National Republican., 1883-07-12
THREATENED PROFANITY.

The Proceedings in the HiIl Investigation
Make the Chairman Promise TO Swear.
Mr. Bartlett was cross-eXamined by the
prosecution before the Hill investigating
committee yesterday. He said that he had
made about dozen visits to New York
during the progress of the work on the post
office building but relied upon the foreman
fora statement of the cost of the extra work
done and material furnished. The foreman
was dead and the detailed accounts of these
expenditures had been lost or destroyed after
the bills were made out Had filed the time
sheets and other papers, but had not seen them
since the bill was made out
Mr. Coleman said he did not know that it
was customary for business men to destroy
their accounts.
The witness. l shall certainly keep them here
after.
q. Why?-A. Because don't want n repetition
of such Il thing us this.
Witness did not know anything of the
steam heating branch of the business; that
was in charge Of Mr. Hayward. Believed
that Charles p. Newton superntended that
work in the st. Louis postoiliCe building.
@. Why was he paid by the government "A. 1
dOu't know that he was.
O. What does this voucher mean then?--A. l
meant that he foremaned our work.
q. Ddn'the act us superintendent?-A, sup
pose so, or he would not have been paid. MIR.
Hayward can tell you about that branch of the
work.
Counsel fell into dispute at this point over
a missing letter. said to have been filed with
the supervising architect.
Mr.. Hill said that the letter could not be
found.
Mr.. Coleman Indignantly asked if the
prosecution was dependent upon the defense
for the production of such evidence.
The chairman said that he saw no other
course to pursue, as the paper was part OF
the files of the supervising architect. He
would allow Mr.. Stinemetz to search the files
| with clerk
Mr.. Stinem etz could not give the date, but
knew that there was such letter.
The chairman. don't believe you do.
Mr.. Coleman. want The chairman sworn.
the chairman. Hewill swear presently. Laugh
ter
The matter was then dropped, and the
cross examination proceeded
The witness was asked If the extra iron
work was charged for by the pound. Objec.
tion was made, and Mr.. Coleman said that he
| wis he'd to show that the witness did not know
| the contract prices and had not referred tC
the contract in making out the bill for extrs
work. The committee, however, refused tC
allow the question, because the contract itsel
| was the best evidence. The examin alton wa!
here interrupted long enough to allow two
clerks to swear that they had made search tol
the letter described by Mr.. Coleman, ant
could find no trace of its existence nor any
record Of such a letter ever having beep re
ceived. The bill for extra work done upor
the New York postotlice was then taken VI
and Mr.. Bartlett was questioned in regard tt
the correctness OF many of the items. Mucl
time was consumed in this inquiry. Upor
redirect examination the witness said that h,
had not at present government contract II
his department and did not want any more
Had not been particularly favored in thu
award of contracts.
Mr.. Totten asked how it was that his firm
had been more successful in obtaining con
tracts for heating apparatus than for othe
work.
He answered that they were the lowest bid
ders, and had better facilities than any othe
firm. (To Mr.. Coeman.) May have secured
repair work from the government withou
advertisement. Never did any such work By
verbal authority of the supervising architect
Mr.. Coleman produced vouchers for worl
Of this kind, but the witness said that b,
knew nothing of them as they were voucher
for work not in his department..
Mr.. Coleman produced a voucher for S4,S0
for steam boilers paid to Bartlett Hayward
& Co., and, asserting that this contract hat
unlawfully been awarded without competi
tion, asked if the witness did not regard tina
as an evidence of undue favoritism. Nh
Bartlett Indignantly refused to touch tn
papers, repeating his answer that they did no
concern work done by his department. Mr.
Thomas said the papers showed that there
had been competitive bidding, and the gen
tleman knew it.
Counsel then fell out and lively passage
ensued.
Mr.. Coleman charged the defense with sup
pressing papers, and declared that Mr.. ia
cobs, of the architects Office, had tried tc
pick locks to get at official documents. Mr.
Jacobs replied with statement to tho effec
that he had tried to get the papers for tn
committee and by their direction.
Mr.. Wilbur also madea statement upon tn
same subject, and the committee finally re
fused to hear more of it.
Mr.. Bartlett was then excused and til
committee adjourned.