The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-06-16
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
A Brief Session Held by the Com
mittee Yesterday.
Emphatic Denial OF Charges OF Fraud
Made Against Hill.
WASHINGTON. June 15.-The Hin inyeatigat.

WASHINGTON, June 10. The Hill Investigate
ing committee met at II clock to-day.
Mr.. Coleman, counsel for Mr.. Murch, called
attention to a report heretofore made upon the
supervising architects office for all papers re-
lating TO extra work performed by Bartlett,
Robbins q Co., upon the New York post office
and intmated that this request had not been
complied with.
Mr.. Thomas, counsel for Mr. Hill, replied
that the counsel had not specified what partlc-
ular papers were required. The charges were
not sufficiently definite or explicit.
Mr.. Coleman replied that the charges and
specifications were as specific as would be re-
quired in an indictment In half the states Of
the Union; that an investigation OF this char
acter should open the doors for the fullest light
upon the official acts Of tho defendant He
would therefore renew his request and ask the
committee TO make an order upon the super
vising architect for all papers relating to extra
work performed by Bartlett, Robbins ~ Co.
upon the New York post Office; also copies OF
contracts made with them.
After further argument, without acting upon
the question the committee resumed the exam-
inati3n of Stinemetz In connection with the
charges of fraud and corruption in the construc-
tion of the Philadelphia pc1t office.
Witness had concluded his calculations, a nd
was prepared to show the difference between
the price paid by the Government TO the con-
tractors for dressing the stone for the entive
building and the actual cost OF the work, based
upon liberal estimate for labor. The tota
amount paid by the Government 10 the con
tractors was $SiS,700 The cost TO the eontrae-
tors, allowing a liberal estimate, at least 80 pc
cent. for profit, was $443, 700, leaving balance
of S375, ,0Co unnecessarily paid by the Govern
ment. Witness then qualified his statement
by saying that the basement aud portion of
the second story having been begun under the
10 per cent contract and completed under the
modified contract, these portions could not be
included In his calculations, but at q rough es-
innate the difference IN the two prices would
add about $4,000 TO his previous totals.
This concluded Mr.. Stinemetz's testimony
and the question arose whether the committee
and the defence would admit that the same
excess relatively existed in the cost of other
public buildings erected under Mr.. Hill, or
whether the prosecution be required TO repeat
their proof with expert testimony as TO each of
them.
Mr.. Alexander of the committee suggested
that as the same principle would extend TO all
the buildings IL would seem to devolve upon
the prosecution TO connect Mr.. Hill with the
fraud charged ia this alleged extravaganza Ia
the erection of the Philadelphia building. Mr.
Coleman replied that il might be as bad ia
principle 20 steal $4,000 as $4,000, 900. but the
defence might say as TO one building, 1--WE ad-
nit extravagauce, but you have not connected
Mr. Hill with any fraud" The prosecution
were able and proposed TO prove that the same
extravagance, misnanagament or fraud was
shown ia connection with all the buildings,
aud that contracts continued 10 be made after
the Supervising Architect had been repeatedly
warned and advised Of their unfairness to the
government.
A long discussion ens9ed favored with sew
eral sharp passages between counsel. The
point, however, was not decided, and at l 80 p.
N. the committee adjourned till II a. m. to-
morrow, when MIR. Stnemetz will be cross
examined
Supervising Architect Hill to-day received a
letter from MIR. Creccy, OF the firm Of Burns &
Creccy of'this city, emphatically denying that
that firm has preferred charges against him in
connection with asphelt G ntracts, and saying
they have experienced at his hands nothing
but fair dealings and uniform courtesy.