National Republican., 1883-06-28
Mr.. Wilbur TestAes That II Was Openly
Made by Mr.. Cannon.
Mr. Hill Only Hinted That He Would
Like Something Of the Sort.
From Prosecuting Claims the Witness Went 10 Farming
and Living on Hopes.
s1cssrs. IliI ana Cannon Deny His story
In Toto.

NOW loIK, VOOK tnO SJhnu, anu was qucS-
toned by Mr. Coleman. Witness had an ac
count against tho United States for putting
in illuminated tiling for the New York post
Office and presented his account to Mr. Hill
in person in March, 1877, and had conversa-
tion with him In his Office. Witness detailed
the conversation. Mr.. Hill wanted detailed
account Of the work. Witness prepared such
account and called again. Mr. Hill looked
tho account over and said II was all right, but
added that he ought to have something for
settling such an old account. lie said he would
refer the matter to Mr.. Cannon. Ho called
Mr.. Cannon, who took witness into another
room and told him they ought to have 10 per
cent. for settling the claim. This was two
weeks subsequent TO witness first visit. Wit
ness neither assented nor dissentcd, but said
nothing. Some days after ho called again,
and subsequently called on the secretary aud
found the claim had been disallowed. Wit
ness afterward called Mr.. Hills attention to
Gann0ns connection with contracts, and af-
terward, upon advice, called Assistant Socro-
tary McCormick's attention to Mr.. Gannon's
case, and Us result Cannon was removed.
Witness believed that both Hill and Cannon
made adverse reports upon his claim, but had
mover been able TO see tho reports. Witness
thought IL was about the first of April that he
had his INSTRUMENTATION with Hill.
Blr. Hill reported tethc secretary that this
claim was not worthy Of consideration.
Subsequently Secretary French reported in
favor of sending the claim to the court of
claims, and afteward Secretary Sherman re-
ported in favor of sending II to congress- as
it involved an appropriation of above $1,000.
The matter was afterward considered by
tho committee on public buildings and
grounds of tho house of representatives and
the subcommittee reported favorably upon 1t.
No further action was taken in that congress,
but in the forty-slxth congress bill was in
troduced, referred to the committee on claims,
and favorable report made. In the next
congress bill was introduced in both houses
and referred to the committee on claims in
each house. At a hearing before the senate
committee Mr.. Hill appeared and opposed the
claim. The claim is still unpaid.
On cross-examination Mr.. Thomas asked,
How have you supported yourself during tho
past six years." Objection TO the question
led to prolonged discussion as to its propricty
and admissibility. Counsel on the one hand
wished TO show that the witness had been
engaged in no business in the interim, but
had boon living on the expectation Of getting
this claim, and that his animus in testifying
against Mr.. Hill was to secure his removal
and the appointment of another man, so that
he might secure its payment,
Objection was made that the question was
not material to the truth or falsity of the
evidence already given by witness, and was
in itself impertinent, and the question was
chinged to What business have you been
engaged in ~
Witness for tho past three years has been
engaged upon farm in Fairfax county, Va,
as superintendent. A protracted cross-eXam-
ination ensued, the intent of which appeared
to be to extract an admission that witnesses
claim was against Bartlett Robbins Sc Co.,
and not against tho government. Counsel
for the prosecution intorposed several obec-
tions TO the line of questioning. Tho merits
of the claim were not under examination. 1t
had been indorsed by the assistant secretary
and the secretary of the treasury, and if the
committee desired to go into that question
they were prepared to prove its validity.
Question. Why did you not make u record of
this conversation which You allege to have had
with Mr.. Hill IN which you say he asked for 10
Answer Well, 1 thought It was rather strange
proceeding on tile part ofa government Official,
but was stranger IN Washington at that time
and did not know but that IL was the custom
with officials here.
Witness said further that he had madc no
secret of the matter, but had told great many
people that Mr.. Hill had asked him for 10 per
cent. of his claim for passing it.
Question. Did Mr.. Hill ask 10 per cent?
Answer No. lie said he must have something,
and he introduced me TO Mr., Cannon, who ndi-
Gated that 10 per cent. was the correct figure
considered Illll and Cannon one and the same SO
lar as that proposition was concerned.
Tho articles OF copartnorship between Gan
non, Simons & johnson were then put in
evidence by the prosecution. They boro date
1874, and one Of their stipulations was to the
effect that in all contracts which might be
obtained from any of tho departments l.. f..
Cannon should receive ten cents for every
ton of stone or materials hauled by said firm,
which should constitute his full share of the
profits from that branch Of the business but
that ip oil other profits he should share equally
with the other partners.
Tho opinion of Assistant Secretary French,
favorable TO Wilbur's claim, was thon put in
evidence and read, as also the opinion of
Secretary Sherman, which referred the matter
10 congress for its action.
Mr.. j.. Il. Cannon then took the stand for
the Defence Witness was an employe of the
architects office from 1860 to 1877, part of
the time ms principal clerk. Witness denied
that any such conversation ever occurred us
had been detailed by Wilbur or that any
proposition had been made by him to Wilbur
for 10 per cent OF his claim for passing it.
Mr.. Hill referred Wilbur to him (Gannon)
because IL was customary in the office
TO refer claimant to the clerk haV-
ing the matter in charge. That was
the explanation in this case. In regard
TO his business connection with Simons
x Johnson witness said =" / would, if u gov
ernment clerk to-day enter into similar
agreement. As II matter of fact, my firm
never had a contract with the government
while was in the government employ"
On cross-examinatiOn, witness said he left
government employ in May, 1871 with one
months leave of absence. No reason was as
signed by tho department for his dismissal
Witness lost $4,000 through his connection
with Simons & johnson, which covered u
period of fifteen months Never had any
other business transactions involving the fur
nishing of materials 10 tho government or
performing work for IL.
Tho copartnership Of Simons, johnson &
Cannon was dissolved before Mr.. Hill became
supervising architect, and never had AN OK
istence during his incumbency of tho office.
Mr. Coleman reserved the right 20 ask some
further questions tomorrow, aftor tho evil
dcnce of one other witness shall have been
heard,
Mr. Hill then took the stand and said por-
tion of the testimony Of Wilbur is true and n
part Of it is false. ~ never had any conver-
sation with Mr.. Wilbur in which II was either
said or intimated that / would receive or per-
nit any compensation to bo paid for the set
tlement of the claim"
The charge Of Wilbur is absolutely false
Witness never appeared before a congressional
committee in connection with this claim ex-
oept in answer to summons
Al l;30 p. m. tho committee adjourned till
1880 to-day.
Alabama Claims Commission.
In the court Of commissioners Of Alabama
claims tho following cases were argued and
submitted Edward j. Jones, administrator /;
j. H. Burdiok, George StaploG, William Cas-
coll a Ipit I