The Portland daily press., 1883-06-20
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.

Cross Examination of Mr.. Steinmetz.
WASHINGTON, June 19.-The Hill invests
eating committee reconvened this morning,
and Steinmetz, the expert, was called to the
stand for crcss-examination.
Question--If you should take one stone in
any one course and apply to it the standard OF
cost which rules under the contract through
the whole building, and that stone should be a
very large one, with great deal OF surface
cutting, would 1t not show, as compared with a
smaller stone, an excee3iye cost which would
rather be apparent than real?
Answer 1t would not be possible To compare
twelve ton pias'er, which requires much
labor TO move il and costs five dollars per foot,
with small stone requiring but little surface
cutting and costing not half SO much.
Mr., Hill-But that is what tse contract calls
for.
Witness-Then all have to say is, there was
not much sense in such contract.
Off the prices allowed in the modified
contracts were based on the number OF days
required for cutting the stonea, might not
either quarry or net dimensions be nsod in
making the calculations of co1t?
A.-Ye9, sir 1t is a mere question OF con-
venience.
Q-Are you familiar with the value OF the
stock uCed in the Philadelphia building?
Al have seen the contract
Mr.. Thomas--But that is not an answer. Do
you not know that the stone used III the Phiia-
celphia building cost the contractors for quar-
fylng three or four tunes as much as tho gov
ernment paid for II?
Mr. Coleman objected to the queation as
irrelevant to the subject under investigation.
The contract for furnishing the stone was
entirely leparste and independent of the con-
tract for working and dressing.
Mr.. Thomas replied that one element OF the
contract for cntting and dressing was the OK
treme low price for which the rough stone was
obtained by the government. The defence
wished to show that this was ono reason for a
mere liberal contract Tor cutting.
Tie decentralization was continued with
hequent bits OF argument ON the psrt OF coun-
sci, aud occas onally sharp retort.
Mr.. Thomas put Hypothetical question,
based on the assumption that certain number
of days were required under the 10 per ent
contract 10 cut certain stone, and elioited the
reply: | would not take the word of any
sculptor or stone-cutter who had cen working
under the 10 per cent contract. 1t would not
h safe estimate to ba Q a contract on.
Witness was Gre s-examined at greet length
for the evident purpe o of showing that his es-
tinate5 of the CT u OF cutting the stone Tor the
Philadelphia building were too low. He in-
sisted, however, that his estimates were ex-
eeedingly liberal. Witne was connected
with the supervising architects otiee from
1873 to 1877; made estimates for stairs in the
New York post office; also for granite work in
the Boston public building and other public
buildings. The severance OF witness's connec-
tlon with the supervising architects otfice was
uu6 10 Mr. Hill. WltneSS, uoNoNers outcT-
tanned no hard feeling against him; had filed
some papers with the cecretary, which pc ,sibly
wonld at come time be taken mp; witne-5 never
made any threats of getting even with the
Office The cro examination having clcsed,
Mr., Coleman called Mr.. ISteinmetz again to
the stand, and inquired If be had seen the con-
tracts for the public buildings at Boston, st.
LnriS and Cincinnati.
Mr. Thomas at once object to going into
any ether branch of the investigation until the
Philadelphia building was dispossd OF. This
led to spicy arguments on both sides Mr..
Coleman said it would not / fair to take the
Philadelphia contract as a criterion for the 9th
ers, for they were totally different. He had
looked over the contracts for the st. Louis and
Cincinnati buildings and as lawyer, he must
admit he had never seen 50 much cheek dis
played, except in the amount of fees taken by
the government counsel in the Star Route
caees. The Pre- ecution proposed to show not
one fraud, but scorcg, and systematic plunder-
ing 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 getting greater
price for the rough stone than its market val
ne, and still in making the modified contract5
TIE same excessive. allowances were made for
dressing the stone.