The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-09-19
A Large Unexpended Surplus in the Pension
Ofice-How the Commissioner Pro-
poses to Dispose of 1t.
REPORT IN THE HILL CASE.

The Architect Declared Guilty of Official
Favoritism and Severely Criticised.
WASHINGTON, Sept. 1S-Tne synopsis of the
report of the Hill investigating committee, sent
to some leading papers last night. was furnished
by Supervising Architect Hill, and as will be
seen from the following findings of the commit
tee, in various cases, was somewhat imperfect.
The report says:
The charge Of the Manly & Cooper company
is that, after advertising for proposals for max
ing and furnishing shutters for public building
at Cincinnati, the supervising architect refused
to let contracts for this work to the lowest bid
der. The committee finds that there IS
no obligation upon any officer of
the government to award contracts
to the lowest bidders but they express
the opinion that it would have been better, and
in the interest of the government, if the Manly
d Cooper company had been allowed all the
time asked for making their best shutter, the
nrm De1Dg responsible and OF good standing,
and the lowest bidders by over $4,000 Every
opportunity should have been accorded Ii, that
the government might profit by the large differ
ence between its bid and that of the United
States Fre-proof Shutter Company. The COM
mitIee finds that such opportunity was not ac-
corded it, and that there was an apparent deter
minatiOn not to extend them the time, although
good anu sufficient reasons were assigned for
the request The refusal to make the test, the
haste with which the award was made, after the
refusal to make the test, and the further fact
that the successful bidders had been furnishing
the government all work in this
line for several years. compel the COM
mittee to believe the supervising
architect did not. although he might have saved
this $50, 900, but that he did not intend that the
Manly & Cooper company should have the con-
tract, if he could avoid 1t.
With respect to the work on the vaults, safes
and locks for public buildings, the committee
expresses The opinion that for all such work
proposals should have been invited by public
advertisement, at least once in each year, and it
says that the giving of orders continuously for
term of years TO any one firm or corporation,
for any class OF work or material, without an
opportunity for competition by invitation of
public proposals, is not in accordance with the
law, which requires that sueh purchases shall be
after advertisement, but is in direct conflict
with the letter and spirit of the laws.
With regard to the purchase of elevators of
one particular firm exclusively, and without al
vertlsement, the committee says such purchases
were and are contrary to law, and that pro
posals should be invited by public advertise
ment, as provided by the statute, allowing COM
petition and enabling the government to pur
chase uDon better terms than by private con-
tract, and to obtain the benefit of all improve
ments and that, failing this, the architect was
derelict.
In the matter of the Chicago heating appara-
tus, the committee says rhat, in the absence of
skilled wOrkmen in the supervising architect's
office, it was necessary to have plans and speci-
tications drawn by outside parties, but the price
paid, which was very generous, should have
been fixed by proposals from other firms equally
competent, not only in this case, but for
the st. Louis Philadelphia and Cincinnati
buildings The committee also finds that the
appointment of Mr.. Newton to inspect the ma
terial furnished was clearly not in accord with
knew that he was an employe of Bartlett, Rob
ins & Co, and that his only duty was to inspect
the material TO be furnished by that firm, and
that in the absence of reports from Newton as
TO wherein the work did not comply with the
specifications, coupled with the knowledge that
he was employe of the contractors, the COM
mittee is not surprised that an impression should
obtain ana the charge be made that Mr.. New
toms appointment was part of scheme
to enable the contractors to furnish
material inferior in quality to that
called for In the specifications. The committee
SAYS it seemed clear to lt that Mr.. Hill dis
posed to favor George l.. Damon and Il. j. Hay
ward, and that his actions in the matter in
which these men were concerned have the APP
pearance of serving his friends as much as the
government whose interests he is representing.
1t finds that during the past seven years Hay
wards firm has done the lions share of repair
work on the heating apparatus, which it secured
without competition, and that the appointment
OF Mr.. Newton is an illustration OF Mr. HIPS
good will toward this firm. 1t says "Such
official favoritsm is SO manifest in the conduct of
the supervising architects Office as to give some
color of truth to the statement made by Mr..
Coleman In his argument that In everything
that goes TO make up a building, Mr.. HUI has
some one person, or some one firm, with whom
he deals, to the exclusion of every body else.'
The committee does not believe that this is
necessarily evidence of corruptness on the part
of the supervising architect, but II shows that
the business of the office has not been conducted
with that care and economical lmpartalty with
which IL should be The committee does not
hesitate to say that the press of the country will
justly TEEN with criticism of any office in the
government conducted such principles as
have been pointed out in this case.
The report closes with showing of the great
extent of the business of the architects office
and of the architects discretionary powers and
the recommendation Of the appointment OF a
board, similar in character to the lighthouse
duties relating to the selection of stes aud con-
struction OF public buildings.