The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-08-25

the attorneys in the Hill investigation are
now in, Mr.. Coleman having filed his with
the commission this evening. Col. Thomas's
brief is compressed into 1877 large printed
pages, while that of Colonel Totten is put
into ITO written pages of legal cap, and that
of Mr.. Coleman has been boiled into 120
printed pages. Colonel Totten's brief is a
succinct history of the investigation, and
statement of the points involved, viewed
from the Hill standpoint. About two-thirds
OF the argument Is an exposition of the gran
ite contract matter and explanation OF the
contract system in vogue in the architects
Office. He pays his respects to ex-Congress-
man Murch in a really pointed manner.
The witnesses Murch and Steinmetz,
and others, are arraigned for malignant and
selfish misrepresentation and perversion of
facts, and the commission is asked to disre-
gard the testimony of these gentlemen in
making up their report.
Colonel Thomas treats of the contracts for
heating apparatus exclusively, not touching
upon any other points.
The Coleman brief is decidedly peppery in
its tone and reads like political as well as
criminal indictment OF the alleged archi-
tect's rings He begins thus:
This investigation was set on foot bv the
Secretary of the Treasury for the alleged
purpose of investigating and finding out
what had been the management of the su-
pervising architects office, so far as the
disposition OF the money appropriated by
Congress for the construction of various
public buildings of the United States
was concerned. | understood when | first
appeared in the case, that it was the earnest
wish of the Secretary of the Treasury that
there should be a thorough honest and COM
plete investigation, and that he would do all
in his power to aid such investigation. 1t
was seen that for some reason, as the investi-
cation proceeded, the Secretary had deter
mined there should not be that thorough
and satisfactory probing of the charges
against the supervising architect which he,
In his letter, gave assurance of. 1t soon be-
came apparent, as the investigation pro-
gressed, that the Secretary of the Treasury
who set it on foot, would do nothing to aid
or assist it; but, on the contrary, he would
DO all in his power to hinder, delay and en-
barrass it,"
Mr.. Coleman professed to think that if the
Secretary had been in earnest he would have
suspended Hill and his clerks and put the
office in the hands of experienced experts
He neat ventures the opinion that if the in
vestigation shall prove a failure-something
he does not admit, however-so far as the
fraudulent appropriation of public money
by Hill for his personal use is concerned, it
will at least have been successful in calling
attention to the fact that the duties per
formed by the supervising architect in the
execution of contracts for the construction
of public buildings and the direction of the
expenditure OF public money in connection
Herewith, is without any authority of law
whatever, there being no law that he can
discover which authorizes the Supervising
Architect of the Treasury to make contracts
for or in behalf of the government.
His next point is that the prices paid for
furnishing, cutting and dressing granite for
public buildings, under the terms of the
modified contract, were in the interest of
the contractors, who made more money on
the new contracts than under the old fifteen
cent contracts. The case of the Philadelphia
postoffice is cited, and the assertion is made
that the granite contractors cleared $780,
600 Oh an 100000 job. He complains be-
cause he was not permitted to go into the
cost of the granite entering into the con-
struction of the st. Louis, Hartford and
Cincinnati buildings. The evidence produced,
however, on that branch of the case
is, he says, strong enough to prove the su-
pervising architect to have been grossly in
competent or knave, his management in
either event costing the government millions
that might have been saved.
Mr.. Coleman pays his respects at length to
Bartlett, Robbins & Co., now Bartlett, Hay
ward q Co., and claims that the evidence
taken convcts them of being parties to cor
rupt conspiracy, in conjunction with Archi-
tect Hill, for swindling the government on
heating apparatus contracts and on repairs
He dwells with great emphasis on the history
of the steam heating job in the Chicago Gus
tom-house, and recites with unction that the
work was not done according to contract;
that G. P. Newton, an inexperienced young
man of twenty, in the employ of the firm
of Bartlett, Robbins l. Co., was
appointed to inspect the work
.ron the recommendation of Architect Hill;
that the boy so appointed approved of the
work; that upon his report the bill was paid
in full; that Newton then resigned and re-
turned to the employ of the firm at an in
creased compensation.
He charges that rank perjury was COM
mitted by witnesses for the defense in this
matter, and says plainly that, whatever may
be the report OF the commission, he proposes