The Portland daily press., 1883-06-22
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
NEr. Murch Gross Examimed--Tbe scope
of the Investigation.


ting committee met this forenoon. Mr.. Cole
man asked to be furnished with all contracts
made by the United States for fire proof shut
tera.
Chairman New replied that the requisition
was To- general and should be made specific.
Coleman said, ut is q pretty difficult matter
70 specify in advance the particular paperf
that may DO required, particularly as in some
instancel we do not know what papers are in
existence"
Chairman New characterized any statement
10 the effect that the committee Is giving the
investigation half hearted support or is dis
posed to impele it as alb solutey untrue.
Coleman denied that such statement was
made. What he said was TO show that the adj
ministration Is not offering or aifording any as
sistanee in the prosecution of the ingestiga-
tion.
MIR Murch then took the stand for cross ex-
animation. The witness wes perfectly sure
that under the Is per cent contracts men were
employed much longer upon certain work than
necessary.
Q.-W When you were foreman and gave in
structions to your men to consume so much
time as you now say more than nee, sary upon
certain work. were you not aware that fraud
was being committed?
Al acknowledge ii. / Yves innt cent.
now know that frauds were being committed.
AT that time | knew nothing OF the nature OF
the contracts / Yves performing my duty aud
as always do, minding my own businees
Q,-And you We're helping commit these
frauds were you not?
Ado you mean to say that IL you hire o
man T. do IA days work aud tell him he need
not work hard, you think he would be COM
mittlng fraud?
Mr.. ThemasYou are asking tho question
yourself. You may answer ii.
Witne-s--l do not consider 1t frand.
Q.-What were the inducements held out by
the contractors t, the men TO .list In perpetrf-
ting the o fraads2
A.-No inducements The men themselves
were swindled.
Q-Who do you represent before this COM
mittse?
At. H. Murch alone; and / wish Is say
and have II go ON the minute that the sta y
ment attributed - Mr.. Hill that am ing
paid by the stonecutters is abb olu'ely false.
Q-Then you are here purely . perform
patriotic duty? When did your con cience De-
come awakened t) the nee ity Of exporting
these frauds?
Ain 1877, when became aware of the
grces frauds which were t3ing peri 9trated
felt that they should be exI q and am
here wholly on my own responsibility to per-
form public duty.
Q.--Is not your only reeson for attempting
e connect Mr.. Hill with tho frauds the fact
that he was a member of the Commission te-
fore which you appnared, aud that the Com.
miesion refused to listen TO your demands?
A-That is true. The fact that he
A26ltA II VI ttio COI1 Lnle 3iCU, bnhL ne Ws
aware OF the frauds aud still persistc 81,
eouree, in my reaeoa for connecting HIN Win
the frauds.
Q.-Do you not know that If Mr.. Hill had
acceded - your demands it would have result-
ed IN breaking all existing contract1, and
finish IT. buildings with totally different
kind of granite?
Al know nothing of the kind; | know
that there were twenty quarrie1 on the coast
OF Maine, owned and controlled BY separate
partie1, who were then furnishing granite and
could and would have furnished the same
quality OF granite both in texture and ap-
I3arance as that which was then being ueed
Q,-You as5ame that, DO you?
Al assume nothing. | know it and af
firm it.
Q.-If the 10 per cent. contracts had been
abrogatsd would not the government have
been comp lied % Ply the priceJ which your
stone utters would have demanded?
Ave offered to do the work for So per
day and Mr.. Hill, under the modified contracts
paid $3.50.
Q.-You have been member OF Congress
ject?
AL have frequently alluded it,
Mr.. Thomas Quoting FROM witne SIS sreech)
You say; am familiar with nearly every
public building in the country from personal
inspection Nov Is that strictly true?
A.-Well, no, not strictly SO in the literal
sense in which you wish to t~ke it; | am
familiar with many OF them.
Q.-Then yon did not tellt truth did you?
Mr. Coleman-Did you ever know Com
gresham to make speech that wF3 literally
true? fLaught3r.)
