The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1853-04-21

nowhere to excite apprehension TO the stability OF
the structure"
The gentlemen detailed from the typographical bureau
says: The stone employed in The foundations is granite.
aud oil an excellent and durable quality. The lower
courses Tor some four feet of height laid in cement
o hydraulic lime and sand, and at the points examined
byus have already attained sufficient degree OF hard
ness The masonry Of the rest OF the walls is OF The
same Kind OF stone laid generally n mortar composed Of
at iime, hydraulic lime, and sand The body OF the walls
is OF rubhe work The buuresses are coursed with
rqbhe backing. Proper attention seems 10 have been
observed IN selecting for the points requiring the greatest
resistance stones OF the largest manageable size; as for
example, at the angles and wherever the masonry has
been earned to the greatest deph while, upon the east
ronis aud especially for walls intended 10 support colon
aides only stones oil smaller dimensions have been used
Showing sufficient care in the selection and distribution
oi The materials"
will refer one other testimony on the character OF
the stones used in these foundations is the report OF
Professor Walter r. Johnson. who was employed BY The
investigating committee of the House OF Representatives
o lest the material He remarks . The pressure
square loot OF the bearing surface at the base OF the
supestruclure will be thousand five hundred and
sevenytwo pounds, which is but the hundred and
IHffLfiH parl OF the absolute strength OF lie weakes
sample of the blue stone which has been tested during
the investigation" This document is found appended TO
my annual report Tor the past year. ......
No testimony OF more reliable character and from
higher in reference TO the foundations Of the
Capitol be adduced shall therefore Iorbear giving
any further impressions OF my own and resi- the com
plants OF the Commissioner OF Public Buildings in this
particular on the testimony here given
The Commissioner further states that he several times
demonstrated with anst the oil such stone; that
appeared TO be controlled by Mr.. Strong that the
OF the bad stone continued and the consequence
was, we were Obliged 70 procure large quantities OF
granite al cost OF probably S5 perch, 10 supply the
place OF stone which by contract 10 be furnished at
81 25 per perch: aud he then TO the conclusion
that he work has cost more than double what il ought
10 cost" But these are by means the facts OF The
The granite here spoken OF procured for the
pes the ambs and the askew backs OF the arches and
there several for using IL instead OF blue
rock any one of which would have been sufficient 10
render the change udicious. One the unmslaka-
bic tendency of both houses OF Congress- manifested
by their al the last session. have the found
atoms possess the utmost possible degree Of strength.
second was, the appropriation being SO long
delayed the contractors were not at liberty TO the
winter and early spring in getting a stock OF mate
rial ahead and the clamorous to 60 TO work
And, thirdly, found during the past year, by my own
calculations that large portion OF the biuero which
cut by days work cost above 81 per superficial foot
for the labor alone exclusive OF tools and supernte nd
enee, which agrees with the estimate made by the Com
missioner of Public Buildings stated in his testimony
70 continue The days work system any longer on This
branch OF the work considered would be doing mani
lest injustice 10 governments and Ia view OF all these
considerations, contract WAS entered into with MIR.
Emory, the contractor Tor the granite sub-basement al
25 cents per superficial foot for cutting and 50 cents per
cubic foot for the stone. few figures will show
whether the change not iudcious one far
as cost is concerned:
There are l09,7s7 cubic feet of granite al so
cents per loot, which amounts 10 SS7 .s29
And ga ,2Is feet OF cutting, at rs cents SO ,552
Making l4l ,39l
This lo9,7s7 cubic feet of granite contains
1891 perches at 25 ieet 10 the perch, which.
ii made OF blue rock, as The Commissioned
suggests, would have cost, al So IS 80 s79
And Ihe 2l4,24s feet OF cutting would have
cost not only according TO my own calcula.
ton, but also according 10 the opinion of the
Commissioner, as expressed IN his testimony,
al least 2l4,24S
Making 224,l27
Here then is difference OF above $50 900 in favor of
the plan havepursued-making obvious beyond doubt
that The granite Is the cheapest Bat, supposng 1t
10 have been more expensive, II makes lar beauii-
ul and perfect work, Is consistent with the
OF members OF Congress, and has enabled us 10 pro-
gress much more rapidly haa could have done with
ont II.
As 10 the charge Of the Commissioner that the work
has double what It ought 10 cost which charge has
been reiterated throughout the country, have particu
arly 10 remark that it is simply an assertion without
proof and that ia not subsantated in any OF the tesli
mony by anything but opinion, aud that Of preudiced
pelsons who have been disappointed in obtaining con-
tracts or discharged from the work.
Now, il must be evident, from the statements have
made, that The assertion alluded TO is not rue and
hesitate 10 say that the work has cost much less.
IN proportion, than any other public work throughout
the District
A. 10 my being controlled by Mr. Strong" and, a.
the Commissioned asserts IN another part oil hs testimony
the subordinate being above the principal" il not
the case. make It a point TO keep good terms with
all with whom am compelled 10 mnge professionally
and TO rule, as lar az possible, without disturbing the
equanlinIy OF those am directing ! remember o bat
two instances, during the whole work, in which Mr.
Strong did not receive my orders kindly and respectfully
and pTote 10 carry Them out; and both these occa-
sons they strictly complied WITH though not kindly
How far he may have deceived in matters which
in his power TO keep from coming under my obser.
gauon, you may Judge from the testimony but could
not be induced to lower myself by quauelng with him,
any elsc 10 crafty The personal aunoslties OF the
Commissioner My intercourse with him was kind aud
gepllemanly, but he never controlled me.
The Commissioner has obleced TO The bricks and so
nave |. When The contract was taken, | had doubts
whether the bricks could he furnished equal to the sam
pie Tor the money but the contractor gave undoubted
cuty, and no other lett but accept the bid
Some ol the first bricks thai delivered objected TO-
and would not consent TO receive them II that
the yard was new, and that The next kiln would be bet
ter but there vas very lille Improvement, and finally
refused 10 receive any bricks from that quarter, as the
clay was eydenty not good The contract was then
assigned TO another pariy, with considerable improve.
meni but was st dissatisfied, aud rejected many OF
the ofcEs u was then assigned 10 Messrs Bylngon
~ 20, established bfick-makers OF Washington, who
have gone on with the delivery OF very good bricks al
iholh They have had to do il at very heavy sacrifice
As held IN my hanis .ervaon OF 10 per all
ihal had beea delivered, and have ample security
peed the delivery al 50 81 per thousand, when the
bricks were bringing 50 in open market
Although have had much vexaiion in reference 10
the brleks, have the satisfaction 10 know that every
part OF the Dnck-wok IN which strength is required ia
composed OF bucks fully adequate 10 the purpose In
this particular Mr. John Dowd tesiiies that 10 the
construction, stability, and durability OF the arches be
eye they are nfeio other arches ever Constructed
and erected ~ any OF the public buildings IN the District
OF Columbia"
Ibe commissioners assertions IN reference 10 = ma
sNg he arches two bricks thick instead ot one"
hfey wrong The thick ness of these arches was esab-
ished on the FIRST drawings, before any contract was
oil hear dan IA IA.