National Republican., 1883-07-13
STILL ON THE HEATERS.
Further Testimony for tho Defense In
the Bartlett, Howard 81 Co. Matter Be
To-. an. tI,It f,o,np,iatce.

Further Testimony for tho Defense In
the Bartlett, Howard 81 Co. Matter Be
fore tho Hni Committee.
T. J. Hayward, of the firm of Bartlett,
Hayward g. Co., was the FIRST witness before
the Hill investigating committee yesterday.
He said the firm had been in existence for
forty years; did business of 100000 or $780,
600 per annum, and employed nearly 1000
men. The witness was asked to state the
facilities Of his firm to execute large con-
tracts. Mr.. Coleman said he would admit
that they were able to do all of the govern
ment work, but that was no reason why they
should have it.
The witness said that they manufactured
all of their goods from crude material, and
thus had great advantage over other firms.
1t was their practice to superintend their
own work wherever they were held RESPONSE
BILE for its quality. One of their employees
Charles p. Newton-had formerly been in
spector of materials of heating apparatus at
tho Chicago custom house. The firm had
prepared plans for heating apparatus for q
number of large public buildings This work
required abilities that were not possessed by
the average architect and draugbtsman. The
plans for heating apparatus for the st. Louis
postofiice building had been prepared by the
firm under orders from the supervising archi-
tect
His firm put in bids on three of the build
ings for which they had prepared plans, and
were successful i'll two instances-the Chicago
and st. Louis buildings-because their bids
were much lower than any others.
Mr.. Coleman objected to the witness saying
whether his firm had any advantage over
other bidders growing out of the fact that
they had superintended the work for the
government and his objection was sustained.
The witness denied that there had been
any corruption between Mr.. Hill and the firm
of Bartlett, Hayward & Co. He also said that
it was not true that the firm had received any
undue and unfair information to aid them in
obtaining contracts.
He was asked if they had charged tho gov
ornment more than they would have charged
private persons for work Of a similar char
acter.
Mr.. Coleman objected, because the circum-
stances were unlike. Private persons did
not advertise for bids" said he. Their bills
for extra work spoke for themselves"
Mr.. Alexander, of the committee, thought
the question should be allowed. The prose-
cution had put n workman on the stand To
show that he received for his services a less
sum than was charged in the bill
Mr.. Coleman said their witness had sworn
that he received but 50 per day, when in the
bill the government was charged 1925 per day
for his services. If they would confne them
belves to that point he would be content.
The question was allowed, however, and
the witness said that the government was moi
charged more than private persons for heating
apparatus
Mr.. Coleman then cross-examined Mr.
Hayward. The witness said that his firm
had always been the lowest responsible bidder
Mr.. Coleman then produced the contract
for putting in the heating apparatus for the
bureau of engraving and printing. The wit
ness said that he believed their bid was the
U OF iaI wit ha 5finn
tions Was not the lowest bidder for the
Charleston, w. Va, building, but they
believed they were for the building at Dover
Del. Was not the lowest bidder for the gross
work upon the bureau of engraving aud
printing The Utica building was the only
instance within his recollection where his
firm had been the only bidder.
There was no advertisement published in
vitng proposals for making the plans for the
Chicago and st. Louis buildings, nor was any
other person offered the job to his knowledge
Had no patterns for any work except pipes
required under these specifications. New de
signs were required for every building. Elk
ercised only general superintendence ovei
the execution of the work. 1t was understood
that he was not directly to superntend thu
work, but was to be available for consultation
when required. Had received contracts from
private persons when they had been told tina
their bid was not the lowest. The Baltimor,
city hall was case in point.
Question. Was that contract awarded by the cit
council?
Mr.. Thomas. BY the democratic administration
Mr. Coleman. And you think a republican gov
ernment should follow the example of n demo
cratic city administration. Maybe the thousant
workmen of this firm counted for nothing.
Mr.. Thomas. never asked the reason, but pre-
sumo they got the contract because they did tn
best work.
Z. A Robbins, bookkeeper for Bartlett
Hayward 8. Co.. was the next witness for TIN
am MI lnya yaf
by the firm in keeping the account of expen
ditures for material used in the work upol
the New York postoilice.
S. G. Wallace, another bookkeeper, corrob
GRATED the statement OF Mr.. Bartlett touching
the dictation of the bill for extra work upoi
the New York custom house.
Mr. Thomas said that Mr., Hill, who woulc
be the last witness for the defense in thi
branch of the inquiry, was unwell, and tn
committee adjourned, with the understandin
that Mr.. Dixon will be examined to day TO
the Dix Island Granite company.