National Republican., 1883-04-24
THEY DIDN'T APPEAR.

As None OF Mr.. Hnrs Accusers were Pre-
sent Yesterday Nothing was Done-Mr.
Hil's Reply 90 the Charges OF Manly
g Co.
John G. New, assistant secretary Of the
treasury, j. II. Robinson, assistant solicitor
of the treasury, and w. +. McLennan, chief of
the warrant division, the committee selected
by Secretary Folger to investigate the charges
against the supervising architect met at 10 a.
m. yesterday in the Treasury department
As neither witnesses nor accusers were pre-
sent, the committee, after waiting half an
hour or more adjourned until 10 o'clock
Wednesday morning, when it Is expected
that the Philadelphia firms who have pre-
ferred charges will be in attendance. Mr..
Hill filed with the committee an answer to
such of tho charges as are specific in their
allegations. Tho answer of Mr.. Hill TO the
charges of Manly Il Cooper of Philadelphia,
is as follows:
On Dec. II, 1882, bids were received under
advertisement for fire proof shutters for the
government building at Cincinnati. The
lowest bidder was the Manley a. Cooper Man
ufacturing company, Of Philadelphia, and the
next lower the United States Fire-proof
Shutter, Iron Safe, and Building company, Of
Boston, and samples were submitted.
The Manley & Cooper Manufacturing COM
pany was unable to refer to any shutter in
use or to any test that had been made,
and fire test was demanded They were
informed of slight error in specification, by
which 2-inCh shutter was required, the in
formation being then given them that the
boxes were 2 inces and an allowance for
play must be made and the shutters must bo
13-inch, and tho size Of the shutters was deter
mined. They stated that they could furnish
shutters for test in two weeks, or even in ten
days if required. Formal notice was served
on tho parties as to sizes required. Subse-
quontly the Manloy & Cooper manufacturing
company requested that the shutters be tested
in pairs, which request was considered
proper, and tho United States Firc-proof
Shutter, Iron Safe, and Building company mo-
titled that such would be required. Later
the Manley Il Cooper manufacturing COM
pany requested n modification Of width, which
request was declined, rs the width was that
actually required in tho building; and it was
probable that work in preparation of sample
had already been commenced by the compet-
ing company. The test was set for JAM 20,
1883 and on Jan. 10 the Manley & Cooper man
7uiacturing company applied for extension OF
time, which was denied. Jan. 10 the Manloy
d Cooper Manufacturing company applied by
personal representative for extension of time,
which was denied but upon statement made by
them that they had been approached by the
purpose of inducing them to withdraw their
bid an extension of time to Feb 3 was
granted. The competing shutter was in place
ready for test. At the time designated the
Manley & Cooper Manufacturing company
presented their shutter, which was entirely
different from that contemplated by their bid,
and not in accordance with the office require
ments and of inferior appearance and finish.
declined to make the test and reported the
facts to the secretary of the treasury, who ap-
proved the recommendation that the contract
be awarded to the United States Fire-proof
Shutter Iron Safe, and Building company.
The matter of the alleged attempt to induce
the withdrawal of the bid of the Manley g.
Cooper Manufacturing company, with the
statements made, was brought to the secre-
tary's attention, and his opinion was that it
was a matter the department need not go
into.
No test was made of the United States Fire
proof shutter, Iron Safe, and Building COM
pany's shutters, for the reason that such was
deemed unnecessary, us it had been tested on
various occasions, one of which tests was wit
messed by me. The only test proposed was
a comparative one, and the defects in the
other shutter precluded comparison.