Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1883-06-27
FROM WASHINGTON.
Sec. Foleer sworn in a. wi,.e...

WASHINGTON. June 26.
Upon the opening ofthe morning session
of the Hill investigating committee Hill asked
to correct his testimony relative to the re-
quirements By the accounting officers of the
treasury touching bondsmen- They do not
require articles Of association of the corpora
ton to be filed. The responsibility of bidders
is examined into.
Mr. CoIeman-..Now whereare the articles
you said, yesterday, had been filed?"
Ans.--s.I don't think they have ever been
filed :"
CUES Don't you know the United States
e mpaDv is myth, and that Damon takes
the contract and does the work for the de-
partmept which he could not otherwise do?''
Ans know just the contrary, that il is
an incorporated company, and been doing
business for years.
Mr., New--"Have you ever seen these ar
ticles of Incorporation"
Ans.-"No, sir"
Secretary Folger was sworn.
Ques.-"Mr Hill stated in examination he
had shown Won paper in which the Manly
Cooper Co alleged that they had been ap-
preached By Geo. L. Damon with offer of
$500 TO withdraw their bid
Ans.-'.He did not show me The paper.
He said to me the Manly Cooper Co. had told
him some higher bidder had approached
them with some offer to Withdraw their
bid"
Ques.-''Did you know of any stated
amount being offered:'
Ans.-'.No.'
Ques.-sDid Hill show you Damon's
written denial:'
Ans.-'.Don't remember
Mr.. Folger testified that Hills converse
ton with him was previous TO the fire test
and as raas n ahla IN he In.r
est bidder would have the contract no inves-
tigation of bribery ordered. Hill re-
ported to me verbally.
Coleman stated that owing to the lack of
facilities furnished the prosecution they were
unable at present to present all the papers
required in the prosecution of the Bartlett
Robbins case He then read as specifca-
tions of the charge OF fraud and corruption
that Hill had bargained with James NJ. Will
bur to press his claim against the government
of $40, 900 for tileng in the New York post
office, if he (tlill) was allowed tea per cent
Hill in his reply says each and every charge
and specification against him of fraud in con
nection with the Bartlett, Robbins & Co.'S
contracts for work done on the New York
postoffiee building is false and malicious
The bids for this work were advertised for
May 10th, 1874, and the award was made to
Bartlett. Robbins & Co., June -l3th, 1874,
the drawings were therefore enclosed to the
contractors with instructions to proceed with
the work June Goth, 1874. For malcontract
il was not. executed until September Sth
1874 The original bid of Bartlett, Robbins
4 Co was SIG ll3, to which amount was
subsequently added the sum of S22 293 on
account of alleged errors in the estimates and
bids transmitted shown by the letter of
X. Mullet, then supers Using architect, to the
nt fhe.t Hata A JntI,
1874, making the total amount of the con
tract Sl9S, 306. The work under this con
tract was nearly completed at the time of
MIR. HilPs appointment and in less than five
month thereafter, January I'd, 1878, the
extra bill was rendered. Hill had no control
and had no personal knowledge of the detail.
of the work under this contract during its
progress. When the matter was presented
to him for final settlement the account was
adjusted in accordance with the evidence
that was furnished or could be obtained. Hill
says the figures presented in the exhibit in
support of the charges when examined in
connection with the accounts of the disburs-
ing agent who made the payments under this
contract will plainly show that the charges
could only have been prepared by some one
who was either utterly ignorant as an account
ant or else.determiued upon misrepresenta-
ton.
Item No. 90 of the exhibit, amounting to
1854, Hill says, was the aggregate of items
reported to the department b. the inspector
in charge of the building. as a disallowance
upon the extra bill submitted by the con-
tractors and that the amount allowed and
paid Hereunder was included in item No. II
of the exhibit, being the amount of the extra
bill alluded to in the charges.
Item No. 81 of the exhibit, amounting to
Sl052, Hill says, is also dsallowed item.
Hill states the amount of these which were
not paid, or which are Implications, at S43,-
10, leaving the total payments to Bartlett,
Robbins & Co., at S2l9,39 against 1852, 500
stated in the exhibit.
Hill then presents a statement of what the
books of the disbursing agent shows as hav-
ing been paid on this contract, with extras as
follows:
Amount of contract, less de-
auctions, Sl93256
Extra bill, 26I45