National Republican., 1883-08-25
They Cover Four Hundred and Twenty
Seven Very Large Pages
The Counsel for the Prosecution Takes Lively Tilt
at Everybody,
And Threatcns to Have Three of Hnps
Witnesses Indicted for Perjury.

days ago. Col. Thomass brief is compressed
into 1917 large printed pages, that Of Col. Tot
ten Is put into 110 written pages of
legal cap, and that Of Mr.. Thomas
has been boiled into 100 printed pages.
Col. Totten's brief is succnct
history of the investigation and q statement
of the points involved viewed from the Hill
standpoint. About two-thirds of the argu.
ment is an exposition Of the granite contract
matter, and an explanation of tho contract
system in vogue in the architects office He goes
into tho granite feature with much parti cular-
fty, and pays his respects to oX-CongrcSsman
Murch in a decidedly pointed manner. The
evidence on the slate roof question, the ele-
vator phase, and other points Cheating appa-
ratus excepted) is reviewed at length and the
witnesses Murch and Stinemetz and Others
are arraigned for malignant and selfish mis-
representation and perversion of facts, and
the commission is asked to disregard the tos-
timony of these gentlemen in making up
their report Col. Thomas treats of the con-
tracts for heating apparatus exclusively, not
touching upon any other points. He quotes
literally from the printed testimony and
draws conclusions therefrom to establish the
innocence of his clients of completely in n
scheme to swindle the government through q
collusion with the supervising architect
Mr.. Coleman begins his brief with this stato-
mont:
"This Investigation was set on foot by tho
sPoretary of the treasury for the alleged pur-
pose of investigating and finding out what
had been the management OF the supervising
architects office, so far as the disposition of
the money appropriated by congress for tho
construction of the various public buildings
of the United States was concerned"
He then adds:
81 understood when first appeared in the
that tho a
retary of the treasury that there should be
thorough, honest, and complete investigation,
and that he would do all in his power TO aid
such investigation"
Correspondence bearing on the subject
writing by tho secretary prior to the APP
pointment of the commission, and the setting
pn foot of the investigation is given, in which
Mr.. Folger says that "there must be
thorough and satisfactory probing of the
charges" and that difficulties in the wav of
such thorough probing would be surmounted;
that mo effort will be spared on the part of
the head Of this department to assist you in
the prosecution of this investigation"
1T will be seen," continues Mr.. Coleman,
that for some reason, as the investigation
proceeded, the secretary had determined
there should not be that thorough and salts
factory probing of the charges against the
supervising architect which he in his letter
gave assurance. 1t soon became apparent
secretary of the treasury, who set + ON foot,
would do nothing TO aid or assis> It, but on
the contrary, he would do all in his power to
hinder, delay, and embarrass it," 's'
He enters into discussion of the embar-
rassments under which the prosecution
labored in pressing an inquiry into the
management of an office against what he
is pleased to designate the active opposition
of the secretary, the accused, and his corps of
Clerks aided by the power, the money, and
! the witnesses of the contractors who were
under fire. From these "alleged facts " Mr.,
: Coleman draws the conclusion that it is idle
to suppose that the secretary of the treasury
at any time has intended to make full and
fair showing Of the manner in which moneys
appropriated by congress for the construction
OF public buildings have been disposed Of"
He processes 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 There is no
misunderstanding the position assumed by
Mr.. Coleman in his argument upon this
point.
He next ventures tho opinion that if the
investigation shall prove failure (some-
thing he does not admit, bowevor), so far as
the fraudulent appropriation of public money
for his personal use is concerned, that it will
at least have been successful in call
ing attention to the fact that the
duties performed by the supervising
architect in the execution of contracts for the
construction of public buildings and the di-
rection 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 contracts" were in the interest OF
the contractors who made more money on
their new contracts than under the old
15 per cent. contracts. The case of the
Philadelphia postotiice is cited, and the
assertion is made, based upon testimony
given before the commission, that the
granite contractors cleared S30O,O00 on an
100000 job. He insists that under the "modi-
fed contracts " the public buildings Mt Ciu-
cinnati, Philadelphia, st. Louis, and Hartford
cost the government moro by hundreds OF
thousands of dollars than would have been
the case under the 10 per cent. contracts,
which are defended yno one. He complains
because he was not permitted to go into
the cost of granite, entering into the history OF
the construction of the st. Louis, Hartford,
and Cincinnati buildings, which he says could
only have been done intelligently by visiting
the granite quarrses and taking the testimony
of stone men and others interested. The evil
dence produced, however, ON that branch OF
the case is, he says, strong enough to
prove the supervising architect to have been
grossly incompetent or u knave, his manage
ment in either event costing the government
millions that might have been saved.
Hill is scored for his manner of awarding
contracts for shutters, safes, and vaults 70
Damon " Co.
Coleman pays his respects at length to Bart.
lett, Robbins 4 Co., now Bartlett, Haywood &
Co.. and claims that the evidence taken con.
victs them Of being parties to a corrupt con
spiracy in conjuntion with Architect Hill fol
swindling the government on heating appa.
ratus contracts and on repairs. He shows
that out of twenty-five contracts
this firm received nineteen, in five of which
they were not the lowest bidders, and in six
of which they were the only bidder. HC
gives with mnutenoss tho details OF Hlre
connection with the firm which he says
dates from the allowing Of a fraudulent
olaim for "eXtras" ON tho New York
custom house, amounting to $4,000, which
claim was approved and paid upon the re-
port of Hill On the nineteen contracts the
firm has received about 100000, besides
which they have been paid 100000 on
account of repairs of public building;
since 1877. Mr., Coleman calls attention Il
the fact that tho repairs were ordered without
advertising for bids, as the law requires, and
he presents along list of vouchers for the pay
ment of work done under the head of repairs
the items ranging from 81 200 TO $4,000, anc
the work being done in every public build
ing almost from the Atlantic TO tho Pacific
and from New Orleans to Maine 1e dwelll