The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1883-07-10
WASHINGTON NEWS.
ARCHITECT HILLS INVESTIGATION.
Methods OfLsttIns Contracts for puslIs BuIlai.,,.
No Special Features brought Oat-Assi.tsd
Emisrants Creeping lnto the usi.ed
States IhrouEh CasAaA-Nstss.

WASHINGTON, D. O., July 9.-Mr. Cole.
man opened the proceedings in the Hill
Investigation by the presentation Of nun :
Der OF BARTLETT, Robbins & Co. contracts.
AS he offered the first tcontract, he explain.
cd that the prosecution did not claim the
contracts were not all right. They did wieh
to show they had been awarded without
advertisement, and some OF them without
competition; that Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
had got nearly all OF them, and had been
corrupIly and unlawfully favored in tho
award of contracts for supplying the heat.
ing apparatus for the public buildings OF
the United States.
Mr.. ToIten asked ifthe COUNSEL proposed
to tollowup this evidence by the evidence
that Hill had been brlbed. 1t made no
difference otherwise how many contracts
Bartlett, Robbins & Co. received. II they
held all OF them, 1t only tended to show
they wore good men and did their work
honestly.
Mr.. coleman was astonished that good
! lawyer should expect him TO show that the
money bad actually passed between the
contractors and HUI. II he could so pre-
ient tacts as TO lead 10 the inference that
he money must have passed, he would
have accomplished all he expected in this
investigation.
Mr. Totten objected, because the pro.
posed evidence would not make out q
charge.
Coleman called upon the gentleman to
say whom he represented.
Nntinb-ttI fr IL
ng agSi"St this assault which you are con-
ducting."
Uoigmsn insisted upon an answer, and
rotten said he represented Bartlett, Rob-
bius 4 Co., Mr.. Hill, and the Dix Island
Granite Company, He had represented
the last named company for many years.
Coleman-That is oil WANTED to know,
how many ol these contractors are inter-
ested IN Hills dsf.nse to the extent OF pro-
yiding counsel.
THE PROSECUTION.
The prosecution then put in evidence
showing Bartlett, Robbins & Co., or Bart
lett, Hayward & Co., received nineteen
contracts for furnishing heating apparatus
for public buildings from 1876 to 1855 at an
aggregate cost Of $il111l, upon which
;here was extra work amounting to $lO9,-
64S The contracts were also put in evil
dence TO show that during the same period
the total cost OF all the contracts awarded
the other firms supplying heating appara-
tus was $4,000, upon which the extra
work amounted TO $1,000.
MIR. Coleman then offered in evidence
the proposals. upon which the contracts
were awarded for supplying the heating
apparatus for the Bureau OF Engraving and
Printing in this city. Bartlett, Robbins &
Co.s bid was $Sl HIS, while BAsher & Co.'s
bid was $30. .j24. the contract being award
ed to Bartlett, Robbins & Co.
A number Of fsimilar cases were instanced,
"Here is curiosity" said Mr.. Coleman.
sit shows how the Secretary Of the Treas
nry has been coming to the relief OF the de-
iense."
He then read from the back OF letter
from Mr.. Hill to Secretary Folger, dated at-
ter the filing OF the charge In this case,
submitting statement in regard to heating
apparatus for the Charleston, VIVA Court
Hofse, ,thefol!owing Endorsement by Secre-
tary Folger: Upon the facts found in the
within statement, decide to accept the
proposal OF Bartlett, Robbins & Co., as the
surest and best for the interest OF the Gov
ernment"
Bring him in" exclaimed Totten. "Here
is a chance for the gentleman to bring an
other specification"
Coleman remarked, "he supposed the
Secretary had endorsed tho paper in that
way TO show his approval OF what Hill did,
by doing the same thing himself"
Charles p. Wannell then took the stand
to identify the number OF vOuchers show
ing payment to B,r'l"t'. Robbins & %. and
Bartlett, Haywood & Co.