Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-06-22
FROM WASHINGTON.
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
All Consracts for Fire Proof shutters
Called For-Murch Cross-Ex.
amined.

Win all contracts maze Oy the United states
for fire proof shutters Chairman New re-
piled that the requisition was too general and
should be made more specific Coleman said
it is pretty difficult matter to specify in ad
vance the particular papers that may be re-
quired. particularly as in some instances We
do not know what papers are in existence.
Chairmen New then characterized any state
ment to the effect that the committee is Civ
ing the investigation a half-hearted support
or is disposed TO impede it. as absolutely I'M
true. Coleman denied that such statement
was made. What he said was to show that
the administration is not offering or affording
any assistance in the prosecution of the in
vestigation.
Murch took the stand for cross-examina-
ton. The witness was perfectly sure that
under the Is per cent. contract, men were
employed much longer upon certain work
than necessary.
Ques.-''When you were foreman and gave
instruction to your men TO consume so much
time. as you now say, more than necessary
upon certain work, were you aware that fraud
was being committed?'
Ans.-''I acknowledge | was innocent !
now know frauds were being committed. At
that time knew nothing of the nature of the
contracts. was performing my duty, and
as always do, minding my own business
Ques.-"And you were helping to commit
these frauds were you not?"
Ans.-Do you mean to say if you hire a
man to do days work and tell him he need
not work hard, do you think he would be
committing traud?"
Mr.. Thomas-"You are asking question
yourself. You may answer it,"
Witness.--''l do not consider it fraud
Ques.-''What were the inducements held
hx-t 70 ACT
them in perpeIrating these frauds?'
Ans.-'No inducements the men them
selves swindled.
| In answer to a question Murch said he ap-
peared before the committee for himself
| alone, and the charge that he was paid by
| some of the stone cutters was absolutely
false. He was prosecuting the investigation
upon sense of public duty.
| The cross-examination was pursued at
great length. The witness said the greatest
frauds upon the Philadelphia building were
perpetrated after Hill became supervising ar
chiect and after the superintendent had been
put in charge by the architects Office, who
was totally incompetent and permitted the
| greatest frauds, yet he is in the employ of
the architects office. The witness said his
ground of complaint against Hill is that after
having his attention called to the gross frauds
which were being perpetrated, Hill still went
| ahead aud made modified contracts based
upon fraudulent and excessive rates that had
been paid under the Is per cent contract.
| This concluded the examination of Murch.
| Mr.. New submitted the views of the CON-
mittee as to the scope of the investigation and
said: Sin determining the question at the
last meeting of the committee as to the i'm
pOrtance and relevancy of the testimony then
offered to be submitted, viz: In regard to
| St Louis, Cincinnati, Hartford and other
public buildings, and that of workmen now
at Quincy, Mass, it would be well to con-
slider the scope and nature of the inquiry of
the committee as called upon to make. The
| foundation of the inquiry was laid in a speech
made by Hon. T. III. Murch in the House of
| Representatives, in which he stated that the
Office of the supervising architect of the
4 treasury was corrupt from top to bottom.
This led to certain correspondence between
the secretary of the treasury and Murch, and
| eliminated in the designation of this COM
mittee to investigate the question of the ex-
! istihg of corruption or fraud. 1t is not for
this committee, nor did the secretary in org
anzing it. intend to inquire into the acts of
former secretaries of the treasury, or former
supervising architects. The question before
this committee is, is the Office of the super
vsing architect now corrupt, or has the pres
corruption or wrong doing? The investiga a.
ton so far has been directed to the modified
10 per cent contracts, and the prosecution
seek to show that the prices paid under the
modified contracts were largely in excess of
| the lowest market rates. This the supervis-
ing architect expressly admits by his answer,
and quoting again from his answer he says :
This fact is not contested by anybody"
! This admission covers all the work done un-
| der the ID per cent. contracts as modified by
! the present supervising architect not only as
| to the Philadelphia court house and post Of
| fee, but also all of the other buildings erect
ed under such modified contracts. Witnesses
have been called aud have sworn to the
| prices paid for the work upon tie Philadel-
phia court house and the amounts paid under
such contracts. as well as what would have
been fair value for labor and profit to the
contractors, have been deliberately shown by
the calculation and testimony of General
Stinemetz. 1t may, therefore, be assured by
the committee that the same rates of ex-
cess of prices paid over what was the lowest
market rate of wages and over a fair contract
price in open competition in all these build
| Dgs so erected under the modified Is per
cent contracts. and that the same ratio of
excess of profit to contractors in said other
buildings, over and above what would have
| Deen 1air pr0nt, exists IN sucn Otner Dulld-
| ings as is shown by Gen. Stinemetz, and the
admission of Mr.. Hill to exist in the Phia-
delphia house. Assuming this state of facts
to exist it devolves upon the prosecution to
| show, by other evidence or argument, that
| the supervising architect was guilty of fraud
or corruption in making such modified con-
tracts. For present, therefore, the commit
tee will not take up other buildings, nor will
| they go to Quincy to take the testimony of
| the workmen. reserving the right to do either
or both may be determed after the sub
mission Of evidence tending to show fraud or
corruption on the part of Mr.. Hill, if such
testimony can be ad1uced. If the prosecu-
ton claim that there is any matter of fraud
| ulent character in any of the other buildings,
differing from such as it is claimed are wrong
| full iD-the Philadelphia house, such matter
| can be shown without going over the same
| tedious process as we have had in that house.
| This committee was formed to investigate
| certain charges that are filed with it,
Mr.. Jacobs, chief clerk in the supervising
architect Office, was sworn. The witness in
July. 1875 was responsible for the conduct of
the Office in the absence of the supervising
architect. Officially he was next to Hill in
rank, and in his absence was responsible for
matters affecting the execution of contracts
MIR. Hill was at that time assistant acchitect.
RECESS.
IL