The Portland daily press., 1883-07-10
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
Still Inquiring into the Bartlett. Robbins
IL Co. Contract.


81 Co. Contract.
WASHINGTON, July 0.-Mr. Coleman opened
proceedings IN the Hill investigation this
morning by the presentation of a number of
Bartlett, Robbins Il Co.'s contracts AS he
offered the first contract he explained that the
prosecution wished to show that Bartlett, Rob-
bins q Co. had been corruptly and unlawfully
favored in the award of contracts.
Mr.. Totten asked If the counsel proposed to
follow mp this evidence by evidence that Hill
had been bribed.
Mr.. Coleman was astonished that good
lawyer should expect him to show that money
had actually passed between the contractors
and Hill. III he could so present facts as to
lead to the inference that money must have
passed, he would have accomplished all that
he expected in this investigation.
Mr.. Totten objected, and being pressed by
Mr.. Coleman, said that he represented Bart
lett, Robbins Il Co., Mr.. Hill and the Dix Is
land Granite Company.
The prosecution then put In evidence show
ing that Bartlett, Robbins IL Co.. or Bartlett
Hayward & Co., had received nineteen con-
tracts for furnishing heating apparatus from
1876 10 1888 at an aggregate cost OF $4l9,1l1
upon which there was extra work amounting
TO Sl09,S18. Contracts were awarded TO other
firms amounting to S170,c10 upon which the
extra work amounted to $60c9.
Mr. Coleman then offered In evidence pre-
p0sals upon which contracts were awarded for
the supply OF heating apparatus for the bureau
OF engraving and printing. Bartlett, Robbins
& Co. bid $3l, ,449, while Bashor q Co. bid
$32,524, the contract being awarded to Bartlett,
Robbins * Co. A number of similar cases
were instanced. Mr.. Coleman read from the
back OF a letter from Hill TO Secretary Folger,
dated after the filing OF the charges in this
case, submitting statement in regard TO the
heating apparatus for the Charleston, West
Virginia, court house. The following was en-
dorged by Secretary Folger:
Upon the facts found in the within state
ment decide to accept the proposal Of Bart
lett, Robbins ~ Co., as the sarest and best for
the interest of the government"
Charles Wormell then took the stand to
identify number of vouchers showing pay
ments to Bartlett, Robbins & Co. and Bartlett,
Haywood x Co.
No one else could have furnished the re-
quired iron work. Coleman continued TO put
in vouchers showing work done in many cities
by Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
There is bill for thermometers sent TO In
dianapolis that shows that they have no ther-
mometers out there, said Coleman.
Mr.. Thomas-It shows that Bartlett, Rob-
bins q Co. could sell them cheaper than Indi-
annapolis dealers.
Mr.. Coleman-We would like to see you
prove that. See what the Government has to
pay for work in Portland, Oregon, reading
another voucher. Do you mean to say IS per
day for foreman is excessive? asked Totten.
Not out there, replied Coleman, but they
charged the Government the same price for
IL.
Mr.. Thomas-How do you know that?
Mr.. Coleman-We will prove it.
Mr.. Totten objected to the reception of som6
OF the vouchers because it appeared that the
supervising architect had only conferred au-
thority to make repairs upon superintendents
OF buildings without naming the firm that
should do the work.
Mr.. Coleman contended that the defence
must show that the superintendents had not
been Instructed to give the work to Bartlett,
Robbins q Co.
Chairman New said it was within the knowl-
edge of the committee that the supervising ar
chitect only conferred authority upon superin-
tendents to have repairs made.
Mr.. Coleman maintained that suparintend-
ents were ordered to give work to certain con-
tractors.
Mr.. Hill denied the tr1tir-saf this assertion,
and sharp tilt followed between the counsel
The reading of vouchers was resumed. When
it had continued some time Mr.. Totem object
,sSs 3E-sssv gru1nt, Sf ii=-elsvg.cy. In course
that he represented all OF the people except
Murch, man who conceded that he wes
criminal.
Mr.. Coleman replied tina. it was not for Mr..
Tottsp, who repree snted man charged with
the commis zion of the grc-sest frauds ID criti-
else him Mr. Coleman).
Mr.. Totten dicclaimed any intsntion of re-
fiecting upon Coleman. He criticised his client
who bad sworn before the committee that he
was violator of the laws of the United State5,
fals6er and cheat
Mr.. Coleman requested the gentleman to re-
frain from taking advantage of Murch's at
sence to abure him.
The reading proceeded until the vouchers
were all disposed of, and Coleman announced
that he would finish the Bartlett, Robbins g.
70. case tomorrow morning.
Court then adjourned.