The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1883-06-27
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
The Alleged bribery i'm the shutter Com
trnct-secretary Eoiger TestiHes The
Bartlett R obbins Case and Hills ExpIn-
nation.

nation,
WASHINGTON, June &c. Upon the opening
of the Hill Committee this morning MIR. Hill
asked to correct his testimony relative to re-
quirements by accounting officers OF the treas
ary touching bondsmen. They do not require
the articles of association of corporation to
be filed. The responsibility of bidders is ex-
amined into.
Mr.. Coleman-Now where are the articles
you said yesterday had been filed.
Al don't think they ever have been filed.
Q-Dont you know that the United st ties
Company is a myth, and that Damon takes
contracts and does work for the department
which he could not otherwigs do?
Al know just the contrary; that II is an in
corporated company and has been doing busi-
hess for years.
BY Mr.. New-Have you ever seen their arti-
cles OF incorporation?
A--No sir.
Secretary Folger was sworn.
Q-Mr. Hill stated in examination that he
had shown you paper in which the Manly
Cooper Company alleged that they had t9en
approached by George l.. Damon, with an offer
OF $4,000 TO Withdraw their bid.
Ate did not show me the paper. He said
to me that the Manly-Cooper Company had
told him that some higher bidder had approach
ed them with some offer to withdraw their bid.
Q-Dld you know Of any stated amount be-
ing offers oifsrsdP
Q-Dlu ILL show you Damons written de-
nial.
Al don't remember.
Mr.. Folger testified that Mr.. Hiil's conversa-
tion with him was previous to fire test, and
as 1t was reasonable to suppose, tho lowest bid
der would have the contract. No investiga-
tion of bribery was ordered. Mr.. Hill report.
cd verbally to him, but mentioned no name of
the party making the offer.
Mr.. Coleman stated, that owing to the lack
OF facilities furnished the prosecution, they
were unable at present TO presentall the PAPERS
required in the Bartlett-Robbins case. He
then read as specifications under Charge OF
fraud and corruption that Hill had hargained
with James M. Wilbur to press his claim
against the government, of $4,000 for tiling
IN the New York pest Office II Hill was al
lowed 10 per cent.
Hill, in his reply, says each and every charge
and specification against him of fraud in con-
nectlon with the Bartlett, Robbins Il Co. q
contracts for work done on the New York
post office bailding is false and malicious. Bids
for this work were advertised May 10Th, 1874,
and awards made to the Bartlett, Robbins 4
Co. Jan. 10, 1874, and drawings therefor en-
closed 10 contractors with instructions to pro-
ceed with the work on June 20, 1874. The for
NAL contract, however, was not executed until
Sept s. 1874 The original bid of Bartlett,
Robbins Il Co. was $176,l13, to which amount
was subsequently, added the sum of 500, ,193, on
account OF alleged errors in estimates and bids
submitted, as shown by letters of A. B. Mullet,
then supervising architect, to the Secretary OF
the Treasury, dated Aug. 19, 1874. making the
total amount of the contract $l98, ,3C3.
The work under this contract was nearly
completed at the time OF Mr.. Hill's appoint
ment, and in less than five months thereafter,
Jan. 2, 1877, the extra bill was rendered. Hill
had had no control, and had no personal
knowledge of the details Of the work under
this contract, during its progress. When the
matter was presented TO him for final settle
"a Mt xrQc adI in dam u.
