Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-07-14
FROM WAsHiN0T ON
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
Frauds Charged in Connection With the
st. Louis Custom House.
WAsHrSGroN, July ID.

cation calling attention to the promise of Sec
retary FoIger that he would cause the atten-
dance before the committee of any person
in the government employ. An interview
with VIM H. Bliss, y. s. District Attorney
for the eastern district of Missouri, charges
the supervising architect with the grossest
frauds in connection with the constru ton
of the St. Louis custom house. Coleman
therefore desired that Bliss be called before
the committee or examined in st. Louis.
Much time was spent discussing whether
Bliss ocght to be summoned; Totten de-
nouncing Coleman's proposition as mon
strous. The investigation had been going
on seven weeks and he defied any one to
point to a syllable of testimony rejecting up
on Hills integrity. Coleman marveled at
the cneek shown by the counsel and reviewed
the testimony against Hill.
The committee took Colemans request to
have Bliss summoned into consideration, ana
John B. Patterson was called by the defence
to contradict Stinemetz's statements.
c. p. Dixon, Jr., of the Dix Island Ora Mite
| Co., was the next witness.
| Mr.. Coleman objected to taking up the
granite contract charges until the Bartlett.
| Robbins & CO. contract has been disposed of
The committee decided to hear the witness.
| Mr.. Totten asked if his company had ever
engaged in a combination with the object of
detrauding the government by charging for
more time than was required upon granite
work and whether it had ever issued orders
| in regard to the manner of carrying on
work.
The witness denied that there had been any
combination.
Ques-Was an order ever issued that
workmen should do less than an honest days
work?
|
Murchs charges were brought to the at
tention OF the witness. He denied that ex-
cessive time had been spent on stone work.
He said that men were continually being
discharged because they did not cut fast
enough. The company issued no orders
looking to slow work. The work was not
overdone nor none too elaborate. The work
on the Philadelphia building was for the
lower stories and had To be finely done be-
cause it was subject to close inspection, but
it was not too finely done. The days work
contract for work on the Philadelphia build
ing closed on November 30th, 1876, and Mr..
| StinemetZ was in an error when he said that
Hill was then supervising architect. Mullett
or Potter filled that position at that time.
Stinemetz interrupted to deny having made
such a statement.
| The witness was then cross examined by
Coleman.
Had performed the duties OF an officer of
the Dix Island Co., but did not know that
he figured as such upon the books of the
company. His father was treasurer, secre-
tary and general manager of the company
and1 chad appointed him to take charge of the
work upon Dix Island. The granite contracts
had been modified at the instigation of the
government. Knew that because his father
(now dead) had told him so. fl
| Ones -Dn Won know that vour cOmnap
entered into a combination with other com
panies to raise $50, 1000 to be used in securing
the modification of contracts?
Ans.-The notifications were made at the
instance of the government. l know of no
such combination. The work on the PhiIa-
deipbia building was better under the origi-
nal contract than under the modified con-
tract. but that was because it was upon
lower stories and was necessarily of finer
finish. Hill was supervising architect when
the modified contracts were made. No man
in the employ of the company, to his knowl-
edged, did more work than was necessary
upon the work under the Is per cent con-
tract. (To Mr.. Totten.l Had never heard
OF the $50, 600 fund before TODAY.
John L. DAILY, forman for the Dix Island
Company. was next called. He said his in
structiOns were to have the work for the
Philadelphia building speedily and well done,
and it was not true that unnecessary work
was done under the 10 per cent. contract.
Witness cross examined by Coleman said
that under the 10 per cent contract the men
received $3.50 per day, under the modified
contract they were paid from $3.50 to 1926.
Knew they worked ten hours per day under
the modified contracts and believe they did
the same under the 10 per cent. contracts,
but could not swear to it.
John Stewart, another foreman, said he
made il a point to work his men so as to get
an honest days work out of them.
At Coleman's request the defence called
Hill to stand to testify in the Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co. case.
Coleman read several of Stinemetz's re-
ports complaining of the work done by Bart
lett, Robbins & Co.
Witness could not remember having read
them; had called upon Mr.. Oakshott, super
intendent, for report upon the work when
the extra bill was required; could only sur
mise why Oakshott had requested the depart
ment and had instructed him to certify to the
bill for extra work had sent men to Balti-
more to look into the charges; did not know
that the United States had suffered great
damage through the failure of Bartlett, Rob.
hins & Co. to complete their work on time
and through its bad quality. In the majority
of cases (aside from buildings constructed I'M
der his supervisory large quantities were
warmed by steam instead of hot water, be-
tcause steam apparatus was much cheaper
though inferior. Witness believed Bartlett,
Robbins & Co. got three out of four contracts
for heating apparatus. Hayward had been
employed to make plans for large public
buildings, because witness knew of no one
else competent to do the work. Witness
knew that Hayward was in the employ of the
firm at the time he made the plans. Bartlett,
Robbins Co. got a portion of the repair
work because they were usually the lowest
bidders for contract work. Small Jobs were
given them because they were reliable, and
as large part of the original work was of
their construction 1t was measure of con.
venience, economy and safety.
Mr.. Alexander Of the committee asked sew
eral questions regarding the employment of
c. II. Newton as inspector at the Chicago
Western House. Hill said he believed that
he had been appointed at the request Of the
superintendent and that he had resigned from
the employ Of Bartlett, Robbins & Co. to &C.
cept the position.
The committee then adjourned until Tues
day.