New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1883-07-14
Mr.. HILL ON TIE WITNESS STAND.
EXAMINED AS TO THE WORK DONE BY BARTLETT
ROBBINS g. co.

WASHINGTON, July 13.-In the Hlll investi-
CATION to-day Mr. Coleman called ATTENTION 70 III her
view in The 81 Louis Post Dispatch OF June 23 Win
William H Bliss United States tor inc
Eastern District of Missouri, charging the supervising
Architect with gross frauds and rejecting on the COM
miftee Mr. Coleman desired have Mr. Bliss called as
n ujrpess The chairman statsd that MI. Bliss aenieo
having uttered any reflections on tho commteee' anu
while there foundation for the charges na"e
in the interview they were not true rs reported Aer
some discussion the chairman said that the conn'tse
would take under consideration Mr. Coleman oe"AAo
that Mr.. Bliss be examined
The defence called John L. Patterson accountant Oh
the Supervising Architects Office to contradict MT
Stinemez statement OF the cost OF the extra "orR
performed upon the New York Post Office.
C. r. Dixon. jr~ of the Dix Island Gran
ite Company the next wltness Inc
witness den,ed that there had been any combina-
on and said that verbal orders were Issued requiring
the work 20 DO done In proper manner ana rs
speedily NJ possible No order was ever Issued thst
workmcn should do less than an honest days work
Men were being discharged continually because taey
did not cut enough The witnoss knew OF no COM
bpaion with ofker companies 10 raise Sooooo 10 DO
used in securing modification of the contracts Inc
were made Instance OF the Govern
nent The company made mora In some respects undcr
the modified than under the original contractA MI
Hill was supervising architect when the modinea con-
tracts were made
AT MT. C0einhns reQucst, tnc tcaoucc o@4e's %A''
to the stand to testify In the Bartlett, Robbins 20
case He said that recollection OF the extra work
done upon the New-York Post Oihce Building was
almost wholly confined TO the records OF his bureau
He said: "1he letters we got from MT Sunemen IN
answer TO questions did ask inficatei that ne was
soreheaded aud could get no satisfaction oui OF MIL
Mr.. Coleman read several OF Mr StnemetLs reports
complaining OF the work done by Bartlett BoUeins a
Co. The witness could not remember having READ inen
and said be mad read several hundred thousand let
tiers since date of those reports HHd called upon
Mr. aksioft superinteDcenL Tor report uiou the
mise why Oaksnott had requested the department To
instruct MIN certify to the Dill Tor extra Work ad
cent men TO Baltimore look INTO the charges pu not
know United states hnd suffered great damage
pefe feir and through It's bad quallty In
the majority of aside from the oullahSs con-
sfructed under his supervisory largo buldngs were
warmed by steam instead OF hot water, peoraee tne
steam ar paratns was much cheaper though Inferior.
That Is the milk IN tins coc0anu, sara hr. Soie-
man: that Ia why all advertisements caHeo ioI
hot.water apparatus because no one maze theh Out
Bartiett RobBns & To-"
Mr. Toflen declared that other nrms made hotwater
apparatus believe thai Bartlett Robbins
Co. eOt three cut OF feur OF the contracts Ior neat
ing apparatus Mr.: Hayward mad been sinpioyea 10
make the plans for large puoc buildings because Wit
ness knew OF else eoinpetentto 40 the work III
would been ridiculous 10 have advertised Ior such
plans Witness knew that Hayward was Ia inc emp oy
OF the firm ut the time lie made the pians bhftttt,
Robbins d Co. cot the greater portion Oh the
repair work they usually the lowest MD
dtis Tor contract work Small Jobs were given to them
because they reliable. and as large part OF inc
original work OF their construction was measure
Of convenience. economy aud safety ,,.
Alter Iurther questions aud answers the commit
tee then adjourned until Tuesday the cairm an remark
ing hoped 80 close up the inyestleatien next
week MT Coleman replied thai tue committee nnght
auiourn pleased but the prosecution would not
le driven % close up toe case.