Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1883-06-22
MURCH'S WAR ON HILL.
PERSISTENT ROBBERY STILL
THE ALLEGATION.

Stone Cutters Paid SO so When They
Could be Had for S3-The Govern
ment Explains Its Apparent Luke
warmness-The Monopoly on Iron
T Shutters and Mr.. HIPS Defense.
WASHINGTON, June 21.-In the Hill in
! vestigatiOn to-day x-Representative
Murch was crOss-examined by Mr.. HIPS
counsel. The witness while employed
in Philadelphia had, in common with
other workmen, signed the pay roll, but
never had an opportunity to see the head
ings of the rolls. He was perfectly sure
that under the Is per cent. contracts the
men were employed much longer upon
certain work than was necessary. but at
that time he did not know the
nature of the contracts. and did not know
that swindle was being perpetrated
both upon the government and upon the
wOrkmen.
''Who do you represent before this COM
mitteer'
Mr.. Murch-"T. II. Murch, alone: and
| wish to say and have it go on the min
utes that the statement attributed to Mr..
Hill that l am being paid by the stone cut
ters is absolutely false"
The witness added that he was here
wholly on his own responsibility and pur-
sualit 60 determination formed IN 1877
when he became aware of the fraudulent
nature OF the contracts under which he
mad worked.
''ls not your only reason for attempting
to connect Mr.. Hill with these frauds
found in the fact that he was member
of the commission before which. you ap-
peared and that the commission refused
to listen to your demands?'
Mr.. MUrph-tPnhat 10 truo Tho foo4
that he was member of that commission,
that he was made aware of the frauds and
still persisted in his course. is nv reason
for connecting him with the frauds"
III the 10 per cent. contracts had been
abrogated, would not the government
have been compelled to pay the prices
which your stone cutters would have de-
manded!"
Mr.. Murch-"We offered to do the work
for $3 per day, and Mr.. Hill, under the
modified contracts, paid SO 50''
Inc examination was pursued to great
length. The witness said that the great
est frauds upon the Philadelphia building
were perpetrated after Mr.. Hill became
Supervising Architect, and after the Super
lntendent had been put in charge by the
Architects office. This Superintendent
was totally incompetent, and permitted
the grossest frauds, yet he is in the en-
plOy of the Architects Office now.
In reply to question by Mr.. Coleman
the witness said that his ground of COM
plant against Mr.. Hill was, that after
having his attention called to the gross
frauds which were being perpetrated, Mr..
Hill went ahead and made modified
contracts, based upon the fraudulent and
excessive rates which had been paid un-
der the 10 per cent contracts.
This concluded the examination of Mr..
Murch.
Alluding to Mr.. Coleman's charges YES
terday of the lukewarmness of the govern
ment in this investigation, its failure to
employ counsel for the prosecution.
summon witnesses and produce pa
pers according to acquisitions, etc.
Chairman New, addressing Mr.. Cole
man said: ''YOu are as familiar as any
of us with the laws regulating the dis
bursements of funds by the Treasury De-
partment and you know that we have no
money either to pay witness or attorneys
fees. If you should go before the grand
J ry and procure an Indictment, then |
have no doubt that you would have every
encouragement from the administration
to which you allude and the Department
OF Justice would assume the expense of
the prosecution. But in this case il is to-
tally different"
Mr.. New submitted the views of the
committee upon the scope of the investi-
CATION. He said that the foundation of
the investigation was a statement made
by Mr.. Murch in speech in Congress
that the office of the Supervising Arehi-
tect of the Treasury was corrupt from top
to bottom. This led to correspondence
between the Secretary of the Treasury
and Mr.. Murch and eliminated in
the designation of this committee
to investigate the question of existing
corruption or frauds. The committee did
not consider its functions extended to in
yestigating former Supervising Architects
or Secretaries of the Treasury. The state
OF facts In connection with the 10 per
cent. contracts as stated by Mr.. Murch
was admitted by the Supervising Archi-
tect, and not disputed by anybody, This
admission covers all the work done under
these 10 per cent. contracts in Boston,
Cincinnati and elsewhere, and it deyolves
upon the prosecution to show by other
evidence or argument that the Supervising
Architect was guilty of fraud in making
such. contracts. If there be such glaring
frauds as charged in this matter. tbeV
should be so patent that evidence of them
could be adduced within reasonable time
and without prolonging the investigation
all summer This commission was formed
to investigate certain charges that are
filed with it, and we think that the COM
mittee should confine itself to the work
assigned it. Other charges on file will
be investigated, but the examination must
proceed without delay.
The case of Manley Il Cooper, of Phila-
delphla, was next taken up, and Mr.. Cole
man stated that the charge was as fol-
lowsi The prosecution in this case claim
that the contracts for fire proof shutters
for the public buildings of the country
have been controlled by certain persons.
namely: The United States Fire Proof
Iron safe and Shutter Company, of Boston,
and since Mr.. Hill came into office that it
has been impossible for any other
company to compete. In 1882
advertisements We're made for
proposals for iron shutters for public
buildings at Cincinnati. The bid
by Manley, Cooper & Co. was the lowest.
A representative of the company came to
Washington and was approached with a
bribe from another bidder to withdraw,
but refused to entertain it, and the com
pany was required to perform a most un-
reasonable duty in the manner and terms
required for test of their shutters. Not
withstanding that Manley, Cooper e
Co.'S bid was $21 800 less than any other,
Mr.. Hill gave the contract to the company
which had offered Manley, Cooper q Co.
$4,000 to withdraw.
Architect Hill explained that no test of
Manley Il COoper's shutters was made
because the samples furnished were not
according to the specifications, and the
contract was awarded to their cOmpeti-
tor. Mr.. Hill was aware of the charges
of Manley & Cooper of attempted bribery,
but as they were denied he placed no
faith in them.
Representatives of Manley Il Cooper
occupied large part of the afternoon tes-
tifying in detail.