National Republican., 1883-07-03
THE HILL 1NvEsrrGAr11Sy.

Mr.. Damon Denies the Charges OF Manly,
Cooper a. Co.--Furthor Testimony OF
Gen. Stinemetz.
The Hill investigating committee resumed
its session yesterday, and General Stinemetz
continued his testimony relative to the cost
of tho extra work performed by Bartlett,
Robbins & Co. upon the New York post
office.
Mr.. Coleman proposed to 81 into detailed
examination of the charges made for this ex-
ira work, with n view to showing that exces-
sive charges had been made and allowed.
Chairman New said the committee would
allow one-half hour in this examination, and
would then listen to representatives Of Manly,
Cooper g. Co.
Mr.. Coleman protested that he was not
prepared TO go into that subject, rs he had
been given to understand that the charges
against Bartlett, Robbins u Co. would
be considered at length this morning.
After some discussion as to the method of
procedure, Gen. Stinemetz was allowed to tes-
tify
He said $500 would have been fair price
for ornamental work on staircase in the
New York postoflice, for which Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co. charged $780, Other small items
for work upon the same stair case were scaled
down in about the same proportion.
Mr.. Damon, of Boston, took the stand to
meet Manly, Cooper & Co.'S charges and was
examined by his counsel, Mr.. Patrick Collins.
Mr.. Coleman called attention to the fact that
the United States Fireproof Shutter company,
of which Mr. Damon is president, was incor-
porated in New York, instead of Massachu-
setts, where the work was done. He declared
that the supervising architect had been deal
ing with q company illegally manufacturing
the things he bought. Mr.. Damon replied
Il ...1 1,,tl H.. q
Co. $,50O, or any other sum, to withdraw
their bid, but detailed conversations in which
he was asked how much much he would give,
and declined to mako any offer whatever.
Mr.. Collins wanted to show that there was
sufficient reason for the award to the United
States company even at $4,000 greater cost
but the committee declined to 20 into tho
question of the merits of the manufactures.
Mr. John Babson secretary of Mr.. Damon's
company, testified to conversations in COR
roboration of Mr. Damon's testimony.
The evidence for the United States Shutter
company closed at this point, and Gen. Stine-
metz resumed his testimony.
A charge of $1,l32 for one staircase in the
New York postotiice, he said, should have
been reduced to $500. He instanced cases
where extra charges had been made for modi-
fications Of the original plans for balustrades
where no extra expense had been incurred
All of the notifications benefited the con-
tractor rather than the government. Several
charges made for extra work done upon verbal
order, the witness declared, should not have
been allowed. Altogether about $13,0 had
been illegally charged and allowed for extra
work upon the New York postotlice by Bart
lett, Robbins Il Co. Some of their work was
Of the poorest quality, but witness had been
unable to find any account of deductions for
that reason.
The witness was cross-examined by Mr..
Thomas He said that work should be ac-
cepted as it progressed, but that had not been
done in this case so far as he knew. From
his education and professional experience
witness felt competent to compute the value
of building work. Mr.. Thomas asked if he
had not made an estimate of $4,000 as the
cost of an extension of U sea wall. The wit
ness answered that his estimate Was SOD, 900.
Mr.. Hill estimated it at S33, 900, and after
wards had to add $4,000 to that sum. Could
not tell without consulting the bills whether
the same items had been charged for
as extra and as contract work.
Had been instructed by Mr.. Mullett, in a
letter oil file, not to give any verbal orders to
workmen, and had rigidly observed that in
structiOn.
Mr.. Coleman next read a letter to Mr.. Oak
shot, the architect in charge of the New York
postoifice building, from the supervising
architect on Feb. II, 1877, requesting him to
certify inclosed vouchers for work performed
by Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
Mr.. Hill was called upon to produce certain
vouchers, and the committee adjourned until
July o. when 1t Is expected that the evidence
in the Bartlett, Robbins Il Co. case will be
concluded.