National Republican., 1883-07-14
HILL ON THE STAND.
What He has to Say About the Extra
Work OF Bartlett 81 Robbins--They
Got Three out OF Four Contracts for


Work OF Bartlett a. Robbins--They
Got Three out OF Four Contracts for
Heating Apparatus.
Before the regular proceedings began in
the Hill investigation yesterday morning
Mr. Coleman desired to file an interview, pub
lished in the st. Louis Post Dispatch with
Dist. Atty. Bliss, of that city, charging the
grossest corruption in the building Of the st.
Louis custom house. A lengthy wrangle en-
sued between counsel as to the propriety of
filing the paper, during which it was devel-
oped that Dist. Atty. Bliss had positively de-
MED the truth of the interview.
Mr.. Coleman demanded that Mr.. Bliss be
summoned to testify before the committee,
and tho chairman said he would take the de-
mand under consideration.
The regular proceedings were then re-
sumed, the defense calling ]. b. Patterson to
contradict the statement of Stinemetz as 10
the cost of the extra work on the New York
postoflice. sf'fT' on bowl f"N1IA
The next witness was @. p. Dixon, of the
Dix Island Granite company. He deni,d
that there had been combination to defraud
the government by charging for more time
than was required upon granite work.
John S. DAILY, foreman for the Dix
Granite company, testified that the men were
required to perform an honest days work.
At Mr. Coleman's request the defense called
Mr.. Hill to the stand to testify in the Bart
lett, Robbins & Co. case. He said that his
recollection of the extra work done upon the
New York postottice building was almost
wholly confined TO the records of his bureau.
To Mr. Coleman; Had been in the super
vising architects office since 1867. Never
had any experience as o carpenter, mason, or
engineer when he passed the bill of Bartlett,
Robbins & Co,
Mr.. Thomas Is it necessary that SUPER
visng architect should be q carpenter or en-
gineer?
The witness saidEthat his office disbursed
about three million dollars per annum. Had
no personal knowledge of the character of
the work done by Bartlett, Robbins 81 Co.,
but relied upon the reports of the superin-
tendents. Did not know that he ever read
Mr.. Stinemetz's report.
@. Why did you not accept his reports in
Passing upon the bill for extra work?
A. The letters we got from Mr.. Stinemetz
in answer to questions we did ask, indicated
that he was sorehead, and we could got no
satisfaction out of him.
Continuing, the witness said that Mr..
Stinemetz had been transferred to other SER
vice and was disgruntled. Had an impression
at the time that Stinemetz was a sorehead
but his letters, receivedo subsequently, con-
WINGED him of that fact. Presumed that the
letters were on file and would produce them
if possible.
Mr.. Coleman read several of Mr.. Stine-
metz's reports complaining of the wo<S done
by Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
The witness could not remember having
read them, and said he had "read several
hundred thousand letters" " since the date of
those reports. Had called upon Mr.. Oak
shott, the superintendent, for report upon
tha nrlr yltn,n ha nxfr Nuaa 1apnl
Could only surmise why Oakshott had re-
quested the department to instruct him to
certify to tho bill for extra work. Had sent
men to Baltimore to look into the charges
Did not know that the United States had suf-
fered great damage through the failure of
BARTLETT, Robbins & Co. to complete their
work on time and through its bad quality
In the majority Of cases (asido from the build
ings constructed under his supervisory large
Anildings were warmed by ,team instead of
hot water because the steam apparatus was
much cheaper though inferior
THAT is the milk in this cocoanut," said
Mr. Coleman; "that is why all advertise
ments called for hot water apparatus be-
cause none made them but BARTLETT, Robbins
& Co..
Mr.. Totten declared that other firms made
hot water apparatus.
The witness believed that Bartlett Rob-
bins & Co. got three out of four of the con-
tracts for heating apparatus. MIR. Hayward
had been employed to make the plans for
large public buildings because witness knew
Of no one else competent to do the work IL
would have been ridiculous to have adver-
tsed for such plans. Witness knew that
Hayward was In the employ of the firm at
the time he made the plans.
Bartlett, Robbins Il Co. got the greater por-
tion of the repair work, because they were
usually the lowest bidders for Contract work.
Small jobs were given TO them because they
were reliable, and IA large part of the origi-
nalwork was of their construction IL was a
measure of convenience, economy, and safety
Mr.. Alexander, of the committee, asked
several questions regarding the employment
Of q. p. Newton as inspector at the Chicago
custom house
Mr.. ii i'll said he believed that he had been
appointed at the request of the superintond-
ent, and that he had resigned from the om-
ployment Of Bartlett, Robbins & Co, TO accept
the position.
The committee then adjourned until Tues
day, the chairman remarking that he hoped
to close up the investigation next week.
Mr.. Coleman replied that the committee
might adjourn when il pleased, bu. the pros
ecution would not be driven to close up the
case.
WALTERBoRo, S. C.--Col. A, L. Campbell,
says; A member of my family used Brown s
al a