The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-20
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
Specific Charges of Making Extravagant
Contracts for Statuary.

Contracts for Statuary
WASHINGTON, June 19.-The Hill investi-
eating committee reconvened this morning,
and General Stelnmetz was cross-examined.
Question-If you should take one stone in
any one course, and apply to it
the standard cost which rules under
the contract through the whole build
ing, and that stone should be a very large
one, with a great deal of surface cutting,
would it not show, as compared with a
smaller one, an excess of cost which would
rather be apparent than real2
Answer-It would not be possible to COM
pare a 12-ton pilaster which required much
labor to move it, and costs S. per foot, with
small stone requiring but little surface cut
ting, and costing not half so much.
Hill-But that is what the contract calls
for.
Witness-Then all have to say is there
was not much sense in such contract.
Mr.. Thomas stated that one element of the
contract for cutting and dressing was the
extreme low price Tor which rough stone
was obtained by the government. The de-
Tense wished to show that this was one rea-
son for more liberal contract for cutting.
Mr.. Coleman-While it may be a satisfac-
tion for the people to learn that the govern
ment in one instance did not suffer through
contract, it is certainly improper to admit
that the government could recompense
losing contractor by making another contract
with him through which the government
must be the loser.
Mr.. Thomas put hypothetical question,
based on the assumption that certain num-
Der of days were required under the Is per
cent. contract to certain stone, and ELECTED
the reply:
Il would not take the word of any sculptor
or stone-cutter who had been working under
a 10 per cent. contract. 1t would not be a
safe estimate to base contract on"
Mr.. Thomas-Suppose he could not help it?
Mr.. Coleman-Then, 1 would give the
buildings away. and be done with it.
Witness insisted his estimates of the cost
of cutting stone for the Philadelphia build
ing were exceedingly liberal.
Mr.. Coleman wished 10 extend the innniry
to contracts for public buildings at Boston,
ST. Louis and Cincinnati, but Mr.. Thomas
Immediately objected to going into the other
branch of the investigation until the Phila-
delpha building was disposed of.
Mr.. Coleman said it would not be fair to
take the Philadelphia contract as a criterion
for the Others, for they were totally different.
He had looked over the contracts for the
St. Louis and Cincinnati buildings, and as
a lawyer, must admit he had never
seen SO much cheek displayed except in the
.
counsel in the star-route cases. The prose-
cution proposed to show not one fraud, but
| scores, and a systematic plundering of the
government in the erection of public build
ings. He said in the case of the St. Louis
contracts it can be shown that the contract
ors were already getting a greater price for
| rough stone than its market value and still,
in making modified contracts, the same ex-
| cessive allowances were made for dressing
stone. The prosecution expected to prove
that $50, 600 were raised and used in Wash
ington to fix these contracts in the interest
of the contractors. 1t would be useless to
prove this fact unless the prosecuti on
be first permitted to show that the govern
ment suffered by the execution of these con-
tracts. u..
Chairman New stated that the committee,
after considerable reflection, decided for the
present to contine the inquiry to the Phila-
delphia public building. The committee
did not believe they should investigate the
rulings of former secretaries of the Treasury
or the acts of former supervising architects,
but should endeavor to find out whether or
not Mr.. Hill had been guilty of fraud or
corruption in office.
Mr. Coleman said he proposed to show
that there was nothing in the opinion of the
Attorney-general or in the decision of the
Secretary of the Treasury that warranted the
! execution of these contracts in the manner
| in which they were executed.
hull hehheth nay NOT, conclUor OF the
Treasury, was nextcalled by the prosecution
He testified in effect that there is no
statute which authorizes a supervising archi-
tect of the Treasury to make contracts for
and on behalf of the Government; that no
money can be expended upon public build
ings until the plans and estimates have been
| approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.
The power to make contracts could not be
delegated to the supervising architect.
Mr.. Coleman then preferred specific charg
es against Mr.. Hill of making extravagant
contracts with Daniel French, son of
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury French,
for furnishing statuary for the Philadel phia
building, and asked the committee to order
him to produce all papers bearing upon the
matter.
The committee so ordered and adjourned.