National Republican., 1883-06-22

question before this committee is: Is the
office of the supervising architect now cor
rupt, or has the supervising architect been
guilty of fraud corruption, or wrong doing2
The investigation so far has been directed
TO the modified 10 per cent. contracts, and the
prosecution seek to show that "the prices paid
under the modified contracts were largely in
excess of the lowest market rates" This the
supervising architect expressly admits by his
answer, and quoting again from his answer,
he says; This fact is not contested by any
body" This admission covers oil the work
done under the 10 per cent. contracts az modi-
fed by the present supervising architect,
not only as to the Philadelphia court house
and postoffice, but also all of the other build
ings erected under such modified contracts.
Witnesses have been called and have sworn
to the prices paid for work upon the Philadel-
phia house, and the amounts paid under such
contracts, as we'll as what would have been a
fair value for labor and profit to contractors,
have boen claborately shown by the calCula-
tions and testimony of Gen. Stinemetz. 1t
may, therefore, be assumed by this committee
that the same ratio of excess of prices paid
over what was the lowest market rate of
wages, and over fair contract price in open
competition in all these buildings so erected
under the modified 10 per cent. contracts,
and that the same ratio OF excess of profit to
the contractors In said other buildings, over
aud above what would have been fair profit,
exists in such other buildings, as is shown by
Gen. Stinemetz and admissions of Mr.. Hill to
exist in the Philadelphia house.
Assuming this state OF facts to exist, it de-
wolves upon the prosecution to show by other
evidence or argument that the supervising
architect was guilty of fraud or corruption
in making such modified contracts. For the
present, therefore, the committee will not
take up the other buildings, nor will they go
TO Quincy to take the testimony of the work
skn IL 30 10
rs may be determined after the submission of
evidence tending to show fraud or corruption
on the part of Mr.. Hill, If such testimony
can be adduced. If the prosecution claim
that there is any matter of q fraudulent
character in any of the other buildings, diff
fering from such as it is claimed are wrong
full in the Philadelphia house, such matter
can be shown without going over the same
tedious process as we have had in that house.
If there be such glaring frauds as charged
in this matter, they should be so patent that
evidence of them could be adduced within
reasonable time, and without prolonging the
investigation all summer. This committee
was formed to investigate certain charges that
are filed with IL, and we think tho committee
should confne itself to the work assigned it,.
The other charges on file will be investigated,
but the examination must proceed without
delay.
Mr. Jacobs. chief clerk of the supervi sing
architects Office, was sworn. Witness in
July, 1875, was responsible for the conduct OF
the Office in the absence of the supervising
architect. Officially he (Jacobs) was next TO
him in rank, and in his absence was respon-
sible for matters affecting the execution of
contracts. Mr.. Hill was at that time assist
ant architect.
Witness was shown q letter, dated July %,
1875, and contained in the letter book of the
architects Office, and was asked If he wrote
or dictated it. He replied:
signed it, but did not write or dictate it..
Mr.. Hill wrote the letter.
Portions of the letter were read referring
| to the plans for the Philadelphia building,
and witness replied that of his own kuowl-
edge he knew nothing as to tho statements
therein made by the writer of the letter
The purpose Of introducing this testimony
was to show that Mr.. Hill was personally re-
sponsible for certain changes in tho plans for
the Philadelphia building, by which the gov
ernment was subjected-as charged by the
prosecution-to an additional and unnecessary
expense of $2l4,000
This closed the case of the Philadelphia
public building. and Mr.. Coleman announced
| that he was ready to present the complaint Of
Manley, Cooper Il Co.. of Philadelphia, and
in opening stated the case substantially as
| follows:
| The prosecution in this case claim that con-
tracts for tho fire proof shutters for the pub
lie buildings of the country have been con.
trolled by certain persons, namely, the United
States Fire Proof Iron Safe and shutter COM
pany of Boston, and since Mr. Hill came into
Office that it has been impossible for any Other
company to compete. In 1882 advertisement:
were made for proposals for iron shutters fol
the public building at Cincinnati. The bid
by the Manly Cooper company was the low.
est A representative of the company came
to Washington, and was approached with
| L.ska g. 4 l...l
refused to entertain it, and the company was
required to perform most unreasonable duty
in the manner and terms required for the test
of their shutters Notwithstanding that the
Manly Cooper company's bid was $2l, 500 less
than any other Mr.. Hill gave the contract tC
a company which had offered Manly Cooper
$4,000 to withdraw.
Mr. Thomas, in reply, said "In every in
stance advertisements have been made and
proposals received, and in every case save
this and one other contracts have been giver
to the lowest bidder, so that this idea of
monopoly Is without foundation. Every.
thing has been done fairly and honestly 81
far as the advertisements are concerned. In
the Cincinnati matter the lowest bid wa
from Manly, Cooper &c Co. The United
States Fire Proof Safe and Shutter Co., o
Boston, offered the next lowest. Manly
Cooper ~ Co. were unable TO re
fer to any shutters of their
in use or to any test of them that had beer
made. They were thereupon required tC
submit to test. After correspondence they
asked for further time, which was declined
but afterwards granted on account of thei
assertion that an effort had been made Il
bribe them. When their shutters were sub
mitted for the test they were entirely differ
ent from the ones required. Mr.. Hill de
clined to test them, and referred tho matte
to the secretary of the treasury, who approved
the recommendation of Mr.. Hill that a con
tract be made with the United State com
pany, and also declined to enter into an in
vestigation of the alleged attempt to buy of
Manly Cooper. No test was subsequent,
made of the shutters submitted by the United
States company, as they had been preyiousl,
tested, and were already in use by the gov
ernment.
Several contracts made by the supervising
architect for different public buildings were
put in evidence, after which Frank Taylor
secretary and treasurer of the Manly Coope
company of Philadelphia, took the stand
He offered in evidence the correspondence
between his company and the supervising
architect relative to the letting of the con
tract for fire proof shutters Tor the publ
building at Cincinnati, and then made
statement touching tho charges preferred b,
his company, rs follows On the morning o
the day the bids were to be opened he caml
to Washington with Mr.. Manly, president o
their company. Just before the bids wer
opened Mr., Hoyt, Of Springfield, Mass, on
of the bidders, approached witness, and sait
he had been looking for him at all the hotels
and regretted not seeing him sooner, as h
could have submitted "a proposition by whicl
he (Taylor) could have made moro none,
t.u.. k,vh It,,.. fI.,. al