132 architects to the nation
be a candidate for the place. In any case, Walter did not feel that the
charges would be substantiated and believed that Hill would be re-
tained.54
During the trial, the prosecution failed to prove conspiracy and the
court discharged Potter and Hill from the case.  The court went so
far as to disclose, in view of the case submitted by the prosecution,
that [they] . . . should never have been indicted. 55 In the end, all the
trial proved was that the stonework for the custom house and the
contracting methods were unsatisfactory and that the grand jury was
guilty of  extreme folly in being  moved by blind wrath to lay its
charges, without weighing the personal bearing of the evidence be-
fore it, in the idea that if it indicted all of the principal persons who
were concerned in the work, it might find among them some one
who was responsible. 56 Potter s defense lawyer, Leonard Swett from
Chicago, wrote to Secretary Sherman,  as a looker on at this trial for
another party nothing has occurred reflecting upon Mr. Hill in any
manner whatsoever. 57 Upon the decision of the court, Thomas U.
Walter wrote a letter to Hill, attesting to his confidence in Hill all
along, adding,  Your triumph is so signal that I cannot refrain from
tendering you my hearty congratulations. 58
Hill s acquittal still left seeds of doubt in Secretary Sherman s
mind as to who was responsible for the mismanagement of the
Chicago building: the supervising architect or the superintendent. In
referring to his doubts, in December 1879 Mullett characterized Hill
to Sherman as  incompetent, untruthful, and corrupt and that  if
he is not himself corrupt, he is but the creature and tool of those who
are. For these reasons, Mullett claimed that he declined the positions
of superintendent of the St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Chicago buildings
because the situation would render him  unable to correct the exist-
ing evils, or protect the interests of the Government, or my own rep-
utation. 59 Hill survived these accusations and spent the next two
years in relative tranquillity.
The elevation of Chester A. Arthur as president in September 1881,
following the assassination of President James Garfield, brought into
play a new cast of characters in the Treasury Department. When
Charles J. Folger was appointed secretary of the treasury in Novem-
ber 1881, Washington was again flooded with rumors regarding Hill s
possible dismissal. This time, it appeared that William G. Steinmetz,
then a partner of Mullett in New York City, might gain the appoint-
ment. Mullett denied the story  in a letter published throughout the
country. 60 The American Architect feared dissatisfied contractors in-
spired the efforts to remove Hill: