Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-06-15
The Hill InvesiiFation.

DISCUSSION BY COUNSEL TO-DAY.
The Hill Investigating committee met at II
O'Clock to-day.
Mr.. Coleman counsel for Mr.. Murch, called at
tention to the request heretofore made upon the
supervising architects office for all the papers re
lating to the extra work performed by Bartlett
Robbins co. upon the New York post office
and nt,Hated that this request had not been
Mr.. Thomas, for Mr.. Hill, replied that counse
had not specified what particular papers were re
quiied; the charges were not sufficiently definite
or explicit. and 1t was evidently the purpose Of
the prosecution to explore the whole range OF the
official acts OF his client, with the hope or ex
pea act t. WSe hs ena as
expected to pTove-saved the government $500, ,00(
in the construction OF the Philadelphia building
he had not saved $500, ,O0O or even more. Such
plan OF investigation was unfair to Mr.. Hill before
this COMMITTEES and before the country.
A WHOLESALE DEMAND FOR PAPERS.
MI. Coleman replied that the charges and speci
1cations were as definite and specific as would be
required in indictment In one-haf OF the states
OF the Union; that an investigation Of this char
acter should open the doors for the fullest light
upon the official acts Of the defendant. He would
therefore, renew his request, and would ask the
committee to make an order upon the supervising
architect for the production OF all paper writings
relating TO the extra work performed by Bartlett
Robbins Co. upon the New York post Office, also
copies OF all contracts mads with them.
EXAMINATION OF Mr.. sTINEMETZ RESUMED.
the questionable committee decided to resume
the examination Of Mr.. Stinametz in connection
with the charges of fraud and corruption in the
construction OF the Philadelphia post Office Wit
ness had concluded his calculations, and was pre-.
pared to show the dtference between the price
paid by tho government to tho contractors fol
dressing the stone for the entire building and the
mate for labor. The total amount paid by the
government to the contractors was $81e, ZOO THE
cost to the contractors allowing liberal estimate
balance Of $375 600 unnecessarily paid by thu
government. Witness then qualified his statement
by saying that the basement and portion OF the
sec0nd-story having been begun under the Is pei
cent contract and completed under the modified
contract, these portions could not be included in
ms calculations, but. at rough estimate the diff.
to his previous totals.
POINT UNDECIDED.
This concluded Mr.. Stinemetz' testimony, and
the question arose whether the committee and
the defense would admit that the same excess
existed in the cost of the other public
prosecution be required to repeat their proof with
expert testimony.
mittee, suggested that as the same principle
would extend TO all the buildings, 1t would seem
70 devolve upon the prosecution to connect Mr..
travagance In the erection OF the Philadelphia
building.
M; Coleman repl,ea that IT might BE- as bad in
defense might say as to one building. "We admit
extravaganza, but you have not connected Mr. Hill
with any fraud" The prosecution were al1e and
proposed s to prove that the same extravagance,
ton with all the buildings, and that contracts
continued to be made after the supervising archi-
tecc had been repeatedly warned and advised OF
their unfairness t8 the government
A long discussion ensued, favored with several
sharp passages between counsel The point, how
ever was not decided, and at ! 80 p. m. the COM
Mr.. Stinemetz will be cross-examined.
THE PUBLISHED STATEMENT AZ TO NEW CHARGES
CONTRADICTED.
Supervising Architect Hill to-day received q
communication from Nh. G. E Creecy, OF the ilrm
OF Burns Creecy, of this city, stating that The
published statement that that firm has filed
charges against him In connection with asphalt
contracts Is 'unquafedly false." and that they
as nave experienced at his hands nothing but fail