Thank you for visiting SNEWPapers!
Sign up free
Daily Globe
Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota
What is this article about?
In Washington congressional hearings on June 30, architect Jno. McArthur testified in the Hill investigation that work on the Philadelphia public building under a modified contract was inferior to the 15% contract. General Stinemetz analyzed charges against Bartlett, Robbins & Co. for extra work on the New York postoffice, with cross-examination set for Monday.
Clipping
OCR Quality
Full Text
WASHINGTON, June 30.—In the Hill investigation, Jno. McArthur, architect in charge of the Philadelphia public building was asked his opinion as an expert whether it cost more to complete the Philadelphia building under the modified contract than it would have cost under the 15 per cent. contract. Objection was made and argument ensued. Finally witness was permitted to answer and said the work under the modified contract was inferior in quality to that performed under the 15 per cent. contract. Witness thought 10 per cent would be a fair estimate as to the superiority of work under the 15 per cent contract.
Bartlett, Robbins & Co.'s case was then taken up and General Stinemetz resumed his analysis of the charges against Bartlett, Robbins & Co. for extra work upon the New York postoffice. The examination of Stinemetz upon this branch of the case was concluded and the committee adjourned till Monday, when Stinemetz will be cross-examined.
What sub-type of article is it?
What keywords are associated?
What entities or persons were involved?
Where did it happen?
Domestic News Details
Primary Location
Washington
Event Date
June 30
Key Persons
Outcome
witness jno. mcarthur testified on contract quality superiority; general stinemetz's examination concluded; committee adjourned till monday for cross-examination.
Event Details
In the Hill investigation, architect Jno. McArthur opined that the modified contract work on Philadelphia public building was inferior to the 15% contract by about 10%. Bartlett, Robbins & Co.'s case involved analysis of extra work charges on New York postoffice by General Stinemetz.