National Republican., 1883-08-03
ALMOST OVER.
The Hill Investigation Probably to Close the
Examination Of Witnesses To-Day.
Mr.. Coleman Protests Against This Action
aud Offers 10 Produce More Evidence.

its sessions yesterday, with M, Zeigler, fore
man of Bartlett Hayward & Co., OH the
stand. He was cross-examined by Mr.. Cole
man as to the changes made in the heating
apparatus in the Chicago custom house. Ho
adhered to his original testimony that the |
changes were authorized by Supt. Mcdowell, |
upon representations made by him (Heigler) |
Charles p. Newton was recalled, and testi- |
fed that the iron coils on the third floor
were 6 feet inches in length
In answer to n question by Mr.. Alexander, |
the witness said he did not report the
changes in the material to the supervising
architect The changes were authorized by
Supt. Mcdowell.
To Mr.. Coleman: Foreman Zeigler saw Su-
perintendent Mcdowell in regard to the
change and they were authorized by the su-
perintendent; the orders to witness in regard
to the changes were given verbally.
To Mr.. Alexander: Knew that the specifi-
cations provided that no changes in the work
could be paid for unless authorized in writ
ing.
inspector from Superintendcnt Mcdowell
was not previously acquainted with him
thought Mr.. Mcdowell might have known
him by reputation; had made his reputation
in Boston when he was seventeen years of
age, and in Baltimore before ho was twenty
one years of age; Mr.. Mcdowell said he
four days after he went to see bim did not
know how many times he saw Mr.. Mcdowell
or when it was he promised to recommend
his appointment; had no other influence
than his reputation to secure his appoint
ment did not know whether he was ap-
pointed in June or July.
Mr.. Charles w. Newton, an engineer of
heating apparatus in the employ of Bartlett,
Hayward Il Co., was examined by Mr. Totten.
He had assisted Mr.. Hayward in preparing
and verifying the plans for the heating appa-
ratus for the Chicago building was acquainted
with the progress of the work on the building;
the iron used in the material was as near as
possible to the requirements of the specifica-
tions; the thicker the pipes the cheaper they
are in proportion.
Samples of iron were produced by witness
identical with those at Chicago, which were
offered as showing variations in diameter.
The witness stated that he was present
when Mr.. Hayward had made bargain with
Superintendent Mcdowell to allow the use of
certain staging at the building for the mon
working on the heating apparatus. Mr..
Hayward agreed to pay $500 for this Benches
and lumber were accordingly furnished. The
reason why only ninety-four tubes were
placed in the boilers instead of ninety-seven
was to allow space for hand holes, which
could not have been put in with safety if the
full number of tubes had been used. The
change in the number of tubes was authorized
Dy MI. Hill. NlUlesb COTTODOThlGu lUe cNl-
dence ofthe previous witnesses for the defense
in regard to the reasons for the various
changes made. Ho considered the present
heating apparatus in the Chicago building as
amply sufficient to heat the building. The
settling of the building had affected the
working of the apparatus, and made neces-
sary the repair OF n number Of dampers.
On cross examination, witness said that the
bargain for the staging was first proposed by
Supt. Mcdowell, who said he had the lumber
on hand and could furnish it cheaper than
he could buy it outside. 1t was agreed that
Mr. Mcdowell should furnish the lumber
and the men to put it up Mr.. Hayward sub
sequently paid the $500 in separate check.
He thought hot water tho best way of heat
ing building, and thought it better for the
Chicago building than steam apparatus. He
knew that there were more buildings heated
by steam than by hot water, but did not con-
slider that an argument in favor of steam.
Mr.. Totten offered in evidence n schedule
of the bids for granite for the buildings at
Baltimore and Pittsburg to show the lack of
uniformity in the bids He also offered the
correspondence between Supervising Archi-
tect Hill and Alexander Cameron, superin-
tendent of the St. Louis building in January,
1882, as showing the great difficulty of secur-
ing q competent person TO act as an inspector
of heating apparatus. He also offered a re-
port of the special agent in the case of A. b.
King, formerly master mechanic at the Chi
Mr.. King was discharged because of his per-
sonal troubles with Gen. Mcdowell.
Mr.. Coleman objected to these offers, and
said that Mr.. Totten had evidently gotten to
the little end of his horn.
Mr.. Charles p. Newton was recalled, and
was asked by Chairman New if there was any
variations in tho heating apparatus from the
specification in any other particular than
those already mentioned. He answered that
he did not think there was.
Mr.. Charles w. Newton was asked the
Same question, and said he thought there had
been slight change in tho lines of the pipes
Mr.. zeigler was also asked the same ques-
tion, and admitted that there was n slight
deviation in the line of pipe and also in one
of the coils under window.
To Mr.. Coleman: Was willing to swear
that there was no difference between the
work put into the building for the heating
apparatus and the specifications and plans
both o. regards the quality and quantity o
the material furnished.
Mr.. w. L. Hall, vice president of tho Oti:
Elevator company, was called by Mr.. TotteI
and denied the statement that tho firm o.
Crane " Bro. could have put up two elevator:
as good as those in tho Treasury department
for $4,000. He said that Crane & Bro. hat
never dOne'a first class piece of work i'll Tho
passenger line Mr.. Hale, Of the elevato
firm of Hale & Co.. testified that it was no
so that Crane q Bro. had put in more eleva
tors in Chicago than his firm.
Mr. Totten then said he was through with
the defense.
Mr. Coleman was asked if he was through
and said, mot quite" He then offered il
~Syidenpe plans and specifications and vouch
ers which, he said, showed that tho furrnl
and lathing work on tho public buildings il
Austin, Nashville, Washington, Harrisburg
Utica Boston, Paducah, Pittsburg, Cincin
natl, and New York amounting to q larg
sum of money had been given to Dwight anC
Hoyt without contract and without competi
tion.
Mr.. Totten objected to the introduction o
such evidence. He said the statement wa
not borne out by the facts. The work wa
done under contract and in proper form. Tn
committee took the matter under eonsidera
tion.
recess was then taken.
When the committee reassembled Mr.. Cole
man announced that he would withdraw hi
offer in regard TO the furring and lathin
work on public buildings
Mr.. Jacobs was then recalled by Mr.. Cole
man and examined in regard TO tie report q
the supervising architect for the year 1855
He showed that the report did not give de
tails of the work done by the Office and no
contracted for. The expenditures on eac
building were given in the report in bulk.
Mr.. Coleman read extracts from the report
and offered il in evidence.
Mr.. New asked if he had anything more /