The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-06-27
THE HILL INVESTIGATION.
Secretary FOlger FIatIy Contradicts Some
of the Architects Testimony.

of the Architects Testimony.
WASHINGTON, June 26-Upon the open
ing of the Hill investigation, Mr.. Hill asked
to correct his testimony of yesterday. The
chief clerk had told him last night that ac-
counting officers of the Treasury do not re-
quire articles of association of corporation
to be filed with the bond, consequently his
testimony yesterday that the articles of as
sociaton of the United States Company had
been filed was incorrect, They were never
filed.
Question-Don't you know the United
States Company is myth and that Damon
takes the contract and does the work for the
department which he could not otherwise
do? Answer-I know just the contrary, that
it is an incorporated company, and has been
doing business for years.
Question-What is the name OF the firm
over the door where these shutters are made?
Answer don't know.
Question-Then you have no evidence of
the bonaideness of such company, or its ac-
tual existence? Answer-There are ex-
tracts from their meetings attached to some
of their contracts.
DIV MI. N0W-I1dN6 you ever seen bHelr
articles of incorporation? Answer-No sir
By Mr.. Coleman-Will you show me the
certificate of the accounting officer of the
Treasury of the responsibility or reliability
of this United States Company? Answer
1t is probably attached to their contract
Mr., Coleman examining the bonds)-If
these bonds require two sureties and Damon
is an officer of the company then they have
but one surety, and are no bonds in the in
tendment of the law.
Secretary Folger was then sworn. He
fatty contradicted that part of Hills testi-
mony where he swore that he had shown a
paper to the Secretary containing the story
OF the offer of 81, 500 to Manly, Cooper e. Co.
to withdraw their bid. He did not show the
witness such a paper, but stated verbally
that one of the bidders had made proposition
for Manly & Cooper to withdraw their bid
as it was reasonable to suppose the lowest
bidder would have the contract. No investi-
CATION of the alleged bribery was ordered
The amount of $4 500 was not mentioned by
Hill nor was the name of the party making
the offer of bribery given. There was at that
time no question of rejecting the bid. I
certainly understood that if the shutters of
Manly, Cooper Il Co. stood the test they
were to have the contract" In reply to fur
ther questions Mr.. Folger said: II knew be-
fore the contract was finally awarded that
this MANLY, Cooper & Co. s) shutter did not
meet the requirements of the specifications
in thickness. Mr. Hill made no written re-
port on the subject. l would not undertake
to say he said they pledged themselves to
furnish shutters as required within twenty
four hours, and that it should not interfere
with the execution of the contract, nor do 1
remember that he told me the shutters of the
next lowest bidder were also thicker than
called for by the specifications.
Mr. Coleman then stated that owing to the
fact that no assistance (as often requested)
had kaa, ft1ry, had Co..
examination of papers and documents, Gen.
Steinmetz had been unable alone to prepare
all the evidence they wished to present in
the Bartlett Robins case. The prosecution,
however, were ready to go on with another
branch of the case which would not require
fications under the general charge of fraud
and corruption, that Hill, as super
vising architect of the Treasury. in
with James NJ. Wilbur, then having
claim against the government to the amount
of $4,000 for furnishing illuminated tilinG
for the New York postoffice to pass said
claim if be (Wilbur) would allow him (HilD
10 per cent. of said claim. Further, that
Hill, knowing L. z. CANNON to be associated
as copartner in the firm of Simons JohnSon
& Co., in the transaction of business relating
to traffic in building materials, refused TO
dismiss Cannon from position in the archi-
tect's Office, but permitted him to remain and
use his influence in securing contracts for his
firm.
Mr.. Wilbur was about to take the stand
when Mr.. Thomas put in the answers of
Bartlett, Robbins & Co., and of Mr.. Hill, to
the charges preferred in that case.
Mr.. Tyler, whose name was mentioned yes
terday in connection with the offer of 81 500
to Manly, Cooper & Co., was permitted to
make a statement, and said II am charged
here with having made an offer of bribery. I
never made any offer TO Manly, Cooper &
Co., nor did l ever suggest to them to make
an imperfect shutter" The witness proved
his own story.
On concluding his statement, the witness,
turning to Mr.. Coleman, said; II trust you