The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-07-10
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
Large Sums Paid Out for Extra Work-See-
rotary Folger's Endorsement

Rotary olBerS lnuOrSelhenC
WASHINGTON, July 9.-Mr. Coleman opened
the proceedings in the Hill investigation to-
day by the presentation of a number of Bart
lett Robbins & Co.'s contracts. As he Of
Tered the first contract, he explained that
the prosecution did not claim that the con-
tracts were not all right, but they did wish
to show that they had been awarded without
advertisement and some of them without
competition; that Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
got nearly all OF them, and had been cor
ruptly and unlawfully favored in the award
OF contract for supplying heating apparatus
for public buildings in the United States.
Mr.. Totten asked if counsel proposed to
follow up this evidence by evidence that
Hill had been bribed 1t made no differ
ence, otherwise, how many contracts Bart
lett Robbins & Co.. received; if they held all
of them it only tended to show that they
were good men and did their work honestly.
Mr.. Coleman was astounded that a good
lawyer should expect him to show that
money had actually passed between the con-
tractors and Hill. If he could so present
facts as to lead to the inference that money
must have passed, he would have accom-
plished what he expected in this investiga-
ton.
Mr.. Totten objected because the proposed
evidence would make ou5 no charge.
Mr.. Coleman called upon the gentleman to
say whom he represented.
Mr.. Totten-I appear for everybody de-
tending against this assault you are conduct
ing.
Mr.. Coleman insisted on an answer and
Totten said he represented Bartlett Robbins
4 Co., Mr.. Hill and the Dix Island Granite
Company. He had represented the last
named company for many years.
Mr.. Coleman-That is all 1 want to know
how many of these contractors are inter
ested in Hills defense to the extent of pro-
vidng counsel.
The prosecution then put in evidence rec
ords showing that Bartlett, Robbins & Co., OF
Bartlett, Haywood & Co., received nineteen
contracts for furnishing heating apparatus
for public buildings from 1876 to 1888, at an
aggregate cost of $417, Ill, upon which there
was extra work amounting to $109, 848. Con-
tracts 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
extra work amounted to $4,000.
Mr.. Coleman then offered in evidence the
proposals upon which contracts were awarded
for the supply OF heating apparatus for the
bureau of engraving and printing in this
city. Bartlett, Robbins & Co. bid $31, 44S.
while Barber & Co. bid $50, 524, the contract
being awarded Bartlett Robbins d Co. A
number of similar cases were instanced.
Here is a curiosity" said Mr. Coleman.
ut shows how the Secretary of the Treasury
has been coming to the relief of the defense"
He then read from the back of a letter from
Mr.. Hill to Secretary Folger, dated after the
filing of the charges in this case, submitting
statement in regard to the heating appara-
tus for the Charleston, w. Va, courthouse,
fa1Ir ,J.,-a
ger: Upon the facts found in the within
statement it is decided to accept the proposal
of Bartlett, Robbins & Co. as the surest and
best tor the interest of the government"
Bring him in" exclaimed Mr.. Totten;
here is chance for the gentleman to bring
another specification"
Mr.. 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 Z. Warnell then took the stand to
identify number of vouchers showing pay
ments to Bartlett, Robbins & Co. and Bart
lett, Hayward q Co.
Mr.. Totten having objected that these
vouchers only showed the sums expended for
repairs, Mr.. Coleman replied that it was his
object to show that Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
had had all such work upon public buildings
ever since Mr.. Hill became supervising archi-
tect Mr.. Coleman then offered in evidence
work was done without advertisement, and
without giving those engaged in the same
business an opportunity of bidding therefor
as required by section !, 700 of the Revised
Statutes; that this work was done by firm in
Baltimore on public buildings in Washington,
Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Massachu-
setts Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky
Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas
and other States, and in some instances that
firm were employed to furnish material and
perform services on United States buildings
as far remote as Nebraska and Oregon, where
the amount paid them did not exceed 81
This evidence was offered to show that this
firm, Bartlett Robbins & Co., had monopoly
of the business in their line, which they
could not have had if the work had been
open to competition with Others interested
in the same business, and that such a course
on the part of the Supervising Architect has
driven away all competitors for such work,
and no business men can compete with this
frm that they obtain work at their own
prices Contracts have been awarded this
firm in cases where they were not the lowest
bidders. Here is a bill for thermometers
sent to indianapolis. That shows they have
no thermometers out there" said Mr.. Cole
man.
Mr.. Thomas-It shows that Bartlett Rob
bins & Co. could sell them cheaper than In
dianapols dealers.
Mr.. Coleman-That is what we would
like to see you prove.
'See what the government has to pay for
work in Portland" he added, as he read an
other voucher
DO you mean to say that S. per day for
foreman is excesslve%' asked Mr. Totten.
Not out there" replied Mr.. Coleman,
"but they charged the government the same
price for work done here, when they did not
pay it."
sMar. Thomas-How do you know that?
Mr.. Coleman-We will prove it,
The reading of vouchers was resumed.
When il had continued for some time Mr.
Totten objected on the ground of irregu-
lartv.
Chairman New said the committee did not
know but that the evidence now offered