Ihe cross examination was pursued TO great
leugth. Witness said the greaic7t frauds upon
the Philadelphia building were perpetraf5d
after hill became SUI sryising Architect,
aud after SUI rintendent had been put in
Charge Dy the Architects office. This superin-
tandent was totally incompetent and permitted
the gros-est frauds. Yet he is in the employ
OF the Architects office.
Ia reply to question by Mr. Coleman
witness said his ground Of complaint against
Hill was that, saiter having his attention
called y the gre frEuds which were heing
Mr.Hili still went ahead and made
modified contracts b. cd upon fraudulent and
exec 5iYe rates what had been p-id under the
10 per cent contracts. This concluded the ex-
animation OF Murch.
Mr.. New submitted the views OF the com
mittee as Il the scope of the investigation and
said: In determining the question submitted
at the last meeting of the committee as to the
importance and relevancy of the testimony
then offered to be submitted, viz: In regard
to ~ Lonis Cincinnati. Hartford and other
public buildlngs and that of the workmen
now at Quincy, Macs. it would be well TO
consider the scope and nature of the inouiry
the committee is called upon to make. The
foundation of the inquiry was laid ia a speech
made BY Hon. I. FL. Murch in the House Of
Representatives, in which he stated that the
otice of the supervising architect of the treas
airy was corrupt from top to bottom. This led
70 certain torrespondenee between the StcretA
~ OF the Treasury and Mr.. Murch, aud culmi-
mated in the designation OF this committee u
lnyeltlgate the question of the existing corruI-
tion or fraud. II is not for this committee, nor
did the Secretary, in organizing it, intend TO
inquire into the acts OF former lccretaries of
the treasury, or of former supervising archi-
tects The question before the committee is.
IS the Office Of the supervising architect now
corrupt, or has the present supervising archi-
tect been guilty OF fraud, corruption or wrong
doing.
The investigation so far has been directed to
the modified fifteen per cont. contracts. and
the prosecution seeks to show that the prices
paid under the modified contracts were largely
IN excess oil the lowest market rates. This the
supervising architect expressly admits by his
swec, and, quoting again from his answer, he
says" This fact is not contested by anybody"
This admission covers all the work done under
the fifteen per cent. contracts as modified BY
the resent supervising architect, not only as
TO the philadelphia court house and pc5t ofiice
but also all Of other buildings erected under
such modified contracts. Witneasss have been
called and have sworn 70 prices paid for work
upon the Philadelphia court house and amounts
paid under such contracts rs well as what
would have tcan fair value for labor and
profit = contractors have been deliberately
shown by calculation and te3timony OF Gen.
Stinemetz. II may, therefore, to assumed by
tho committee that the same rates Of excess Of
prices was paid over what was the lowest market
rate OF wages and over o fair contract price in
open competition in all these buildings SO
erected under the modified fifteen per cent
contracts, and that the same ratio Of excess OF
profit to contractors in the said other buildings
over and above what would have been fair
profit in such other buildings as is shown by
Gen. Stineuetz, and the admission OF Mr.. Hill
to exist in the Philadelphia court house. AS
snming this state OF facts TO exist, IL devolves
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 pre- mt, there
fore, the committee will not tako other build
ings, nor will they &C to Quincy TO take the tes-
timony OF w0rkmen, reserviDg the right to do
either or both as may be determined after sub
mission Of evidence tending to show fraud or
corruption on the part OF Mr.. Hill. IL such
testimony can be adduced, il the prosecution
claims that there is any matter OF fraudulent
character in any OF the other buildings differ
ing from such az it Is claimed are wrongful In
the Philadelphia house, such matter can be
shown without going over the same tedious
process as We have had In that house. This
committee was formed to Finvestigate certain
charges that are filed with II.
Mr.. Jacobs, chief clerk of tho supervising
architects Office, wassworn. Witness 10 July,
1876, was responsible for the conduct OF the
Office ia the absence Of the supervising arohi-
teet officially. He lJacobs) was next TO Mr..
Hill IN rank, and ia his absence was RESPONSE
bio for matters affecting the execution OF con-