National Republican., 1883-09-19
Report Of the Committee at Last Given TO the
Public.
WHAT'S Said Concerning the Supervising
Architects Office,
Some Criticism for Mr.. Hill but No Charge Of Fraud
Or Corruption.
Thorough Reorganization OF the Archi-
Gecrs Office Recommended.


yesterday given out for publication.
The report is very long, and in the intro
ductory page the committee, beside stating
the reason for its organization-a charge
made in congress by Mr.. Murch, of Maine,
that "the supervising architects Office of the
treasury department is rotten from bottom to
top'-details the proceedings which led up to
the final investigation. OF the charge origi
nally filed by Mr.. Murch, the committee says
they were with n single exception too loosely
and entirely too general for the purpose of au
Investigation, and adds: Before any testi-
mony was taken therefore your committee
ruled that all charges must clearly disclose
the corruption or wrong complained ot."
The report then says that under this ruling
Mr.. Coleman (who appeared in the investiga
tion as counsel for several parties and assisted
Mr.. Murch) submitted sixteen charges, five of
ahem being accompanied with specifications,
md that under these revised charges nine
distinct cases were Investigated, the examina-
zion embracing period practically covering
The entire administration of Supervising Ar
shitect Hill from his appointment, August IL,
1876.
The nine cases examined are with respect
10 the stone contracts, the supervising archi-
ject's dealings with the firms of Poulson u Eger
bf New York. and Manly & Cooper company
of Philadelphia; his official action in respect to
the contracts for vaults, safes, and locks elevat
DTS, slate roof fasteners, and the heating APP
paratus for the Chicago public building; the
,harge of corruptly exacting fees and commits
sions from contractors, and the charge of pay
ment of large sums for extra work which he
knew had not been performed.
The repors cites the charges in relation to
the stone contracts as follows:
1st. That thesupervising architect corruptly
administered his office in that he contracted
with the Dix Island, the Hurricane, the
DaI f1,n GA A,nY aud thn npf in
ion Granite companies for stone to bo used
in the construction of post office and custom
house buildings at Philadelphia, st Louis,
Cincinnati, Boston, and Hartford, enabling
these companies to realize large sum of
money in excess of the actual cost Of work,
which excess has been converted to his own
use.
I'd. That the supervising architect is in
comp etent, inefficient and ignorant of the
duties appertaining to his Office, in that ho
permitted representatives of the granite com
panies named to enter into contracts whereby
they obtained large amounts in excess Of
fair price.
Sd. That in the year 1868 and subsequently,
certain contracts known as the "15 per cent.
contracts" were made with the granite COM
panies named, enabling them to perpetrate
frauds against the United States, for which
reason these contracts were modified, and
that Mr.. Hill, knowing the premises and the
with these companies without competition,
whereby they were enabled to cheat and do
fraud the government.
The committee deals with all three charges
as if they were embraced in the third. 1t
sketches the history of the 15per cent. con-
tracts with the Old Dominion, the Dix Island,
the Hurricane, the Bodwell, the Clark's
Island, and the Cape Ann Granite companies
for the furnishing of stone for the public
buildings at Philadelphia, st. Louis Cincin-
natl, Boston, and Hartford, under which the
contractors were given stipulated price per
cubic foot for the rough stone, and when the
cutting, dressing, insuring, and boxing of the
stone was required to be done at the quarry,
were given 10 per cent of what the govern
ment paid for having this work done for
their superintendent of the same. These
contracts the committee finds were made
during the administration of the
architects Office by Mr.. Mullett; were
continued under Mr., Potter who succeeded
Mr.. Mullett in 1874 and under Mr.. Hill,
who succeeded Mr.. Potter in 1877. In Jan
uary of that year the contract with the Old
Dominion was by direction of the then Sec
retary of the Treasury Morrill,, and with the
consent of the contractors, modified by the
elimination of the 15 per cent. clause, the
contractors to receive under the new con-
tract q fixed price for the stone in the rough
and fixed price for working, dressing, and
boxing it.
In lolI AsSlSUhnC SeCreUary fIencn, nHVlnE
had the matter referred to him by Secretary
Sherman, made report on the subject of
"15 per cent. contracts" and in May, 1877,
the attorney general, who had been asked by
the secretary for an opinion, held that the
government could cancel or modify these
contracts.
Secretary Sherman then appointed a COM
mittee, consisting of Assistant Secretary
French, Col. Casey, and Supervising Architect
Hill, to examine the "15 per cent. contracts"
and report in what cases different and legal
contract could be made with the contractor
for the completion of tho work. This COM
mission made no formal report, but under
their direction, and with the consent of the
contractors, notifications of all the Is per
cent. contracts were made similar to that made
With tho Old Dominion company.
The committee says that it was with some
hesitation it inquired into the modification
of these contracts with reference to the prices
fixed, and only examined witnesses with re-
gard to the price of stone furnished for the
Philadelphia building, because it did not wish
to seem unwilling to hear what the prosecu-
tion had to say respecting Mr.. Hills official
transactions. The report then reviews the
testimony of Mr.. Steinmetz, by which it says
the prosecution sought to show that tho prices
fixed in the modified contracts were so much
larger than the then ruling market rates
that the supervising architect must have been
dishonest or incompetent to agree to them.
The committee says: "YOur committee
would not be willing to accept Mr.. Steinmetz's
unsupported estimates as proof of fraud or
incompetency. 1t is not claimed by the
supervising architect that the prices under
the modified contracts are as low as might
have been obtained had tho commission an
pointed by Secretary Sherman deemed it
advisable to cancel instead of modify the
existing Is per cent contracts. Your
committee finds that the prices agreed upon
were largely in excess of the then ruling
market rates, and had the contract been can
celed and new ones made by advertising for
proposals the government could undoubtedly
have secured these lower rates. But very i'm
portant legal and prudential, as we'll as
economical, considerations, entered into the
settlemant of that question, which appear to
have been weighed with great care and de-
liberation by tho commission, whose work
was subsequently approved by tho then Soc
retary of the treasury"
The second case examined by the commit
tee was that of alleged unfair treatment of
the firm of Poulsen & Eyer in the matter OF
the construction of iron stairs for the Austin
(Texas) public buildings, tho unfair treat
ment consisting of deductions from the con
tract price, on the ground that the plans and
specifications had not been followed in all re-
spects. The committee found that the super
vising architects action was entirely proper,
and that IL the contractors thought otherwise
thoy should have gone to the court of claims,
The third case was the charge of the Manly
and Cooper company, that after advertising
for proposals for making and furnishing shut
ters for the public building mt Cincinnati the