Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-04
MOLLER DEFENDS
ACTS IN AFFIDAVIT
Suspended Traffic Engineer
Says EIdridge Was Kept
Constantly informed.

Col L. c. Moller suspended traffic
mitted to the Gibson subcommittee
through Bureau Of Efficiency investi-
gators, 14-page affidavit of de-
fense, disclosing In full his relations
with the traffic directors office which
affected award Of electric traffic signal
light contracts and the installation
of the lights.
The affidavit was presented person
ally to the investigators, who In turn,
presented 1t to the Gibson subcom-
mittee, which made it an exhibit in
the record of testimony which con-
tains disclosures resulting In Col. Mol
ier's suspension for Irregularities in
his Office.
Principal Points i'm Affidavit.
The highlights OF Col. Moller's
affidavit are:
Reiteration of former statements by
him that District Auditor ID. j..
Donovan and Traffic Director M. O..
Eldridge had knowledge of certain
items in his procedure which were
termed irregular and for the adn1is-
sion of which, together with others,
the Commissioners suspended him.
A declaration, denying in its Inn
plicat.on Director Eldridge's assertion
that he had implicit faith" In Col.
Moller, but that he did not have de-
tailed knowledge Of Col. Moller's pro-
cedure, wherein Col. Moller declares
Mr.. Eldridge was constantly kept In
formed by him as Ito just what was
doing and what / proposed TO 90 ana
the reasons therefore"
A denial that he had ever financially
benefited directly or indirectly from
any purchase or award made to any
contractor for the District.
Defends Traffic Lights.
An assertion that the traffic lights
provided under his supervision are
admitted to be lone of the finest sys-
TENS of electric traffic signals in the
United States today and one OF the
most economical from the point OF pur'
chase"
Regarding procedure on the first set
of specifications for traffic lights in
Washington, Col Moller, in the affi-
dayit points out that he had little
time to attend to the engineering de-
tails after his appointment on April
I. since up until May 8, 1925, he was
forced 10 attend to details of organic
ing the newly created Traffic Bureau
and since he was limited until July 80,
1925, to obligate the $4,000 approprl-
ated for traffic signals unless the ap-
proDriation was to revert TO the
Treasury.
'.At that time" he said in the brief,
'I had no experience whatsoever with
electric traffic signals. l had been en-
gagged exclusively in traffic engineering
with the United States Bureau of
Public Roads, but electric traffic sig
nails were a subject that I had never
been called upon to deal with
Tells of Inspection Trips.
AS a result, he recites visits of five
cities to watch the operation of elec-
tric traffic signals and visits to the
Grouse Kinds Co. and the General
Electric Co. to amass knowledge of
the engineering features connected
with such signals. The first named
comnany was the successful bidder for
local signal lights. Col. Moller states
further:
list of cities furnished by each
of these two companies in which they
had installed electric traffic signals
impressed me with the fact that evil
IDENTIFY the Grouse Kinds Co. were do
ing the major part of the business
and in all of the cities visited the
traffic officials spoke most highly of
Grouse Kinds apparatus.
"As a result of this inspection I
was convinced that the Grouse Kinds
traffic signals and controls were the
best that had seen, that the Grouse
IContiu,,ed IN Page Column 61