The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-27


an officer OF the company, then thew hsy,
out one surety and are bonds in the In.
tendment OF the law.
Secretary Folger. then sworn, flstly con.
uadlcted that part of Hills testimony
where he swore he had shown a paper To
.ne secretary containing the story OF the
ouer OF $500 TO the Msnly.
SoopeI company to withdraw bids;
ne DID not show witness snch
pspet, put stated verbally that one OF
tne bidders had made proposition for
Manly Cooper to withdraw the pid. a. ~ /"
was reasonable to suppose the lowest y euld
nave the contract: no Investigation of A.
ieged bribery was IN order; the amount of
Ss,ooV was not mentioned by Hill, nor WAS
,ne name OF the party making the offer of
orioery given; there was at that time no
question OF rejecting the bid; Understood
tnAt the shutters OF the Manly. Cooper ?
company q stood the test they were TO have
In reply to further questions he said; "r
Knew Selorethe contract was finally awarded
not meet the rsquirements oi the % suec,f;cs. %
tions In thickness; Hill made no written re.
port on the subject; would
not undertake 10 nav hs
:sid g they pledged themselves to to
furnish shutters a. required within TWEEN.
ty-four hours and that Il should not intsr-
iere with the execution O. the contract. no,
40 remember he told me that shutters of
.ne mex, lowest grade were also thicker
thsn called for by the specifications"
coleman then stated that owing to the
tao. tnat no assistance las often requested)
had been furnished the prosecution for the
examination of papers and accounts. Gen'
eral steinmeiz had beep unable alone to
prepare all evidence they wished to
case. The proseoutidn, however 6VSrs wers
ready to 70 on with anbther branch of the
case which would not require much time.
counsel 'hen read specification under the
general charge of fraud and corruption,
that Hill as supervising architect of the
treasury IN March, 1877, promised and
agreed with James w, Wilbur, then hay
ing a claim against the government
.o the amount OF 81 600 for fur.
New YORK post-otlice, to pass said
claim II he (Wilbur) said he would allow
MN thilD 10 per cent. of said claim:
further, that Hill, knowing l.. Il. Cannon
10 oe associated as co-partner in the tirm OF
Slmons, johnson 4 Co., in the transaction
OF business relating to traffic in building ma.
terials, refused to dismiss Cannon from a
position IN the architects office, but per.
mitted him to remain and use his influences
In securing contracts for his firm,
~, Wilbur was about to take the stand when
Thomas put In the answer of Bartlett, Rob.
ieIred in that case.
Tyler, whose name was mentioned YES.
terday In connection with the offer Of 81 500
permitted to make a statement
ana said: II am charged here
with having made an offer 10 Manly.
Cooper & Co.,. nor did I ever suggest to
them to make an imperfect shutter
witness proved indisposed TO allow
any information to be extracted
rom HIM, and INSISTED upon
telling his own story. In concluding his
t1atement, ~ turning to Coleman, he said.
sci replied, "Oh, yes; am satisfied
that the lawyers have every reason
to be most suspicious mortals when one
man Will swear to one thing and another of
equally good standing will swear point
blank to the opposite.
Adjourned.
The reply OF Hill mentioned above SAWS
each and every charge and specification
against him Of fraud in connection
with the Bartlett. Robbins & Co. contracts
for work on the New York post-ofiice build.
ing is false and mal,cior. He (HilD had
no control and had no personal knowledge
OF the details of the work under this con.
tract during its progress. When
the matter was presented TO Hill for final
settlement the account was adjusted in &C.
cordance with the evidence furnished or
that could be obtained. Hill says the fip.
ures presented In the exhibit In suppopt
OF the charges when examined in connec.
tion with the accounts of the disbursinp
agent who made payment under contract
VIII plainly show the accounts in the
charges could only have been prepared by
some one either utterly ignorant as an &C.
countant or else determined on misrepre.
sentation
The answer Of Bartlett, Robbins & Co..
assert that all work and labor under said
contract, for which they have received paw
ment, were duly and honorably preferred,
and all materials supplied and furnished
were furnished as charged and paid for;
that said contract was Of considerable mag
nitude, very difficult ofexecution by reason
OF frequent changes aud modifcstions
made to suit opinions and Ideas of the ,hen
supervising architect. and these changes
and delays subjected to them, q loss for
which the United States has never been
called upon to make amends.