The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-07-14
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
One Of the Officers of the Dix Island
Company Testifies.
Architect Hill Explains the Bartlett
Robbins & Co. Contracts.

Robbins & Co. Contracts.
WARRINGTON, July 13.-Before the resump
tion of regular proceedings in the Hill investi
CATION Coleman presented formal communf
cation calling attention TO the promise ol
Secretary ~ lger that he would cause the at
tendance before the committee OF any person
IN the government employ.
An interview with VIM. II, Bliss, United
States District Attorney for the eastern dis
triet OF Missouri, charges the supervising
architect with the grossest fraud IN connection
with the construction of the st. Louis custom
house Coleman therefore desired that Biss
st. Louis.
Much time was spent in discuss pg whether
bliss ought to be summoned Totten de-
nouncing Coleman's proposition as monatrous
Inc investigation has been going on seven
weeks and he detied any one to point 10 a
syallable of testimony rejecting upon Hills
integrity
Coleman marvelled at the cheek shown by
counsel and reviewed he testimony against
Hill. The committee took Coleman's request
70 have Bliss summoned into consideration
John R Patterson was called by defence to
contradict Stinemetza statement.
q. Il. Dixon, Jr. of Dix Island Grapite
Company was the next witness.
Mr. Coleman objected to taking up the
u
Robbins Il Go. case has been disposed Of The
committee declined TO hear the witness.
Mr.. Totten asked II his company had ever
engaged in a combination with the object OF
defrauding the government by charging for
more than was required upon granite work,
and whether it had ever issued orders in re-
gard to the manner carrying on the work. Wit
ness denied there had been any combination.
Q.-Was an order ever issued that werkmen
should do less than an honest day 3 work.
A.-No.
Murchs charges were brought to the atten-
ton OF witness. He denied that excessive
time had been spent on stone work. He said
that men are constantly being discharged be-
cause they did not cut fast enough. The COM
pany issued no orders looking to slow work.
The work was not overdone nor none too
elaborate. The work on the Philadelphia
building was for the lower stories and had to
be finely done because it was subject to close
inspection. But it was not too finely DONE
The days work contract for work on the
Phlladelohia building closed on Nov 80, 1875,
and Mr.. Stinemetz, was in error when he said
that Hill was then supervising architect.
Milett and Potter filed that position at that
time. StinemetZ interrupted TO deny having
made sucn a statement.
Witness was then cross examined by Cole
man. He had performed the duties of officer
of the Dix Island Company but did not know
that he figured as such upon the books Of tue
company. His father was the treasurer
secretary and general manager of the company
and had appointed him to take charge OF the
work upon Dix Island granite contracts.
The granita contracts had been modified at
the instigation OF the government. Knew
that because his father (now dead) had told
him SO.
Q.-Do You know that yonr company on
tered into a combination with other COM
panies to raise $4,000 to be used in securing
modification Of contracts.
A.-Modihcations was made at the instance
OF the government Work on the Philadel-
phia building was better under the original
contract than under the modification contract,
but that wasbeoause il was upon the lower
stories and was necessarily of finer hnish.
Hill was architect when the modified contracts
were made. No man in the employ of the
company never TO his knowledge did more
work than was necessary upon work under
the 10 per cent contract.
To Mr.. Totten-Had never heard Of the
S50,Ce1 fund before te day.
John l.. DAILY, a foreman for Dix Island Co.
was next called. He said his instructions
were to have the work for the Philadelphia
building speedily and well done, and it was
not true that unnecessary work was done under
the 10 per cent contract.
CrossexatniEed by MIR Coleman-Under the
10 percent contract the men we're paid SO 80
per day. Under the modified contract they
we're paid from $3.50 to So %. Knew that they
worked ten hours per day under the modified
contracts, and believed he did the same under
the 10 per cent contracts, but could not swear
to it.
Defence called John Stewart, another fore
man, Witness said that be made it a point TO
work his men SO as to get an honest days work
from them.
Mr. Coleman recalled Mr. DAILY to ask who
brought him here.
The examination of Stewart was continued
He said witness (CampbelD had not worked an
unnecessary length OF time upon any stone
At Mr.. Coleman's request the defence called
Hill 20 the stand to testify in the Bartlett,
Robbins q Co. case. He said that his recollec-
ton Of the extra work done upon the New
York post-otfice building was almost wholly
confined TO the records OF his bureau.
To Mr.. Coleman-Had been in the superyis-
ing architects office since 1867. He never had
any experience as carpenter, mason or en-
gneer, when he passed the bill of Bartlett,
Robbins K Co. Witness said his Office dis
bursed about S3000,000 per annun He had
no personal knowledge of tile character Of the
work done by Bartlett, Robbins & Co, ,butrelied
upon the reports of the superintendent. Did not
know that he ever read Steinmetzs report.
Stinemetz had been transferred TO other SER
vice and was disgruDtled.
Mr.. Coleman read several OF Stinemeiz's re-
ports complaining of the work done by Bart
lett Robbins q Co. Witness could not re-
member having read them. He had called
upon Mr.. Oakshott, superintendent, for re-
port upon the work when the EXTRA bill was
had requested the department to instruct him
to certify to the bill ior extra work. Had
sent men TO Baltimore to look into the
charges Did not know that the United States
had suffered great damage through the failure
Of Bartlett, Robbins q Co. to complete their
work on time and through its bad quality. In
a majority of cases (aside from buildings con-
structed under his supervisory large buildings
were warmed by steam instead OF hot water
because steam apparatus was much cheaper
though interior. Witness believed Bartlett,
Robbins u Co. got three out OF four contracts
for hoating apparatus. Hayward had been
employed TO make plans for large buildings
because witness knew Of no one else compe-
tent to do the work. Witness knew that Hay
ward was in the employ Of the hrm at the
time he had plans. Bartlett, Robbins Il Co.
got the greater portion OF the repair work of
because they were usually the lowest bidders
for contract work. Small jobs were given
to them because they we're reliable and as a
large part Of the original work was OF the con-
strGetion it was measure of convenience,
economy aud safety.
Mr.. Alexander, OF the committee, asked
several questions regarding the employment Of
q. Z. Newton as inspector ut the Chicago Gus
tom house.
Mr.. Hill said he believed that he had been
appointed at the requests OF the superintendent
and that he had resigned from the employment
of Bartlett, Robinson u Co.to accept a position
The committee then adjourned until Tues
day.
s "
@rTw nu unrrs <-xfr.