National Republican., 1883-07-10
HILL ON THE HEATER.
The Numerous Contracts For Warming Appa-
ratus Under Investigation.
Mr.. Coleman Complains That One Firm
Got All the Business.
A Lot Of Worry Tiresome Testimony in the Shape Of
Vouchers and Old Papers,
From Which the Committee Is Expected
TO Infer That HIlI Was Brlbed.


Hill investigation yesterday morning by the
presentation of a number of tho Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co. contracts As he offered the first
contract he explained that the prosecution
did not claim that the contracts were not all
right. They did not wish to show that they
had been awarded without advertisement and
some of them without competition that Bart
lett Robbins & Co. got nearly all of them,
and had been corruptly and unlawfully
favored in the award of contracts for supply
ing heating apparatus for the public buildings
of the United States.
Mr.. Totten asked If the counsel proposed
to follow up this evidence by evidence tina t
Mr. Hill had been bribed. 1t made no differ
ence otherwise how many contracts Bartlett,
Robbins & Co. received. If they held all of
them it only tended to show that they wers
good men and did their work honestly.
Mr.. Coleman was astonished that a good
lawyer should expect him to show that money
had actually passed between the contractors
and Mr.. Hill. If ho could SO present the
facts as to lead TO the inference that money
must have passed, he would have accom-
plished all that he expected in this invosti-
cation.
Mr.. Totten objected because the proposed
evidence would not make out the charge.
Mr.. Coleman called upon the gentleman to
say whom no represented.
Mr.. Totten. Iappear for everybody defend
ing against this assault you are conducting.
Mr.. Coleman insisted upon an answer, and
Mr.. Totten said that he represented Bartlett,
Robbins & Co., Mr.. Hill, and the Dix Island
Granite company. He had represented the
last named company for many years.
Mr.. Coleman. That is all | want to know
how many of these contractors are interested
in Mr.. Hills defense to the extent of provide
in < counsel.
Mr.. Coleman then offered nineteen con-
tracts, aggregating in amount $417,1l1, to
Bartlett Robbins ~ Co. and eight contracts to
all others. aggregating $171, ,00O
1t was shown in regard to these contracts
that Bartlett, Robbins & Co. were the only
bidders for six of them, aggregating $4,000;
and also that Bartlett, Robbins q Co. were not
the lowest bidders in the competition for five
of them, aggregatingSi5,O0O
There was next offered in evidence vouch-
ers for moneys paid Bartlett Robbins & Co..
Bartlett, Hayward & Co. by Mr.. Hill for re-
pairs on the heating apparatus for the public
buildings of the United States, and showing
an amount paid to this firm for this work
during this timo aggregating the stun of
$100,9iS, in items rangi gsfrom 81 to $1,000.
Here is n curiosity" said Mr.. Coleman.
1t shows how the secretary Of the treasury
has been coming to the relief of the defense"
He then read from the back of letter from
filing of the charges in this case, submitting a
statement in regard to heating apparatus for
the Charlcstown (W. Va.) court. house, the fol-
lowing Endorsement by Secretary Folger:
Upon the facts found in the within statement
decide to accept the proposal of Bartlett Robbins
d Co., as surest and best for the interest,uf the
government. ..s-- u. ..
Bring him in" exclaimed Mr.. Totten,
"Here is a chance for the gentleman to bring
another specification"
lfAln IrA1 hat l.g
the secretary had indorsed the paper in
that way to show his approval of what Mr..
Hill did by doing the same thing himself
Charles p. Wannell then took the stand to
identify number of vouchers showing pay
ments to Bartlett, Robbins a. Co. and Bartlett,
Hayward & Co.
Mr.. Totten having objected that these
vouchers only showed sums expended for re-
pairs, Mr. Coleman replied that it was his
object to show that Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
had had monopoly Of all such work upon
public buildings ever since Mr.. Hill became
supervising architect 1t was also his inten-
tion to show that this work, amounting TO
many thousands of dollars, had been given to
this firm without competition, in violation of
the statute. Everything from Washington
to Nebraska went into their hands. Here
was bill for 81 for work done in Lincoln,
Neb.
Mr.. Thomas said that Bartlett, Robbins &
were the best workmen.
Mr.. Totten added that they were the con-
tractors for the work at Lincoln and none
else could have furnished the required ire
work.
Mr.. Coleman continued to put in the
vouchers showing work done in many cities
by Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
Here is bill for thermometers sent to In
dianapolis. That shows that they have no
thermometers out there" said Mr. Coleman.
Mr.. Thomas. 1t shows that Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co. could sell them cheaper than the
indianapolis dealers"
Mr.. Coleman. THAT is what we would like
to see you prove"
See what the government has to pay for
work in Portland, Oregon" he added as he
read another voucher.
''Do you mean to say that S. per day for
foreman is excessive" asked Mr.. Totten.
mot out there" replied Mr.. Coleman,
''but they charged the government the same
price for work doue here when they did not
pay it,"
MI Coleman. We viii prove IT..
Mr.. Totten objected TO tho reception of
some of the vouchers because it appeared
that the supervising architect had only con-
terred the authority to make repairs upon
the superintendents of buildings, without
naming the firm that should do the work.
Mr. Coleman contended that the defense
must SHuN lhul lue SupcrluLSnuSntS ndu not
been instructed to give tho work to Bartlett,
Robbins x Co. While not conclusive, tho evil
dence tended to prove that these men had
the run OF the supervising architects office.
Chairman New said that il was within the
knowledge Of the committee that the super
vising architect only conferred authority upon
the superintendents TO have repairs made
Mr.. Coleman maintained that the superin-
tendents were ordered to give the work to
certain contractors.
Mr., Hill denied the truth of this assertion,
and u sharp tilt followed between tho counsel
The foadng of the vouchers was resumed.
When il had continued some time, Mr.. Tot
ten objected ON the ground of irrelevancy.
The chairman said that the committee did
not know but that the evidence now offered
might be connected with. Mr.. Hill by subse-
quent evidence.
An argument followed upon the proproty
of receiving the vouchers in evidence. Chair
man New said that while the evidence offered
was tedious to hear and consumed valuable
time in its reception, il might become Of i'm
portance hereafter Perhaps tho prosecution
might not bring home corruption to Mr.. Hill,
perhaps thoy could not, but the committee
would hear their evidence,
In the course of u passage between tho
counsel, Mr.. TOtteu said that ho represented
all of the people except Murch, man who
conceded that he was criminal.
Mr.. Coleman replied that it was not for Mr.
Totten, who represented man charged with
tho commission of the grossest frauds to
~. 4. E