Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-02-26
Continued from First Page.)

| these specifications" Mr.. Gibson
asked the witness.
| Yes" re replied. "In general
suggested change from the stock
thing the catalogue showed to har-
| monte with our posts.''
| When the design for the lights was
submitted by the Grouse Kinds Co. ]
insisted on several decorative details. VI
| This, he said, was entirely motivated
| by his desire not to have the traffic
signal lights interfere with the beau
! tification of the city or to be out of
/ harmony with the street lighting sys-
| tenn.
Disavow Moller Acts.
In almost categorical style Director
| Eldridge last night denied knowledge
or approval of details of the installa-
ton of the traffic signal lights, con-
corning which Moller had admitted
sufficient departure from the regular
order of business to cause his suspen-
sion.
Maj. Donovan. the uditor, was an
emphatic witness. One typical high
light of his testimony came when he
was asked whether he had ever ap.
proved certification of the receipt of
items at variance with those called
for by contract by the District Com
missioners or had indicated that
vouchers might be certified despite
non,receipt of the items called for in
them. He replied:
Absolutely, positively and unequiv-
ocally, no.
Denies Knowing of Letter.
During the late afternoon hearing
yesterday Director. Eldridge, upon be-
ing informed of letter from Col
Moller to X. W. Mackall, engineer of
the Grouse Kinds Co, dated February
1926, calling attention to changes in
specifications necessitated from the
layout" for traffic signals originally
plotted by Mr.. Mackall, because of
Director Eldridge's desire to keep the
expenditure down to $375,000," in
lieu of the $420, 900 progrom outlined
by Mr.. Mackall, declared he had no
knowledge of and gave no approval
to such a letter.
Have you any doubt after reading
that letter that Mr.. Moller was leav-
ing much in the specifications to Mr..
Mackall?" Chairman Gibson asked.
Il think he must have consulted
Mackall very closely" replied Mr..
Eldridge.
He denied any personal knowledge
of the composition or dispatch of any
such communication, and also denied
knowing that Mackall had mapped
out Layout" of traffic signal lights
in this connection.
Mr.. Eldridge was Quizzed closely on
the letter sent from the Grouse Kinds
Co. to Moller on July 80, 1925. in
which reference was made to a long
talk had by a representative of that
company with Mr.. Eldridge and Mr..
Madley, electrical engineer of the Dis
trict, with regard to the local signal
lighting proposals, from which the
writer "got quite few details
Strengthened out" during Col Moller's
absence from the city. Mr.. Eldridge
ter referred to the second set of
specifications for signal light con-
tracts, and indicated that this hap
pened after the second set of specifi-
cations had been thrown open to bid
ding. The second set was awarded
April %, 1926.
Quotes Letters Contents.
Questioned regarding the knowledge
he had that Col. Moller was giving in
formation to the Grouse Kinds Co. as
to the amount to be ultimately ex-
pended for traffic signal lights, Mr..
Eldridge denied knowledge of any such
information.
Chairman Gibson then quoted ex.
actly contents of the letter above re-
ferred to. as follows:
From the talk with EIdridge and
Hadley, it seems fairly well assured
that the District will decide on the
bracket type of signal" Mr.. Gibson
then asked what Mr.. Eldridge knew
of this letter.
cit is news to me-" replied Mr..
Eldridge.
He was asked whether he knew that
80 signal lights were ordered by the
first contract for lighting equipment.
He said he left details to the purchas-
ing office. , 49,. a.
lights were to be purchaser" Mr..
Gibson asked.
II left that to Col. Moller." Mr..
Eldridge replied.
did he?"
.T assumed that he did," Mr.. Ed
ridge said.
"If the amount to be purchased was
to be put into the contract, do you
not think you would have gotten
better price than by STIMULATING for
two or more, as the contract did,"
was the next question.
Eyes, think So" said Mr.. Eldridge.
Didn't Know of Surplus.
did you know only rs were In
stalled out of this order?"
NO.
"And that % more lights were or
dered than were installed"
Mr., Eldridge also denied knowledge
of this detail. Further. he did not
know that on the check-up 1t was
found that there were % lights short
on this order, he said.
Mr.. Eldridge here presented figures
to show that upon a more recent
check-up it was found that there were
IL more signal lights on hand IN the
District than had been ordered. THESE
were unused. The check-up had been
made in the last two or three days, he
said.
At this point a discrepancy arose
with regard to former figures submit
ted by the committee chairman, show
ing that rs instead of rs lights had
been installed out of the SO ordered
in the first contract. The questioning
then yeered to the technical specff1ca-
lions of the contract, with regard TO
the ordering of cast aluminium or cast
iron for portions of the lighting mech
anism.
The point then was presented by
Chairman Gibson that cast iron nous
| ings for the signal lights had been
approved at a cost on the whole bid,
| which was more costly than the Blue
| Ridge Co.'S bid for cast aluminium
| housings, after Mr.. Eldridge had tes-
tilted that cast iron housings for the
| lights were more economical.
Left to Col. Moller.
| On the actual number of items or
dered. 1t was shown by papers in the
hands Of the subcommittee chairman
i that the Blue Ridge Co. bid for cast
aluminium was S7,604.04, against the
Grouse Kinds bid of $9,049 for cast
| iron.
| url aa~frop4ad with these figures