The Dallas daily herald. [volume] (Dallas, Tex.) 1873-1887, 1883-06-21
WASHINGTON.
Further Proceedings in the Case Against
Supervising Architect Hill.
Links OF lniquity Uuearthed Where
not the Faintest
Flick OF Ehluyia Bubbled-Damaginy
Testimony Against Defendant.
The Royal Road to Wealth is Through
the Pocket
VI Uncle Samuel and the Lamp Of
Aladdin
Is a Tallow Dip to a Fat Government
Contract.
Miscellaneous Washington News Items,
The Hill Inxsstigatinn

"o hhh hhNsstiHation,
WASHINGTON. June 2O-In the Hill invest.
gation, before the regular proceeding be.
gan, Coleman called attention to the pub.
lished reports OF his remarks Yesterday. in
which he is quoted as having said The
cheek displayed by this defense in asking
the commission to limit the Investigation
to fraud in the Philadelphia post office
building is only equalled by the amount
OF fees taken by the government counsel in
lhe s'arroute case" What | supposed |
said was that 1t was only equalled by the
amount OF fees paid to counsel by the poy.
ernment in those cases, and nv allnsion
to this fact at all was only 10 show how
much more energetical this administration
prosecuted alleged frauds in the post office
department than they do frauds connected
with these building contracts. Ii shows
now Inherently the administration inyesii
gates case where they are anxious TO do
something, and in a case where they are
not.
Thomas. in reply, charged that the gen.
tleman's remarks were intended for irtlu.
ence and effect outside the room, where the
investigation is being carried on Coleman
called attention TO the requisition made
some days since by the prosecution, tor all
papers IN the case OF Bartlett, Robbins q
Co., and said this reauisition has not VET
been fully complied with, nor have we any
means OF knowing to what extent.
Ihree clerks In the supervising architects
office were sworn and testified to having
looked through the files of the office for tbs
purpose OF obtaining the paper called for
by Coleman, and said that all the papers
bearing upon the subject had been pro.
duced.
Murch was then sworn: Had been
stone-cutter from 1859 to within six wears.
worked both as journeyman and as fore
man in dressing granite for the Philadelphia
building. During the time he worked there
the 10 per cent contract was in force
with the Dix Island Granite company. the
men were instructed as to the length OF
time they should occupy in cutting each
stone: the superintendent made estimates,
and If man finished particular stone in
less time he was kept iobbing until the es-
tlmated time expired; witness worked
about lao days upon one stone, and be-
lieved he could have done the work in for.y
or fifty days.
Question-Why did you work no days
| upon one stone?
Answer-'Because l was working under
| Instructions
witness belleyed the work under l5 per
cent. contracts was much better performed
than under the modified contracts. Wit.
ness recited several instances coming under
his own observation where men were carried
on thepay-rolls and paid by the government
when they were not performing any SER
vice. Witness believed that the modified
contracts yielded to the contractors from
two to three hundred per cent. of profit,
and were grossly unfair to the government.
based as they were upon The extrayagant
prices paid for dressing stone under the
| fifteen per cent. contracts. Witness an.
peared before the commission, of which AS.
sistant Secretary French and Hill were
members, and testified to all the facts as
just related to him, and called Hills atten.
tion to the uniairness of the modified con-
tracts, which he (Hill) then proposed max.
ing.
Counsel for defense wished TO
postpone the cross examination
OF Murch until tomorrow, to which the
pr secution assented. Several letters and
other documentary evidence relating to the
Philadelphia building were then offered,
after which General Stenmetz was recalled
and questioned as an expert relative to cer
tain alterations in the plans for the build
ing