National Republican., 1883-06-20
sTINEMETz ON STONES.
Discrimination Of the Expert on Certain
Building Materials
sharp Firing Between Counsel at the
Hill Investigation.

in any one course and apply to 1t the
standard of cost which rules under tho
contract, through tho whole building,
and that stone should be very large one
with great deal Of surface cutting, would it
not show, as compared with smaller stone,
an excessive cost which would rather be APP
parent than real2
Answer It would not be possible TO com
pare twelve ton plaster, which required
much labor to move it and costs So per foot,
with small stone requiring but little surface
cutting aud costing not half so much.
Mr.. HILL But that Is what the contract calls
for.
Witness. Then all have to say is there was
not much sense in such a contract.
q. If tho prices allowed in the modified
contracts were based on the number of days
required for cutting the stones, might not
either quarry or net dimensions be used In
making the calculations of cost?:
A. Yes, sir; 1t Is mere question of conven-
ience.
Q. Are you familiar with the value of the
stock used in the Philadelphia building2
A. l have seen the contract.
Mr.. Thomas. But that is not an answer.
DO you not know that the stone used in
the Philadelphia building cost the contrac-
tors for quarrying three or four times as
much as the government paid for it2
Mr.. Coleman objected to the question as ir-
relevant to the subject under investigation.
The contract for furnishing the stone was
entirely separate and independent of the con-
tract for working and dressing.
Mr.. Thomas replied that one element ofthe
contract for cutting and dressing was the ex-
treme low price for which tho rough stone
was obtained by the government. The de-
tense wished TO show that this was one rea-
son for n moro liberal contract for cutting.
Mr. Coleman. While 1t may be a satisfac-
tion for the public to learn that tho govern
ment in one instance did not suffer through n
contract IL is certainly improper TO admit
that the government could rocompense los
ing contractor by making another contract
with him, through which the government
must be a loser.
The crosse examination was continued with
frequent bits of argument on the part
of counsel and occasionally sharp re-
tort. At one point when tho witness re-
piled with some impatence, Mr.. Thomas said
we desire to test your knowledge as an expert
Mr.. Coleman replied we think your COM
potency to put questions should first be tested.
Witness was shown.a photograph of the
Philadelphia building and was asked, " From
your experience as an architect which would
you say would require the most time in cut
ting, the cornice Of the first third stories? ?"
A. l did not compute the first story.
Mr.. Thomas. But can you not see by look
ing at the plans, and can you not give an
opinonp
Witness. 1 do not care to give an opinion
without making calculations. / am not a
guess man.
Mr.. Coleman. The difference between the
present supervising architect and Gen. Slime
metz seems to be that the former goes by his
eye and by guess, while Gen. Stinemetz re-
qures calculation.
Mr.. Thomas put Hypothetical question,
based on the assumption that certain num-
Der of days were required under the 10 per
cent contract to cut IL certain stone, and
ELECTED the reply: l would not take the
word of any sculptor or stone cutter who
had been working under the 15 per cent.
contract. IL would not be safe estimate to
base a contract on.
Mr.. Thomas. Suppose he could not help it +?
Mr.. Coleman. Then would give the build
ing away and be done with it.
Witness was cross examined at great length
for the evident purpose Of showing that his
estimates of the cost of cutting the stone for
the Philadelphia building were too low. He
insisted however, that his estimates were ex-
oeedingly liberal. Witness was connected
with the supervising architects office from
1863 to 1877. Made estimates for stairs in
New York postofice; also for granite work
in the Boston public building and other pub
lie buildings, The severance Of witness's
connection with the supervising architects
Office was due to Mr.. Hill. Witness, how
ever, entertained no hard feeling against him.
Had filed some papers with the secretary,
which possibly at some time would be taken
up. Witness never made any threats of get
ting even with the office.
The cross-e&amination having closed, Mr..
Coleman called Mr.. Stinemetz again to the
stand and Inquired If he had seen the con-
tracts for tho public buildings at Boston, st.
Louis, and Cincinnati.
Mr.. Thomas ut once objected to going into
any other branch of the investigation until
the Philadelphia building was disposed of.
This led to spicy arguments on both sides.
Mr.. Coleman said it would not be fair to
take the Philadelphia contract as criterion
for the Others, for they were totally different.
He had looked over tho contracts for the st.
Louis and Cincinnati buildings, and, as law
yer, he must admit he had never seen so
much cheek displayed except in the amount
of foes taken by the government counsel in
the star route cases. The prosecution proposed
to show not one fraud but scores and sys-
tematic plundering of the government in the
erection of the public buildings. He said that
in the case of the st. Louis contracts it can be
shown that the contractors were already get
ting greater price for the rough stone than
its market value, and still in making the
modified contracts the same excessive allow
ances were made for dressing the stone.
Mr.. Coleman read from defendants answer
TO the charges, aud said he would not have
read it had he not been requested SO to do.
Ilb uiu uOU care WudL Uue ucltuuulb mlBnb
answer 1t was not proof. Defendant had said
he was not solely responsible, that he was a
subordinate, and that the matter of these
contracts had been referred to the secretary
of the treasury and the attorney general.
Counsel proposed to show that there was
nothing in the opinion of the attorney gem
eral, or in tho decision Of the secretary of the
treasury, that warranted the execution of
these contracts in the manner in which they
were executed. The prosecution expected TO
prove that $4,000 were raised and used in
Washington to fix these contracts in
the interest of the contractors. 1t would be
useless to prove this fact unless the prosecu-
tion be first permitted to show that the gov
ernment suffered by the execution Of these
contracts.
Mr. Thomas objected to an argument on the
case as though the statements of counsel were
evidence before the committee. If counsel
proposed by witnesses 10 connect Mr.. Hill
with the new charge of $4,000 corruption
fund, he had not objection to make, but he
did object to chasing all over the country and
taking up all the public buildings before con-
cluding In regard TO one of them.
Chairman New stated that the committee
after considerable reflection had decided for
the present 10 confne the inquiry TO the Phil
adelphia public building. The committee
did not believe that they sholld investigate
the rulings of former secretaries of the treas
ury or the acts Of former supervising archi-
tects but should endeavor to find out whether
or not Mr.. Hill had been guilty OF fraud or
corruption in office.
Hon. Kenneth Raynor, solicitor of the