The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-07-21
THE HILL INVESTIGAT
Testimony Concerning Slate Roofs and Slate
Fastenines.

Testimony Concerning Slate Roofs and Slate
Fastenings.
WASHINGTON, July 20.-Before the Hill in
vestigating committee, Mr.. Coleman read an
affidavit which recited that A. B. King Milo
Walbridge and John Woodman, all of Chi
cago were important and material witnesses,
to the fact that the heating apparatus in the
Chicago postotfice furnished by Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co., was of poor quality and improp-
erly constructed. 1t was stated that these
witnesses could not be brought to Washing
ton because there was no authority given the
committee to subpoena them and no fund
from which to pay their expenses, and the
committee was requested to adjourn to Chi
cago for the purpose of taking their testimony.
MIR. Coleman then proposed to show that
all contracts for slate roofs had been accom-
panied by specifications requiring the states
to be fastened by the Farquhar patent pro-
cess; that that patent was not the best, as
| MIR. Hill well knew, and lower bids Dropos-
| ing to use better fastenings, had been reject
| ed. Thus it happened, said Mr.. Coleman
| that Farquhar had monopoly of the bust
ness of putting on slate roofs, for no person
could use his patent without paying royalty
to HIM. Mr. Coleman then read some con-
tracts dated in 1880, requiring states to be
fastened with Farquhar's fastening, and
called attention to the fact that the speciiica-
| ton gave the address of the patentee.
Mr., Totten said the Farquhar fastener
was the only one known to the department
prior to January 81, 1881, and contracts
made after that date allowed the use of other
patents with the requirement that they be
equal to Farquhar's
Edward Wallace, slater testified that other
patents were better than Farquhar's, where
| repairs were necessary.
Steiumetz testified that he had inspected
the Farquhar patent fastener upon the Boston
| poStoflice building by direction of Mr. Null
| let, in 1873. As result he had refused to
recommend the use of the Farquhar patent
in his report made to Mr. Mullet He knew
no building where the Jones patent was in
use; regarded copper wire as better than any
patent.
The delay in producing Steinmetzs reports
| caused Mr.. Coleman to charge that all papers
called for by the prosecution would be sub
| jected to the scrutiny of the defense. He de-
! rlared that the Secretary OF the Treasury had
| shown lack of earnestness in not suspend
ing Hill from office during the investiga-
| ton
Mr.. Hill testified that he had never SUPER
intended the construction of slate roofs; had
spoken to Colonel Casey about a roof for the
| State Department, but could not remember
| whether he recommended the use of the Far.
quhar fastening
Mr. Hill was then subjected to long cross
examination by Mr.. Coleman, ending as fol-
| lows:
Question-How many patents are there
for fasteners for slate roofs2 Answer do
not know.
Odd you ever try to ascertain? A
| No, sir.
Q.-Where is there a slate roof or anv pub
lie building you have given personal super
vision to? A-None
Q.-Then you do not know yourself, prac-
tically, anything about putting on slate roof ?
A.-Only such as l gather from observation
GLOW do you know then, that the
| United States are not swindled i'll putting on
these State roofs? Al know the opinion
OF skaters; l know the opinion of architects.
Q.-Do you know whether or not, in con-
tracts you make for putting on slate roofs,
the United States are swindled? A-No,
sir cannot say The superintendent is the
man who certifies.
Q.-Will you tell me what is the use of a
supervising architect? Al cannot super
wise 4 roof in Philadelphia or San Francisco
by sitting in Washington.
OFF you employ somebody else to fur
nish brains for your Office, will you tell me
what is the necessity for supervising archi-
tect, or If it would not be as we'll if you did
| not know anything?
Mr. Totten-I submit that that is an in
decent question.
The Chairman-It is ruled out, any way.
Adjourned.