the evidence that was furnished or could be
obtained. Hill says that the figures presented
in the exhibit in support OF the charges when
examined. III connection with the accounts OF
the disbursing agent who made the payments
under this contract, will plainly show that the
account charges could only have been prepared
sssmes ono sssisoe vas either utterly ignorant
as an accountant or else deterna.-sss,a npon mis-
representation. He then embodies a copy of
this exhibit of the prosecution, and asserts that
two items amounting TO $27,OCJ, numbered 10
and 16 of the exhibit, are repetitions of the
amounts numbered /, 2 and g. aud that item 10
amounting to S5,522 was the face of voucher
which was not paid in full and that the amount
actually paid upon this voucher appears as
item No. Is, amounting to S2,9l7. Item No. 20
of the exhibit, amounting TO 1854, Hill says,
was the aggregate of items reported to the de
partments by the inspector in charge Of the
building, as disallowance upon an extra bill
submitted by the contractors, aDe~that the
amount allowed and paid hereunder was in
ciuded IN item No. II OF the exhibit, being the
amount Of the extra bill alluded 10 in the
charges. Item No. 81 of the exhibit, amount
iag 20 Sl,oo2, Mr.. Hill says he also disalloSed
the item upon the voucher, the amount put
upon which is included in voucher 1S. Hill
states the amount OF these items which
were not paid or swhieb are Implications at
S4S, ,170, leaving the total payments to Bartlett
q Robbins at S2l9,398, against $2j2,569 as
stated in the exhibit. Hill then
presents the statement of what the
books OF the discussing agent show
as having been paid on this contract with ex-
tras as follows: Amount of contract less de-
ductions, S193, ,256, extra bill, S26, ,142, total,
S2l9,390. These extras Hill says were sup
piled under orders from the office of the archi-
tect or superintendent of construction while
work was In progress Hill says that copies of
all letters of authorization referred to in the
extra bill furnished the committee and will
be found to have been signed by A. B. Mullett,
q. Il. Hurlburd or w. G. Stimmetz. The press
copies OF these letters are upon the letter books
OF the supervising architects office. Hill con-
cludes with demand OF all charges of fraud
or coilusion with Bartlett, Robbins Il Co., and
asks the Judgment of the committee whether
he shall make further answer to the same an
swer OF Bartlett, Robbins q Co., corresponds
with that OF Mr.. Hill IN regard to rates and
circumstances under which contract under die
cussion was awarded to them and its execution
office, etc.
After reading these answers which occupied
about thirty minutes Mr.. Coleman made a
statement of the facts which the prosecution
expect to prove in the Wilbur case. In 1873,
1874 and 1915 j, b. Wilbur was a sub-cou-
tractor under Bartlett, Robbins q Co. for
furnishing Illuminated tiles. In 1876 or 1877
Wilbur presented his claim for extra materials
furnished amounting to between $4,000 and
S5O,OOO. Hill said this Is an old claim and we
n hraxr i. -
through. Hill then called in Mr.. Cannon,
whose name has already been mentioned
here, and he (Gannon) said 10 per cent ought
to be paid by Wilbur for getting 1t through
and that 1t could be gotten through If that
amount were paid. Wilbur said nothing but
related the circumstance to his counsel. AT
terwards, learning that Cannon, an employe
OF the architects office, was member of the
firm who were dealing in building materials
IN this city aud holding contracts under the
government, Mr., Wilbur went to Mr.. Hill
ana protesting against 1t asked for his (Gan-
non's) removal. Finally when the matter was
brought to the attention Of the Secretary Of
the treasury Cannon was removed and from
thar day Hill has pursued Wilbur and has
used every effort to defeat as honest a claim
as any man ever held against the government.
Gen. Tyler, whose name was mentioned yeG-
terday IN connection with the offer OF $500 to
the Manly Cooper Company, being present,
was at this point permitted to make
a statement to the committee. Counsel for the
prosecution claimed the right TO cross-examine,
which was accorded. Gen. Tyler said -'I am
charged here with having made an offer Of
bribery. i never made an offer to the Manly
Cooper Company, nor did j ever suggest TO
them totmake an imp srfect shutter" Witness
said = II am farmer. In 1882 was engaged
~ the same business. Have known George L.
Damon twenty years. Have bought sevaral
safes from him and re3old them. My last bust
ness transaction was about two years ago.
have been told there is a United States Shutter
Company, but | had supposed their place OF
business was in Boston. Never have seen
their charter. Understood Mr.. Damon man
aged their busne,7 Witness went with Da-
mon to call upon the Manly Cooper Company
and held conversation with Allison, counsel
for the Manly &c 1per Company. Did not go
into room with Allison for the purpose of en-
abling Damon to obtain q contract at the bid
which he had put in. After talking with ALI
son witness called in Damon, talked about ten
minutes with him, during which time Allison
walked one side. Afterwards oil went out into
the main office. Witness was In the Offices al
together about thirty minutes. Had never
seen any of the Manly &c oper Company firm
before. Talked good deal in thirty minutes
but did not s4y anything in regard to Damon
or the United States Company getting the con-
tract Tor which the Manly Cooper Company
had made the lowest bid. Witness said he was
present at the interview at the request of Mr..
Damon, who wished that he (Tyler) should be
present to hear whatever proposi tion the Man
ly Cooper Company might have to make, but
as they made none his interest or connection
with the matter ended. There was much talk