Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1883-06-19

GEN. sTMH1un DHHRDs NM 1sxIKATl8
Continued from the frst edition.
Witness was cross-axamined at great length for
the evident purpose Of showing that his estimates
OF the cost Of cutting the stone for the Philadel
phia building were too low. He insisted, however,
that his estimates were exceedingly liberal Wit
ness was connected with the supervising archi-
tects of1ce from 1853 to 1877; made estimates for
stairs In the New York post ONCE, also for granite
lie buildings The severance OF witness connec-
ton with the supervising architects ONCE was
no hard feeling against him; had filed some papers
Win the secretary which possibly at some time
t woaia oe taken up. Witness never made any
SHARP DEBATE
The cross-examination having closed, Mr.. Cole.
man called Mr.. Stinemetz again to the stand and
inquired If he had seen the contracts for the pub
lie buildings at Boston, St Louis and Cincin-
natl
Mr. Thomas at once objected to going into any
other branch Of the investigation until the PhiIa-
delphia building was disposed OF.
INNS Nm n iea to spicy Arguments on both sides
Phliadelphia contract as criterion for the Others
TOT they were totally different He had looked over
buildings, and as lawyer he must admit he had
never seen so much cheek displayed, except in the
in the star route cases The Prosecution proposed
to show not one fraud but scores, and systematic
plande rg OF the government in the erecting Of
the St Louis contracts 1t can be shown that the
contractors were already getting q greater price
for the rough stone than its market value and
still In making the modified contracts the same
excessive allowances were made for dressing the
stone
Mr.. Coleman read from DEFENDANTS answer to
the charges, and said he would not have read 1t
had he not been requested so to do He did not
care what the defendant might answer, 1t was not
proof. Defendant had said he was not solely re-
spons1ble that he was subordinate and that the
matter OF these contracts had been referred to the
secretary Of the Treasury and the Attorney Gen.
eral. Counsel proposed to show that there was
In the decision OF the Secretary of the Treasury
that warranted the execution Of these contracts
In the manner in which they were executed. The
prosecution expected to prove that $4,000 were
raised and issued in Washington to fix these con-
tracts In the interest OF the contractors It would
be useless to prove this fact unless the
be first permitted to show that the government
Mr.. Thomas objected to an argument on the
case as though the statements OF counsel were
evidence before the committee II counsel pro-
posed Dy witnesses to connect Mr.. Hill with the
new charge OF $4,000 corruption fund he had no
objection to make, but he did object to chasing all
over the country and taking up all the public
buildings before concluding In regard to one OF
them.
CHAIRMAN NEW STATED
that the committee, after considerable reflection,
had decided for the present to confine the inquiry
to the Philadelphia public building. The commit
tee did not believe that they should investigate
or the acts OF former supervising architects, but
should endeavor to find out whether or not Mr..
Hill had been guilty Of fraud or corruption In
Office.