New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-04-24
THE CHARGES AGAINST HILL
MULLErr's SELF LF-AcCUsAuoN-rHE ANSWER oFAA
HILL FILED.
lDY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBUNE.

HILL FILED.
lDY TELEGRAPH THE TgIDUsE.l
WASHINGTON, ANil 23.-"It can be proved
writes A. B. Mullett. that while was Supervising
Architect Of the Treasury the Government wss
swindled to the tune Of more than 100000
through my negligence in single transae-
tiou.D These are not the exact
words, but they contain the esseuos
of an accusation which Mullett makes against bim-
self in one of the extraordinary documents which
he has filed against Supervising Architect Hill. Ina
allegations are as follows: When Mullett WAS
Supervising Architect he made contract vito .
New-England granite company to furnish stone TOE
tho New-York Post Oiics. This was one OF ths
famous "i5 per cent" contracts invented by Null
lett. wherein the Government bound itself to rein-
bprse the contractors for the cost of all labor and
material furnished by them and to pay them
profit of 5 per cent in addition.
I'm the particular contract referred to The contract
ora apreed to build houses for workmsn aud 70
furnish the necessary plank, TOOLS iron, steel, ETC.
The contractors reimbursed the cost OF tho
buildings and plauk, plus 10 per cent, and the Gov
erunent became the owner, After the terms OF ths
contract had been executed the buildings plant
etc, which had cost S150,O00 70 $iS0.OOO, were oy
Mulletts order sold by auction. after public adver-
tsemout The old contractors bought them for
81 800 Soon afterward another granite con-
tract was made with the same company.
the buildings and plant were again needed
and the Government bought them the second
time. for about $40 1000. This last transaction It
appears was after Mullett ceased to be Supervising
Architect. He says la his charge that there was
something wrong about the advertisements for the
original sale, and that the wrong was committed
by one of the clerks in the ofce and moreover. No
declares that he tired to stop the sale and did re-
fuse to deliver the property until ordered 10 do 20
by the Secretary of the Treasury
Mr.. Murch in his charges and specifications
against the Supervising Architects oice rectes tho
history of the same transaction, which. no de-
nounces in severe terms There appears to have
been no concert OF action the part OF these Two
accusers for Mr. Murch also alleges respecting an
other of Mulcfs "15 per cent" contracts, that the
contractors hired 100 apprentice at the
rate of 81 each per day; charged the Goverpmens
So ~ per day on account of wages, aad pocketed
the difference plus 10 per cent OF the entire sum
This alleged transaction occurred under Muiietss
administration. IL may be worth while 10 reca't
the fact that Supervising Architect Hill annniied
the % per cent contracts and abandoned that sys-
tenn altogetheE
II Is reported that both Mullett aud Murch wiii
refuse to render any assistance to the commission
to investigate the various charges made by tnems
and that they express Q determination TO prine
their accusations before . grand jury. OF course
1t In hardly to be expected that Muilett van uy =
procure his own indictment. aud that viii have 70
be obtained through the cxertions of Murch or some
body else-if ct ell. Both the accuser snc ~
sel,.accused are equally anxious that Supsrvn%3
Architect Hill ah0uld b indicted A1"sss