Daily globe., 1883-06-27

ing of the Hill investigation, Hill was
asked to correct his testimony of yester-
day. The chief clerk told him last night
that the accounting officers of the treasury
do not rsqnlre a bond, consequently his
testimony yesterday that the articles
of assignment of the United company had
been filed was incorrect. They were ever
filed.
Q.-Do you know thsUnited States COM
pany is myth and that Damon takes a
contract and does the work for the depart
ment which he could not otherwise do?
Al know just the contrary, that it is
an incorporated company and has been
doing business for years.
Q.-What is the name of the firm over
the door where these shutters are made?
Al don't know.
Q.-Then you have no evidence of such
bona fide company or its actual existence:
A.-There are extracts from their meet
ings attached to some Of their contracts.
By New-Have you ever seen their arti-
cles of incorporation?
A.-No, sir.
Coleman-Will you show me certif
cate accounting of your treasury of the
responsibility of this United States com
pany?
At is probably attached to their con-
tract.
Coleman, examining bonds)-If these
bonds require two sureties and Damon is
an officer of the company then they have
but one surety and are no bonds in the in
tentment of the law.
Secretary Folger was then sworn. He
fatty contradicted that part of Hills
testimony where he swore he had shown a
paper to the secretary containing the
story of an offer of $4,000 to Manly,
| Cooper & Go. to withdraw their bid. He
did not show the witness such paper, but
stated verbally that one of the bidders had
made proposition for Manly, Cooper &
Co. to withdraw their bid, as it was reason
| able to suppose the lowest bidder would
have the contract. No investigation of
alleged bribery was ordered. The amount
| of $4,500 was not mentioned by Hill, nor
was the name of the party making
the offer of bribery given. There
was at that time no question
of rejecting the bid certainly understood
that if shutters of Manly, Cooper & Co.
stood the test they were to have the con-
tract In reply to further questions, Mr..
| Folger said, 81 knew before the contract
was finally awarded that the Manly, Coop
er & Co. shutters did not meet the require
ments of the specifications in thickness.
Hill made no written report on the subject.
would not undertake to say that be said
they pledged themselves to furnish shut
ters as required, within twenty -four hours,
| and that it should not interfere with the
execution of the contract, nor do l remem-
Der that he told me the shutters of the
next lower bidder were also thicker than
called for by the specifications.
Coleman then stated that owing to the
| fact that no assistance. as often re-
quested, had been furnished the prosecu-
| ton for the examination of papers and
accounts. Gen. Stinemetz had not been
| able alone TO prepare all the evidence
| they wished to present in the Bartlett
| Robins case. The prosecution, however,
wese ready to go on with another branch
| of the case, which would not require much
time. The counsel then read as specif-
cations under the general charge of fraud
and corruption that Hill, as supervising
architect Of the treasury in March, 1877,
! promised and agreed with
James NJ. Wilbur, then having
claim against the government to the
| amount of $4,000 for furnishing illumin-
| ating tiling for the New York postotfice, to
| pass said claim if he (Wilbur) would allow
him (HllD ten per cent, of sail claim Sand
| further, that Hill, knowing L. E Cannon to
| be associated as copartner in the firm of
| Simons, Johnson 81 Co., in transaction of
business relating to traffic in building ma
| terials, was requested to dismiss Cannon
| from position in the architects Office,
| but permitted him to remain and use his
| influence in securing contracts for the
! firm.
| Wilbur was about to take the stand,
when Thomas put in answer to Bartlett,
Robinson & Co. and of Hill to the charges
| preferred in that case.
Tyler, whose name was mentioned yes
| terday in connection with the offer of
| $4,000 to Manly, Cooper & Co., was per
mitted to make a staten ent and said:
| am charged here with having made an
offer of bribery. 1 never made any offer to
| Manly, Cooper & Co., nor did [ ever sug-
gest to them to make an imperfect shut
| ter. Witness proved that he was
indisposed to allow any information
| to be extracted from him and insisted
upon telling his own story. On concluding
his statement, witness, turning to Cole
man, said, 81 trust you are satisfied" TIC
which the counsel replied, "Oh, yes, [ am
satisfied that the lawyers have every rea-
son to be the most suspicious mortals,
when one man will swear to one thing and
another of equally good standing will
swear point blank to the opposite Ad-
| journed.
The reply of Hill, mentioned above, says
that each and every charge and specifca-
ton against him of fraud in connection
with the Bartlett, Robbins Il Co. contracts
for work done on the New York postofice
building is false and malicious. He (HilD
had no contract and had no personal
knowledge of the details of the work under
this contract during its progress. When
| the matter was presented to him for final
settlement, the account was adjusted in
accordance with the evidence furnished or
that could be obtained. He says that the
figures presented in the exhibit IN support
of the charges, when examined in connec-
tion with the accounts of the disbursing
agent, who made the payment under con-
tract, will plainly show the account in
charges could only have been prepared by
some one either utterly ignorant as an ac-
countant or else determined upon mis-
representation.
The answer of Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
asserts that all the work and labor under