Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-01-31

the number Of Commissioners, now eight,
exceeds the number defined by law.
The law Of the code Of Tennessee, sec o.
ton ll5, provides that there shall be
not less than three nor more than five,
so that, in constituting the Jail Commis'
sioners, not only did they transcend the
order Of the Court, but also its authority (:
First, by appointing more than lawful
number, and substantially adding an'
other. The legal effect Of this we do not
deem IL our duty TO inquire into; nor do
we suppose il would be profitable TO the
county, or any Of the parties involved in
this Investigation, to do So only to as
certain whose conduct we are required
TO examine into
Several ofthe Commissioners have been
practical mechanics one Of them was Il
man OF large experience and judgment
in that line but we are not able TO learn
| from the proof, or from the investigation,
that the action Of the Commissioners is
consistent with what might be expected
Of experienced and practical mechanics,
or good judges and observers of build
ings.
We find, further, in the record book,
that they organized on the 18th Of Jan
uary, 1866, and met about sixteen times
during the year four times in January,
three times in March, twice in July,
September and December, once in May,
August and November, and not at all in
February, April, June or October At
all the meetings a majority, and some
times little over majority Of the whole
number, appeared to have been present;
and as appears by the proof, they have
given but little attention to the progress
of the work. As business men, however,
otherwise engaged, they we're hardly to
be expected, without salary or compen
sation. to give all the time and attention
and care to the work that its interest re.
quired during the building Of the Jail
And, while we diligently inquired into
the proof, otherwise, we we're unable to
find any collision or effort or purpose in
any of them TO disparage the public in.
terest in their acts. We are satisfied
that the existing trouble and complica-
ton proceeded mainly and unconsciously
from them.
The contract for the building of the
Jail, according to the plans and specih-
cations originally prepared, was certainly
very favorable to the county, and the
building, as designed, combined strength,
durability and ornament; COMFORTING
with the architectural demand of the
times, il would have beenan acquisition
to the county The alterations made by
additions thereto, and substractions
therefrsm, in some respects unauthor-
lied, do not tend materially to detract
from its merits, if they do so at all; but
much trouble and confusion have resulted
from the failure of the Commissioners to
project these alterations, and embody
them in the specifications, before award
ing the contract This is true, necessa-
rily, with such building Notwithstanding
we fad the contract provides basis and
rates on which the alterations may be
generally estimated Mr. Bickiord, in
fact, as appears from the proof, refused
to sign a contract as one of the Commits
sioners, because of the evident confusion
to result as above stated.
But, beside the alterations made before
the contract was awarded, we find there
are changes made, some Of which are
prejudicial to the building and unneces-
sarily increasing the cost, and Others
beneficial We instance, first, the en-
largement of the cells, and consequently
the enlargement of the jail, so as TO
make the cells contain two instead of one
person each, which was beneficial; sec
ond, the alteration of the roof from wood
to iron, which, while the original design
was not the best, did not increase the
security or durability of the building, but
did increase the cost thereof about Sl2,.
0C0 the same being out of reach of any
possible danger of fire, and iron being
as much subject to decay from rust as
wood from rotting; and, thirdly, the
brick wall around the building, which
would have been altogether necessary,
when the building was finished, for the
purpose of security but building it at
the time when material and labor were
so high, and the building unfinished, it
wagan involvement of expenditure unne-
cessary at the time; in fact, an incum-
brance of the ground, and in the way Of
the work.
The previous alteration, substituting
brick for stone in the building, was well
enough; the cost of the material not i'm
pairing the efficiency and appearance of
the house, and reducing the cost. The
substitution of brick for tagging, though
reducing the cost, was bad enough for
the county, because it furnished unnec.
essary paving for such an object This
change, however, land we speak of the
whole stone-work,) was to the advantage
of the contractor, because the price he
contracted to receive tor the same was
much below the actual value thereof.
But these last-named changes, and all
those made in the specifications and the
contract, were before the Court and we've
ratified and recognized by it, however
unconsciously. This is a matter not
subject to comments of this committee,
and we only mention it by way of ex
planning the point Of which it would be
otherwise expected of us TO speak
We further notice that there has been
an evident want Of harmony among the
ommissioners concerning the building
and their duties. They seemed, however,
DESTROYS, severally, to act for the best
For this want of harmony among them.
selves, they could not act with the archi
tect and, some of them, with the financial
agent of the county, except diScordantly |
and unhappily, and of necessity prejudi- |
cial to the county and of interest in |
hard. 1t could not be otherwise. The
architect at variance with the Commits
sioners, not meeting together; the one
disclaiming and ignoring the action of
the Commissioners, the other disposing |
with and ignoring the architect; aud yet |
none of them corrupt, as far as we have |
been able to find by the sworn testimony
of each other. We do not see how this |
discordant element, so prejudicial 10 the
work, is to be remedied, except by the