with the auditor for the District of
Columbia, who told him that that was
the proper way to submit the
voucher"
Recommendations Submitted.
Certain recommendations alro are
contained In the report to prevent SIM
llar Irregularities as those uncovered
by the bureaus investigation to pro.
tect the interests of the District and
to provide for important feaures
which the Bureau believes should be
included in the next specifications for
traffic signal equipment. Among the
outstanding are the following:
l. That provision be included for
bids to enable the District to adopt
the centralized control for flashing
fire signals.
2. That provisions for bids on equip
ment by means of which the green
amber overlap" may be used if the
Commissioners desire to adopt it,
The "green-amber overlap" is recent
development in traffic control adopted
by certain cities and is regarded as
very effective in eliminating accidents
by preventing automobiles from start
ing too soon when signals are chang.
ing from red to green.
3. That specifications for flashing
beacons be not included, and that they
be advertised for separately, II de-
sired.
A. That formal orders be issued to
the heads of the various departments
of the District government calling to
their attention the law which requires
that manufacturers be given an equal
opportunity to compete for Govern
ment business.
Orders to Contractors.
s. That contractors be required to
make delivery of supplies exactly as
set forth by the formal order Of the
purchasing officer; that neither sub
stitutiOns of other articles or en-
changes in qualities, weights. meas
ures or numbers, be permitted in ad.
vance of delivery; that departures Of
any description from the provisions
of the specifications, orders or exc.
IN
proval of the District Commissioners.
and that such orders state that any
violation thereof by any officer or em.
plOye be considered sufficient cause for
removal or other disciplinary action.
Referring to it's charge that Mr..
Eldridge failed to protect the interests
of the District. the report said:
Not only did Mr.. Eldridge permit
a single prospective bidder to draft
the specifications for traffic signals.
but he neglected to protect the in
terests Of the District OF Columbia by
making certain that the specifications
were not so worded as to unduly re-
strict competition by eliminating
manufacturers and dealers who could
not comply with many of the re-
quiremerts which were not vital. He
thus failed signally to assume respon-
SlDliltl0S Clearly ueFOlFlUS upOh lHC
head of an office.
"The fact that many days were
spent in drafting the specifications
shows plainly that the Crouse-Hinds
Co. had not merely submitted for the
information their standard specifica-
tions, but We're drawing the specifica-
tions required by the District of CO.
lumbia.
Faulty Policy Is Charged.
"Many of the transactions subject to
criticism in connection with the pur-
chase Of traffic signals sprang from
the week policy permitted and sane
toned in the preparations of the spec
'"The first specifications for traffic
signals were issued June ., 1925, and
bids were opened June IS, 1925. June
6. 1925, Mr.. Eldridge telegraphed the
Crouse-Hinds Co.. viii be in Syracuse
to see you Tuesday morning. Core.
spondence referred to in the hearings
shows that during the visit of Mr..
Eldridge at the factory of the Grouse.
Kinds Co. he left with that company a
sketch of the Washington ornamental
street lighting pole and suggested that
they write to Col. MOller for a draw
ing of the pole with dimensions of it.
"Mr. Eldridge admitted leaving the
sketch and that he must have known
a change was contemplated from that
called for by the specifications. bids
on which had not yet been opened.
Serious Aspect Is Cited.
'The most serious aspect of this in
cident is that the traffic director Wis
tied the factory of the company which
drafted the specifications at the very
time they were preparing their bid
and gave them special information
on contemplated changes in the
specifications.
THE improperly of his visit and
the furnishing of special information
at such a time is very apparent"
AS to Mr.. Eldridge's knowledge of
the removal of the official papers by
Col. Molier from the files Of the Traffic
the report said:
"On November 81, 1926, Col. Moller
removed from the files of the Office
certain correspondence with the
Grouse Kinds Co., taking it to his
home. At the hearing March Z. 1927,
this subject was discussed with Mr..
positive" at First.
"At first he was very positive that
he was not aware of the withdrawal |
Of these papers. However, after some
Mr.. Eldridge stated that
he did not recall whether he knew
Of it or not, and he could not state
that he had not learned of the matter
from another source or had not dis
cussed j. at Col. Moller's home. where
he admitted he visited about that time.
Col. Moller said it was extremely pos
sible that he discussed the removal of
the papers with Mr.. Eldridge. He
further stated that a friend of Mr..
not in the District service,
quite familiar with the bust.
ness of the directors office, was ac.
quainted with all the facts relating to
the removal of the papers. Mr.. Ed.
ridge admitted that he discussed freely
the affairs of his office with his friend.