Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1883-07-10
F0LGER HIS FRIEND.
HOW HILL STOOD IN WITH THE
TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
Folger Would ssLiise for bartlett, Robbins
a. Co., TO Have the Contract
Here's More Richness.

/
Hill investigation by the presentation
of number of Bartlett. Robbins g.
Co.'S contracts. AS he offered the first
contract. he explained that the prose-
cution did not claim that the con-
tracts were not all right.
They did wish to show that they
had been without competition; that
Bartlett, Robbins 4 TO. got nearly all
of them, and had been corruptly and
unlawfully favored in the award of
contracts Tor supplying heating appar-
atus for public buildings.
L. 5. Totten asked if the counsel
proposed to follow this evidence by
evidence that Hill had been bribed.
1t made no difference, otherwise, how
many contracts Bartlett, Robbins a.
Co. received. IL they held all of them
it only tended to show that they were
good men and did work honestly.
Coleman was astounded that a good
lawyer should expect him to show that
money had actually passed between
the contractors and Hill. If ho could
SO present the facts as to lead to the
inference that money must have passed
he would have accomplished
all he expected in this investigation.
Totten objected because proposed
Coleman called upon the gentleman
to say whom he represented.
Totten II appear for everybody
defending against the assault you are
conducting"
Coleman insisted upon an answer,
and Totten said he represented Bart
lett Robbins d CO., Mr.. Hill and the
Dix Island Granite Company. He
had represented the last named COM
pany for years.
Uoleman "That is all / want
to know. How many of these
contractors are interested in Hills de-
Tense, to the extent of providing
counsel?p
The prosecution then put in evil
dence showing that Bartlett, Robbins
d Co., or Bartlett, Hayward u Co.,
received nineteen contracts for fur
nishing heating apparatus for the pub
lie buildings from 1876 to 1883,
at an aggregate cost of $417,l1l, upon
which there was extra work amount
ing the Sl09,S 4S. The contracts were
also put in evidence to show that
during the same period the total cost
| of all contracts awarded to other firms
supplying heating apparatus was
$4,000, upon which the extra
! NOlh ANNOUNCED " VUO,VOb AOIciilSH
| then offered in evidence the proposals
| upon which the contracts We're award
ed for the supply of heating apparatus
for the bureau Of engraving and print
| ing in this city. Bartlett, Robbins &
Co. bid S3l, 443, while Barber & Co.
bid S30,524, the contract being awarded
to Bartlett, Robbins d Co. A num-
! Der of similar eases were instanced.
Here is curiosity" said Coleman
sit shows how the secretary of the
! treasury has been coming to the relief
of the Defence He then read from
the back of letter from Hill to Secre-
tary Folger dated after the filing of
the charges in this case, submitting
! the statement: II desire to accept the
proposal of Bartlett, Robbins u Co, as
the surest and best for the interests of
the government
bring him inn exclaimed Potter,
there is chance for the gentleman
Bring in another specification
Coleman remarked that he supposed
the secretary had endorsed the paper
in that way to show his approval of
what Hill did, by doing the same
! thing himself.
! Chas. L. Wannell then took the
stand to identify number of vouchers
showing the payments to Bartlett,
Robbins & Co., and Bartlett, Hay ward
! u Co.
Totten having objected that these
vouchers only showed the sums eX-
pended for repairs, Coleman replied
that it was his object to show that
Bartlett, Robbins q Co., had had all
such work on the public buildings
ever since Hill pe came supervising ar
chitect. Coleman then offered in evil
dence proof which showed that this
work was done without advertising
and without giving those engaged in
the same business an opportunity to
bid therefor, as required by the revised
statutes; that this work was done by
the firm in Baltimore, on public build
inss in Washington, Md, Delaware
New Jersey, Massachusetts, Iowa
North Carolina, Kentucky, Indiana
Michigan, Illinois. Missouri, Kansas
and other states, and in some iustan.
ces that thu firm were employed &c
furnish material and perform service
OH the United States buildings as fan
remote as Nebraska and Oregon
, where the amount paid them did moi
, exceed four dollars. This evidence
was offered to show that
The firm Bartlett, Robbins
q Co., had business in theii
line for the United States, which they
could not have had if the work hac
been open to competition with other;
interested in same business; and eucl
course on the part of the supervising
, architect has driven out all competi
| tors for such work; that no business
men can compete with this firm, anC
/ that they obtain work at their owl
/ prices. Contracts been awarded thi
: firm in cases where they were not tn,
, lowest bidders. ''Here is bill TO
E thermometers sent to Indianapolis
: which shows that they have no ther
: mometors out there, said Coleman.
: Thomas-"It shows that Bartlett
+ Robbins & Co. could sell them cheape
| than indianapolis Dealers
! Coleman-"f That is what we worlt
: like to ace you prove. See what tn
) government has to pay for work il
: Portland" he added as he receive,
J another voucher.
: ado you mean to say that five dol
a lars per day. foih foreman is eXcessive?'
a asked Totten.
e "Not out there replied Coleman
+ 'but they charged the government
II the same price for work done here
when they did not pay it,"
Thomas-"How do you know that ?
Coleman-"We viii prove it,
The reading of the vouchers was re
= sumed and when 1t had continues
! some time Totten objected on its il
relevancy