The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-09-14
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
An Abstract of the Report Submitted
by the Committee.
Some of the Charges Not Sustained-Ihe
Supervising Architect Found Guilty OF
Official Favoritism,


has been investigating Supervising Archltect
Hill which was submitted to Secretary Fol-
ger on Monday. Respecting the modification
of the Is per cent. contracts, and the charges
against Mr.. Hill in connection Herewith, the
committee says that they felt some heslta-
tion because of the fact that those contracts
were modified i'll accordance with the recon-
mendations of a commission composed of
three members-Assistant Secretary French,
Colonel Casey, of the army, and Mr.. Hill.
Only the last named was under charges.
After reciting the history of these contracts,
which were made by Supervising Architect
Mullett, and of the official action of Secre-
taries Morrill, and Sherman under the legal
advice of the Attorney general, and review
ing the conflicting testimony regarding the
cost of the Philadelphia public building, the
committee say, first, that the testimony of
one expert Mr.. Steinmetz, in re-
gard to the excessive and unneces-
sary cost of &cutting the stone
for that building, although startling, was
not corroborated, but was decid edly contra
dicted by the testimony of other experts,
and the committee were therefore not will
ing to regard it as sufficient proof OF fraud
or corruption on the part of Mr.. Hill. They
are of the opinion, however, that the cost
of the stone and the dressing thereof for the
Philadelphia building was greater by about
$36S, 600 than it would have been had the
old contracts been annul1ed and the new
ones made after inviting free competition.
The committee say that there were legal OBJ
stacles which prevented the cancellation of
the old contracts, and therefore the best
that was practicable under the circumstances
was probably done.
Respecting the charges brought by Paul
soil & Eager the committee find that they
were not sustained by the evidence and
that the action of the supervising architect
was proper.
The next matter taken up is the fre-proof
shutter contract for the Cincinnati public
building, involving the controversy between
the United States Shutter Company and
Manly; Cooper & Co. After reviewing and
sitting the testimony relating to the charges
by the latter firm the committee find that
there was an apparent determination on the
part of the supervising architect not to allow
free competition, but to give the contract to
the United States Shutter Company, al
though the Manly Cooper Company offered
to do the work for a less sum. and they are
driven to the conclusion that he not only
did not do all he could in that case to save
$4,000 to the government, but that he did
not intend Manly Cooper & Co. should have
the contract at all.
In regard to the contracts for fire-proof
vaults and safes, the committee found that
bids have been invited by advertisement only
Cnce since 1875, and that during the last
eight years George L. Damon, who is also an
officer of the United States Shutter Company,
has held the contracts for furnishing all the
safes and building all the vaults required for
public buildings. During that period he has
been paid $3.50 900. While it is not shown
that good work and material have not been
furnished and at fair prices, the commission
ers are of the opinion that proposals should
have been advertised for each year in order
to allow fair competition.
In regard to elevators for public buildings,
the committee found that since May 1879,
when a committee of experts made report
in favor of the Hale patent, it has been in
USE and no competition invited or allowed,
as the law required In this respect they
say that the supervising architect has acted
contrary to law and has been guilty of Off
cial dereliction.
The, Wilbur charges to the effect that the
supervising architect and one of his subordi-
mates had demanded commission of 10 per
cent. in consideration of approving a certain
bill for work done and materials furnished,
are dismissed
Respecting the charge that Mr.. Hill had
corruptly favored certain contractors who
furnished slate-roof fasteners of certain
patent, the committee find that, on the con-
trary, he acted for the best interests of the
government
After a careful analysis and review of the
testimony relating to the charge that the SUI
pervising architect acted Improperly in APP
proving certain extra bills for iron work on
the New York postoffice the committee say
that in their opinion he should have given
greater consideration to the report of Mr..
Steinmetz relating TO that subject. lnasmuch
as the circumstances of the case were such as
to provoke the most careful scrutiny. Never
theless, the committee express the opinion
that the allowance made by Mr. Hill was sub
stantially correct and just
The committee devote considerable space
to the charges respecting the heating appa-
ratus for the Chicago postoffice and custom
house They comment unfavorably upon
the fact that Mr.. Hill paid to member of
one Of the firms competing for the contracts
a very large sum-$4 800 each-for making
the plans for heating the public buildings in
Chicago, St. Louis and two other cities They
believe that competition should have been
invited for the making of those plans as we'll
as for the heating apparatus itself. They also
find. in respect to the heating of the Chicago
building. that the work and materials did not
fulfill the requirements of the specifications.
In this connection they point out that the
supervising architect appointed to inspect
this job is young man who left the service
OF the contractors, by whom he was paid only
$3.50 per day, to enter government service,
where he received Sc per day, and that as soon
as the job had been completed and the con-
tractors paid he went back into their service
The committee believe that the employment
Of this person, under the circumstances, was
highly improper, and they were not sur
prised to discover that he failed to renort i'm