National Republican., 1883-06-16
TIE HILL INQUIRY.
Conclusion OF MIR. stinemetz's Statements
In Regard 10 the Philadelphia POST
Office.

Conclusion OF MIR. stinemet1's Statements
In Regard 10 the Philadelphia POST
Office.
At the Hill investigating committee yester-
day Mr.. Coleman, counsel for Mr.. Murch,
called attention to the request heretofore
made upon the supervising architects Office
for all the papers relating to the extra work
performed by Bartlett, Robbins & Go. upon
the New York postoflice, and intimatod that
this request had not boon complied with. Mr..
Thomas, for Mr.. Hill, replied that counsel
had not specified what particular papers were
required, the charges were not sufficiently
definite or explicit, and IL was evidently the
purpose OF the prosecution to explore the
whole range of the official acts Of his client
with the hope or expectation of making out
or charging us crime an official act, because
while his client had--as he expected to prove
saved the government 100000 in the con-
struction of the Philadelphia building, he had
not saved 100000 or even more. Such plan
of investigation was unfair to Mr.. Hill, before
this committee and before the country.
After further argument, without ruling
upon the question, the committee decided
to resume the examination of Mr. Stne-
metz in connection with the charges
of fraud and corruption in construction
Of the Philadelphia postofiice. Witness had
concluded his calculations and was prepared
to show the difference between the price
paid by tho government to the contractors
for dressing the stone for the entire building
and the actual cost of the work based upon q
liberal estimate for labor The total amount
paid by the government to tho contractors
was SSlST00. Tho cost to the contractors
allowing liberal estimate of at least 80 per
cont. for profit, was S440,7O0, leaving bal
ance of $4,000 unnecessarily paid by the
government. Witness then qualified his
l..a tI.
portion of the second story having been
begun under the Is per cent. contract and
completed under the modified contract
these portions could not be included in
his calculations, but at rough
estimate the difference in the two prices
would add about 100000 to his previous
totals.
This concluded Mr.. Stinemetz's testimony,
and the question arose whether the commit
tee and the defense would admit that the
same excess relatively existed in tho cost of
the other public buildings erected under Mr.
Hill, or whether the prosecution be required
to repeat their proof with expert testimony
rs to each of them.
Mr.. Alexander, of the committee, suggested
that as the same principle would extend to
all the buildings it would seem TO devolve
upon the prosecution to connect Mr.. Hill
with the fraud charged i'm this alleged OK
travagance in the erection of the Philadel-
phia building.
Mr.. Coleman replied that it might be as
bad in principle to steal $4,000 as $2,OOO,0O0,
but tho defense might say as TO one building,
1--WE admit extravaganza, but you have not
connected Mr. Hill with any fraud" The
prosecution were able and proposed to prove
that the same extravaganza, mismanagement,
or fraud were shown in connection with all
the buildings, and that contracts continued
to he made after the supervising architect
hud been repeatedly warned and advised of
their uniairness to the government" A long
discussion ensued favored with several sharp
passages between counsel. The point, how
ever, was not decided, and at 1870 p m. the
committee adjourned till IL a. IN. to-day
when Mr.. Stinemetz will be crossed examined.