Evening star., 1927-05-31


ceived.
"Mr. Eldridge instructed A. G.
Seller, his administrative assistant, to
count the number Of signals received
installed and on hand and compar"
them with the number ordered. Mr..
Seller was not directed by Mr.. Eldridge
to check any of the control apparatus
or other accessories. If he had
checked the controls and accessories.
he would have discovered shortage
in many Of the orders: shortages sutfi
cient to offset the 80 signals which
his report shows as received over the
number ordered.
EIdridge a Participant.
Mr.. Eldridge participated in the
substitutions in the first contract and
authorized substitutions in the second
contracts, vet he did not advise his
administrative assistant of any change
authorized or made by him from the
official orders so that the material
could be properly checked. Further
more. when the report of the admins
trative assistant indicated an over
age of 80 signals, Mr.. Eldridge adj
vised the auditor that everything ap-
peared to be all right, although he
y s cogniZant that substitutiOns had
been made and that the excess signals
had been received as a result thereof.
II Mr.. Eldridge was not aware of any
substitutions, how can he reconcile
his action in advising the auditor that
everything was all right, with Sellers
report showing that there were 80 sig
nails. valued at 2.203.5O received over
tho formal orders?
"The approval in February, 1926,
by Mr.. Eldridge of the voucher of
the CrouseHinds Co. for $9,O48, COW
ering In part traffic signals and other
material which he knew had not been
received, showed utter disregard of
his responsibilities.
"Mr. Eldridge's failure to institute
inquiries at the time he signed the
letter of July 16, 1926. to the Grouse.
Kinds Co. requesting substitutions
under the second contract, indicates
another instance of the disregard Of
his responsibilities.
Summary Of Charges.
Summarizing these charges the re-
port added: I'VE believe that the evi-
dence shows that Mr. Eldridge was
aware that the Crouse.Hines Co. wrote
the first and second sets Of specifica-
tions for traffic lights; that he knew
the type of signal ordered; that he
directed Col. MOller to negotiate for
material not under contract and that
he knew it was through substitution
that such material was obtained. The
provisions Of the law regarding com
petition were not complied with, the
interests of the District of Columbia
were not protected. and he showed a
woeful lack of appreciation or disre-
gard for the responsibilities devolvinS
upon him. His laxity is further re-
flected in the delinquencies in the gen.
eral administration of his Office
The report charged Col. Moller with
deliberately misleading the bidders
and calling attention to the Grouse
Kinds Co. to a "joker" in the spec-
fications, and summarized the investi-
cation into the specifications with the
following statement:
Company Given the Advantage.
''The Crouse-Hind Co.. having writ.
ten the specifications, were In a very
advantageous position, as they had ad-
vance information regarding all the
essential details and conditions.
This also enabled them to profit by
the limited time allowed for submit
ting bids and samples. When the first
signals both Mr.. Eldridge and Col
Moller knew that from Is to 100 sig
nails, or equipment for some 20 to 25
would be ordered. When
the second specifications called for
only 4S they believed that at least
900 signals would be purchased. The
Crouse-Hinds Co. was informed of the
facts in both instances.
'The action of Col. Moller in writing
the CrouseHinds Co. on April 90.
1926. stating that the best he could
do on the second specifications was to
place the minimum quantity at 4S
signals. and then in the letter of April
"a, 1926. calling the special attention
of the company to the clause under |
which he believed the District could
buy an unlimited number, was repre-
hensible and subject to severe con-
because he not only de- |
liberately favored that company, but |
also because the subterfuge employed |
was designed to mislead other COM !
petitors."