Daily Kennebec journal., 1883-07-10

THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
Endeavoring to show Bribery in the
Barfletf, Robbins 4 Co Care.


Hill investigation this morning by the pre-
sentation OF q number of Bartlett, Robbins
Co., contracts. As he offered the first con-
tract he explained that the prosecution
wished to show that Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
had been corruptly and unlawfnlly favored
in the award of contracts.
Totten asked if the counsel proposed to
follow up this evidence BY the evidence that
Hill had been bribed
Coleman was astonished that good law
yer should expect him to show that money
had actually passed between the contractors
and Hill If he could 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.. Toten objected and being pressed by
Coleman said that he represented Bartlett,
Robbins & Co., Mr.. Hill and Dix Island
Granite Co.
The prosecution then put in evidence show
ing that Bartlett, Robbins & Co., or Bartlett
Hayward & Co., had received IS contracts
for furnishing heating apparatus from 1876 TO
1883, at an aggregate cost Of S4l1,lll, upon
which there was extra work amounting TO
SlO9, ,S4s. Contracts were awarded to other
firms amounting to $4,000 upon which the
extra work amounted to s60O0.
Coleman then offered 10 evidence the pro-
posals upon which the contracts were awarded.
For a supply Of heating apparatus tor the
bureau of printing and engraving. Bartlett.
Robbins & Co. bid So AS, while Bosher K
Co. bid $50, ,524, the contract being awarded
Bartlett, Robbins & Co. A number of SINH
lar cases were instanced. Coleman read from
the back Of a letter from Hill to Secretary
Folger, dated after the filing of the charges
in this case, submitting q statement in regard
to the heating apparatus for Charleston, W..
Va, Court House. The following was en-
dorsed by Secretary Folger; Upon the facts
found within this statement, | decide to ac-
cept the proposal of Bartlett, Robbins Co.
as the surest and best for the interest of the
government.
Chas z. Wannell then took the stand To
identify number of vouchers showing pay
ments to Bartlett, Robbins & Co., and Bart
lett, Hayward & Co.
No one else could have furnished the re-
quired iron work. Coleman continued to
put in vouchers, showing the work done in
many cities by Bartlett, Robbins 4 Co.
Here is a bill for thermometers sent to
Indianapolis that shows that they have no
thermometers out there, said Coleman.
Thomas-It shows that Bartlett, Robbins
& Co. could sell them cheaper than Indian
apolis dealers.
Coleman-We would like to see you prove
that See what government has to pay tor
work in Portland, Oregon. (Reading another
vOucher.)
DO you mean to say that So day for a
foreman is excessive? asked Totten.
Not out there, replied Coleman, but they
charged the government the same price for
work done here, when they did not pay it.
Thomas-How do you know that.
Coleman-We will prove it.
Totten objected to some of the vouchers
because it appeared that the supervising ar
chitect had only conferred the authority to
make repairs upon the superintendent of
building, without naming the firm that should
do the work.
Coleman contended that the defence must
show that the superntendents had not bean
instructed to give the work to Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co.
Chairman New said that 1t was within the
knowledge OF the coiuuiltee that the super
vising architect only conferred upon superin.
tendents the authority to have repairs made.
Coleman maintained that the superinten-
dents were ordered to give the work to GER
tain contractors.
Hill denied the truth of this assertion and
sharp tilt followed between the counsel.
The reading of vouchers was resumed and
when it had continued some time, Totten OBJ
jected on the ground of irrevelancy.
In the course OF the passage between the
counsel, Totten said that he represented all
of the people except Murch, a man who con-
ceded that he was a criminal.
Coleman replied that it was not for Mr..
Totten, who represented man charged with
the commission of the grOssest frauds, to
criticize him (Coleman).
Totten disclaimed any intention of re-
Election upon Coleman. He criticized his
client who had sworn before the committee
that he was violatcr of the laws of the
United States, falsifier and cheat,
Coleman requested the gentleman to refrain
from taking advantage Of Murch's absence to
abuse him.
The reading proceeded until the vouchers
were all disposed of, and Coleman announced
that he would finish the Bartlett, Robbins &
Co. case tomorrow morning.
The committee then adjourned.