Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-06-27
FAIRLY CORNERED.
A Question Of Yeracity Raised Between
Architect Hill and Secretary Fol-
ger in the
Pr0ce ceedings Before the Investigating
C0mmittee-The Revenue Districts
-Pauper Immigrants.

WAsHIEGToN, June 26.-Upon opening
the Hill iuvestig alton, Hill asked to correct
his testimony OF yesterday. The chief clerk
had told him last night that the accounting
ofhcsrs Of the Treasury do not require ar
tielss OF association of q corporation 10 be
filed with the bond, conse quently his testi-
m1ny yesterday that the articles of sssoniS-
ton of the United States Company had been
filed was incorrect They we're never filed.
Question-Don't you know the Unitt
States Company is a myth, and that Dsmau
lakes contract and does the work for the
department which be could not otherwise do :?
Answer-l know just the contrary, hat i,
is an incorporated company, and has been
doing business for years.
Qdss.-What is the name of the firm
over the door where these shutters are 10 ade?
Ans.-I do not know.
Q1es.-Then you have no evidence of
the bona fdes OF such company, or IFS actual
existence?
AuS. are extracts from their m Ell
ing attach. d TO some OF their contracts.
By Mr.. New-Have you ever seen their
articles of incorporation?
Ans.-No, sir.
Mr.. Colemau-Will you show me the cer-
tihcate of the accounting officer of the
Treasury "a to the relisbility of this United
States Company?
Ans.-It is probably attached 10 their con-
tract.
Mr.. Coleman examining bon's)-If these
bonds require Two suretiss, and D4man is an
officer OF the company, then they have but
one surety and are no bonds in law.
Secretary Folger was then sworn. He
fatty contradicted that part OF Hills testi-
mony where he swore that be had shown the
paper 10 the Secretary containing the story
OF the offer of $500 to Manly, Cooper & Co.
to withdraw their bid He did not show
witness such a psper, but stated b,lly
that one OF the bidders had m ade PROPOSE
lion for Manly, Cooper & Co. to withdraw
their bid As II was reasonable 10 suppose
the lowest bidder would have the contract,
no investig atoms of the alleged bribery was
ordered. The amount of $500 was not
mentioned by HIl, nor was the name of the
party making the offer of bribery giveu
There was at that time no question of re-
i4ctiDg the bid. l certainly Understood tn AT
/ the shutters of Manly, Cooper & Co. stood
,.Ie lest they were to have the contraci.
In reply to further questions Mr.. Folger
said: 81 knew before the contract was faslly
awarded that fher MANLY, Cooper & Coz
shutters did not meet the required spec fica-
tions in thickness. Hill made no written re-
port on the subject. 1 would not undertake
TO say that he said they pledged themselves
to furnish shutters as ,quired within twenty
four hours, and that il should not interfere
with the execution OF the coutrac', nor do /
remember that he told me the shutters of
the lowest bidder were als) thicker than
called for by the specifications"
Mr.. Coleman then stated that, owing to
the fact that no assistance las had often been
rsquested) mad been furnished the prosecu-
ton for The examination. of papers aud ac-
.,xta GaS, al, Il H. IL L..
to prepare all the evidence they wished to
present in the Birtlett- Robins case. The
prosecution, however, were ready to 60 on
with another Of the branch case, which would
not require much time. Counsel then read, as
specifications under the general charge of
fraud and corruption, that Hill, ss Supervis-
ing Architect OF the Treasury, in March, 1877,
promised aud agreed with ] ames NJ. Wilbur,
then having a claim sgaisst the government
to The amount of 100000 for furnishing il
ldminsting tilipg for the New York post
office, to pass said claim if he (Wilbur)
would allow him (HilD to present said
claim; further, that Hill, knowing L. E.
Cannon to be associated copartner in the
firm of Simons, johnson g. Co., in the trsns-
scion OF business relating to traffic in build
ing materials, refused to dismiss Cannon
from his position in the Architects Office, but
permitted him to remain and use his inhu-
ence in securing contracts for bis firm.
Mr.. Wilbur WAS ABOUT to take the stand,
when Thomas put in the a'syer of Bartlett,
Robinson & Co., and of Hill TO the charges
preferred in that Gaze.
Tyler, whose name was mentioned yester-
day in connection with the offer of $4,000 TO
Manly, Cooper & Co, was permitted TO m axe
a statement, and said: 81 am icharged here
with having made an offer of bribery. l
never made any offer to Manly, Cooper &
Co, nor did l ever suggest to make an i'm
perfect shutter"
Witness proved indisposed to allow any
inform ation 10 be extracted from him and
insisted upon telling his own story. In coz
Guiding his statement the witness S, turning to
Coleman, said, II trust you are satisfied"
To which counsel replied, 'Oh, yes; am
satisfied that lawyers have every reason TO
be the most suspicious mortals, when one
man will swear 10 one thing and another of
equally good standing will swear to the op-
posite." Adjourned.
The reply of Hill, mentioned above, Gays
that each and every charge and specification
against him of fraud in connection with the
Bartlett, Robbins & Co. contracts for work
done on the New York postofhce building is
false aud malicious.
10 their answer Bartlett, Robbins & Co. as
sert that all work and labor uoder said con-
tract for which they have received payment,
was duly and houorably performed, and all
materials supplied and furnished we're fur
nlshed as charged and paid for.