Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1883-06-16
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
ADDITIONAL TESTIMONY BEFORE THE COM
MIrTEE-A TILT BETWEEN COUNSEL.


MIrTEE-A TILT BETWEEN COUNSEL.
WASHINGTON, June I5-At the meeting of
the Hill Investigating Committee to-day,
Cols man, counsel for Murch, called attention
TO the request heretofore ma lie upon the Su-
p ryisipg Architects office for all papers re-
lating to the extra work performed by Bart
lett, Robbins & Co. on the New York post
Office, and minated that the request had not
been complied with. Thomas, for Hill, re-
piled that counsel lad not specified what par
ticular papers were required. The charges
were not sufficiently definite or explicit.
Coleman replied that the charges and specif-
cations we're as definite and specific as would
be required in an indictment in half Of the
States 10 the Union; that an investigation of
this charac er should open the doors tcr the
fullest light upon the official acts OF the de-
fendant. He would, therefore, renew his re-
quest, and would ask the committee to make
an order upon the Supervising Architect for
The production OF all papsrs relating 10 the
extra work performed by Bartlett, Robbins
& Co. on the New York poetoffice; also copies
of all contracts inside With them.
After further argument, without ruling
upon the question, the committee decided to
resume the examination OF Stelumelz IN con-
nection with the charges OF fraud and cor
ruptian 10 the construction OF the Phila-
deiphis postofice. Ihe witness had con-
Guided his calculation, and was prepared 10
show the differ between the price paid
By the government to contractors for dress-
ips-stone Ter the entire building and the
actnai cost OF the work, based upon liberal
eetim ate for labor The total amount paid
by the government TO the contractors was
/ SSl8, 700; coat TO the contractors, allowing
the liberal estimate of at least thirty PEI
cent. for prof., was SAB, 200, leaving bal
ancs Of S375, 600 unnecessarily paid BY the
! government. The basement and portion 81
TIRE aseood-rter hzvssg hSes- bV sI-.stsi
| the fifteen per cent. contract and completed
| under modified contracts, these portions
could not b. included inhie calculations, but
| al a rough estimate the difference in the two
prices would add about $4,000 10 the pre-
| yious totsls.
This concluded Steinmstz's testimony, and
| question arose SIS 10 whether the committee
| aud defense would admit that the same e1
/ c,s, relsliveIy exis,ed in the cosi OF other
! public buildings erected under Hall, OF
\ whether the prosecution wilt be required &c
| repeat their proof with expert testimony al
! TO each.
Alex ander, OF the committee, suggested
that "a the same principle would extend tC
| al buildings, it would seem to devolye upol
1 the prosecution TO connect Hill with franc
charged in this alleged extravaganza in tn
erection of the Philadelphia building.
| Coleman replied that II might be as bad 1T
| principle to steal $4,000 as 100000, bu
4 the defense might cay as TO one building
| ave admit extravaganza, but you have no
connected Hill with any fraud" The prose
cution we're able and proposed TO prove tn
same extravagance, Encouragement or frau'
were shown in connection with all buildings
and that contracts continued TO BE- mad
after the Supervising Architect had been re
| peatedly warned and advised OF their unfair
| ness to the government.
| A long discussion ensued, favored wit
| sey,.ral sharp passages between counsel. Tn
| point, howe yer, was not decided, and tn
| comm iltee adjourned till to morrow, whe
| Steium-ta will be cross-ex amined.