Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-07-10
THE LOTTERY CASES.
Postmaster.General Gresham Renders q
Decision Against the Louisiana Com.
pany, and Directs the
Return to the SeRders Of All Registered
letters and Money Orders-The
Hill Investigation.

WAsHIseToN, July 9.-Mr. Coleman open.
ed the proceedings in the Hill investigation
by the presentatit n of a number Of Bartlett,
Robbins & Co.'S contracts. As he offered the
first contract he explsined that the prosecu-
tiou did not cl aim tba. the contracts were
not all right. They did wish to show that
they had been awarded without advertise
ment, and some OF them without competi-
tion; that Bartlett, Robbins & Co. got nearly
all OF them, and had been corruptIy and uu-
lawfully favored 10 the award of contracts
for supplying heating apparatus for tie pub
lie buildings Of the United Sla;es.
MIR. Totten asked if counsel proposed TO fol-
lew up this evidence by evidence that
Hill had been bribed. 1t made no difference
other wise how many contracts Bartlett, Rob-
bins & Co. received. II they held ell OF
them it only tended to sho6 that they we're
good men and did the work honestly.
M. Coleman was astouaded that good
lawyer should expect him 10 show that
money had actually passed between the con-
tractors and Hill. II he could so present
facts to lead to The inference that money
must have passed, he would have accom-
plished what he expected in this investiga-
tiop.
Totten objected, because the proposed evil
dence would make out a en- hsrge.
whom he represented.
Totten-I appear for everybody defending
against this assault you are conducting.
Coleman insisted upon an answer, and
Tot en- said be represented Bsrtlett, Robbins
& Co., Mr.. Hill, and the Dix Island Granite
Company. He hal represented the last
named company many years.
Coleman-That is sil l want to know,
how many of these contractors are inter
D IL L. Il
viding counsel.
The prosecution then put in evidence,
showing that Bartlett, Robbins & Co. or
Blrtlett, Hayward & Co. received nineteen
contracts for furnishing heating apparatus
for public buildings from 1876 to 1881 at an
aggregate cost Of S417, i'll, upon which there
was extra work amounting to f109, S48. Con.
tracts we're also put in evidence to show that F.,
during the same period, the total cost OF all
contracts awarded other firms for supplying
heating apparatus was 10000, upon which
extra work amounted to $4,000. Colem a n
then offered in evidence the proposals upon
which the contracts were awarded for the
supply of 4 heating apparatus for the
Bureau of Eograving and Printing, in this
city. Bartlett, Robbins & Co. bid $Sl ,44S,
while Barlort & c.. bid $50, ,124, the co 1Iract
| beiog awarded to Bartlett, Robbins & Co. A
number of similar cases we're instanctd.
"Here ia curiosity" said Mr.. Coleman.
at shows how the Secretary Of the Treasury
has been coming to the relief Of the defense"
| He then read from tine back OF a letter from
| Mr.. Hill to Secretary Folger, dated after the
| filing OF charges in this case, submitting a
statement in regard TO heating apparatus for
the Charleston, w. Va, courthouse, the fol-
lowing indorsement by Secretary Folger:
"Upon facts found in the within statement,
it is decided to accept the proposal of Bart
lett, Robbins & Co. as the surest and best for
! the interest Of the governmeet."
"Bring him ip," exclaimed Totten. "Hera
is a chance for the gentlemen TO bring an
other specification"
Coleman remarked that he supposed the
Secretary had indorsed the paper in thai
way to show his approval of what Hill did
by doing the same thing himself.
CDarles P. Wsnnell then took the Stand tc
identify uumber of vouchers showing pay
ments to Bartlett, Robbins & Co. and IT
lett, HAYWOOD & Co.
| The rt N aindoE az ihs de y Ir a. tahS. ssp !.
examining the vouchers and Offering sffi
davits to show that the work was done with
out advertising for bids.