National Republican., 1883-07-26
THE HILL PICNIC.
The Defendant Examined In Regard TO
Elevator Contracts.

The Defendant Examined In Regard 10
Elevator Contracts.
Before the Hill Investigating committee
yesterday morning Mr.. Coleman read an
affidavit reclting the frauds alleged TO have
been committed in connection with the stone
dressing contracts, and setting forth that
testimony essential to the prosecution could
be obtained from persons residing at Quincy,
Mass, where some Of the work was done.
Mr.. Totten held that Mr.. Coleman was
not entitled to the testimony he desired. 1t
was not rebuttal, but only cumulative proof.
Mr.. Coleman maintained that the tcsti-
mony was important primarily, and proper
to be given.
The committee reserved its decision upon
the question.
In regard to the Chicago witnesses, tho
chairman said that Mr.. Walbridge was now
on his way here, and the collector expected
to secure the attendance Of King and Wood
man.
Mr. Coleman asked that King and Wood
man be authorized by telegraph TO inspect
the heating apparatus in the Chicago build
ing.
Mr.. Totten said that Mr.. Coleman did not
appear to know what his witnesses would
swear to. He objected TO this delay; IL
the crack of doom.
Mr.. Coleman disclaimed any intention Of
delaying the proceedings,
Mr.. Hill was then placed upon the stand to
testify in answer to the charges of fraud in
furnishing elevators. Ho said that COM
mittee of experts appointed by the secretary
of the treasury to select elevators for the
Chicago building had reported in favor of the
Hale apparatus. Tho report was read in evil
dence.
Mr.. Hill said that tho subsequent awards
of contracts for elevators had been based upon
that report.
To Mr.. Coleman the witness said that no
knew the report applied only to the elevators
for tho Chicago building. Tho only adver-
tisements after that report were for steam or
freight elevators, and not for hydraulic passen-
ger elevators. Circular letters may have been
issued instead of advertisements, but compe-
tition was had. Understood that Otis Il Co.,
and Hale n Co., were separate firms, but used
the same patents, Otis q Co. supplying the
cast and Hale & Co. tho west. Regarded an
elevator as machine requiring such skill
and science in its construction, that it did
not fall within the statute prescribing adver-
tisements for proposals.
Mr.. Coleman read Mr.. Hills Endorsement
upon proposal by Otis & Go. for supplying
elevators, stating that he had compared the
prices with the prices given by other firms
The witness said he had not invited COM
petition by other firms, but had their price
list in his office. Referring to the two in
stances where the lowest bidder had not Sc
cured the contract for supplying heating ap-
paratus Mr.. Hill produced the record to show
that their proposals did not contemplate sup
plying efficient apparatus.
Mr.. Totten offered in evidence n statement
of the proposals for supplying the heating
apparatus for tho pension building in this
-
intendence of Gen. Meigs.
Mr.. Coleman remarked upon the failure Of
Bartlett, Robbins & Co. to put in proposal.
If the paper was presented to prove that that
firm did not got all of the work, it came too
late, for the bids were opened after this in
vestigation had begun. 1t might be material
as showing that Bartlett, Robbins & Co. did
not care to bid where Hill did not supervise
the work,
Mr.. lotion said he introduced the paper
to show the wide difference in the eleven
bids--from $23, 900 to $Sl ,000-where bidders
were required to supply their specifications.
He supplemented ii with u statement of the
bidding for heating apparatus for the Gin
cinnati building, conducted according to Mr..
Hills plan, where the bids ranged from SIPS,
600 to $151 900.
The chairman announced that the commit
tee would to-day hear Mr.. Walbridge, OF
Chicago; on Friday, Mr.. st. John, of New
York, and on Saturday Messrs. King and
Woodman, of Chicago, and Mr.. lsaacs, of ST.
Louis if he could be prevailed upon to at.
tend.
Mr.. Coleman said he should refuse to ex.
amino Mr. Walbridge until the other wit
nesses were present.
The chairman said in that event the COM
mittee would examine Mr.. Walbridge upon
the allegations contained in Mr.. Coleman's
affidavit
Mr.. Totten said that he should resolve him.
self into counsel for the committee if Mr.
Coleman persisted in his refusal.
The chairman. This investigation has been
going on for some time aud haS-
Mr.. Totten Qnterfupting) "Petered out"
Mr.. New nearly covered everything mentioned
IN the ohargcs. When the testimony is completed
the committee will receive written briefs and will
hear oral aguments
Mr.. Coleman protested against this decision
without success.
He then called for the papers connected
with the supply of plumbing material, lum-
ber, iron, and brick for public business. 1t
would facilitate his labors, h. said if the de-
Tense would acknowledge that one person had
furnished the supplies in each case.
The chairman began to show signs of i'm
patience He said that the call was for an
enormous mass Of papers, and he did not
know whether they could be found
Mr.. TOtten again complained of the delay
In the proceedings, and asked why his client
should be kept upon the gridiron.
Mr., Coleman inquired why the gentleman
spoke of gridiron, and in the same breath
declared that his client had not been dam
aged. He said that he should have quit this
Investigation some time ago il he had been
fairly treated by the architects office and
had been freely supplied with the necessary
papers, but he did not purpose being bounded
out.
The committee then adjourned until Fri
day, as they had decided upon reflection to
consider Mr. Coleman's objection to examin