Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-06-20
The HILL INVESTIGATION.
GEN. sTEINMETZ CROSS ExAMNED-KENNET
RAYNoR ON THE STAND.


RAYNoR ON THE STAND.
WASHINGTON, June 19-The Hill Investi-
ltiag Committee reconvened this morning,
and Gen. Steinmetz was cross-examined.
Question-H you should take one stone in
any one course and apply it 10 the standard
cast, which rules under the contract through
the whole building, and that stone should be
a very large one, with great deal of surface
cutting, would il not show, as compared with
a smaller stone, an excessive cost, which
would rather be apparent than real?
Answer-It would not be possible to com.
pare twelve-ton pilaster, which required
much labor to move it, and costs S. per foot,
with a small stone, requiring but little sur
face cutting and costing not half so much.
Hill-But that is what the contract is for.
Witness--Then all have to say is there
was not much sense in such a contract.
Thomas stated that one element Of the
| contract for cutting and dressing was the e1-
treme low price for which rough stone was
obtained by the government. The defense
wahed 10 show that this was one reason for
more liberal contract for cutting.
Colemau-While it may be satisfaction
| fer the public TO learn that the government
in one instance did not suffer through the
| contract, it is certainly improper to admit
| tn at the government could recompense the
losing contractor by making another contract
with him throug h which the government
must be loser.
Thomas put hypothetical question, based
| Oh the assumption that certain number OF
| days were required under the fifteen per cent.
| contract to cut certain stone, and ELECTED the
| reply, 81 would not take the word of any
sculptor or stonecuiter who had been work
ing under the fifteen per cent. contract. 1t
would not be safe estimate 10 base a con-
| tract on"
Thomas-Suppose he could not help it3
| Coleman-Then / would give the build.
| irgs away and be done with 1t.
| The witness insisted that his estimates oil
The cost of cutting the stone for the Phila-
delphia building we're exceedingly liberal.
| Coleman wished to extend the inquiry to
contracts for public buildings at Boston, St
Louis and Cincinnati; but Thomas imme.
dlately objected 10 going into other branches
OF Investigation until the Philadelphia build.
| ing was disposed of Colem an said it would
not be fair to take the Philadelphia contract
as criterion tor the others, for they were
totally different. He had looked at one
contract for the st. Louis and Cincinnati
buildings, and, as a lawyer, must admit tina
| he had never seen SO much cheek display ed
| except in the amount of fees taken by gov
erumeut counsel in the Star-route cases. The
prosecution proposed TO show not one fraud
but scores, and systematic plundering of the
government in the erection OF public build
ings. He said that in the case of the ST
| Louis contrsc ii can be shown that the con
tractors were already getting greater price
for the rough stone than its marke
value, and still, in making modified con
! tracts, the same excessive allowances wer,
made for dressing stone. The prosecution
/ expected to prove that $4,000 were RAISED
Z lad in
tracts in the interest OF the contractors. /
would be useless to prove this fact, unle,
the prosecution had been permitted TO SHOW
that the government suffered by the execu
| ton OF these contracts.
| Chairman New stated that the Committee
after considerable reflection, had decided fo
The present to contine the inquiry to tn,
Philadelphia public building. The Commit
lee did not believe they should investigat,
the rulings OF the former Secretary of tn,
Treasury, or the acts of former Supervisor,
Architects, but should endeavor TO find GU
whether or not Hill had been guilty of fraus
or corruption in Office.
| Coleman said he proposed to show Their,
was nothing in the opinion of the Attorney
General or in the decision of the Secretary
OF the Treasury that warranted the execution
OF these contracts in the manner in which
they we're issued.
The Hon. Kenneth R,ynor, Solicitor o
the Treasury, was next called by the prose
cuuon. He testified, in effect, that there i
no statute which authorizes the Supervisor,
Architect of the Treasury 10 make contract
Tor and on behalf OF the governments; tina
no money Can be expended on public build
ings until the plans and estim ates have beef
approved by the Secretary of the Treasury
The power 10 make contracts could not b
delegated TO the Supervising Architect.
| Coleman preferred the specific charg
against Hill of making exirsvsgant con
tracts with Daniel French, sou of Assistant
Secretary of the Treasury French, Tor fur
nishing statusry for the Philadelphia build
ing, and asked the Committee to order hin
to produce all the papers bearing upon tn
matter. The Committee so ordered, an,
adjourned.