The Daily state register. [volume] (Carson City, Nev.) 1870-1872, 1871-02-21
TIE STATE CAPITOL AGAIN.

the Board relative To heappropriatlOn
for the relief of the contractor. The
Enterprise POUNDS it opposition To
the passage Of the bill on a serious
misrepresentation of facts. 1t says:
ssrhc Commonwealth has rights rs
we'll rs individuals. Ii is compelled
To meet its contracts Ia the letter, and
the public servant chosen To protect
its interests is unmindful of his duty
when he recommends that $4,000 lie
taken from its bankrupt treasury and
given To an individual who has not a
legal claim TO q single dollar of the
Mr.. Cavanaugh agreed 10
perform the work for which he now
asks extra compensation for just ssh
ooO. Let him and his bondsmen stand
10y the contract"
IL is true that the State ''has rights
a well as indiv iduals;" and while
enjoying the same rights it is, or
SHOULD be, subject to like obligations.
Ii is upon this very ground that the
application for relief is made. 1t is
not true that s'Mr. Cavanaugh agreed
to perform the work for which he now
asks extra compensation for just SSH
Co., Had this been so there would
have been some justification for the
structures of the Enterprise. on the
contrary, he asks for compensation for
the reason that he did NOT agree To
perform the work he has performed,
and did NOT agree To furnish the State
any such building rs that which the
Legislature now occupies. "I.ct him
and his bondsmen stand by The on
tract SAYS the Enterprise. Has the
State stood by its share of the contract?
Has Il done what il agreed TO do i'm the
premises? Did il furnish the dressed
stone for the use of the contractor a.
fast as It was required? Far from it!
The loss sustained by Mr.. Cavanlugh
from this single item amounted, we
are informed on good authority, 10
about So 900. Who i responsible for
this neglect or ~rcf1sa! on the part or
the state to comply with the express
stipulations Of the contract Ger
tainly not Mr.. Cavanaugh, who
brayely went ahead and prose-
cuted the work 10 completion,
Notwithstanding the state mad broken
the contralt in this important partic,t-
lar, and thrown upon him the burden
which the State should have borne.
''iet him stand by his contract, - in
deed! let the State stand 10y rrs con-
tract and fulfill Il, instead of cnticing
honest men into undertakings rcn-
dercd impossible 10y the neglect go
give il no harsher nmneI of the agents
Of the State. Does any maj suppose
that Mr.. C~avanaugh, OF any RESPONSE
BILE person, would have taken the con-
tract to erect such a building n, the
State Capitol for SSi, 600, and furnish.
dress and transport the stone himself.
And yet this was Just what the con.
tractor was compelled to do-and
more. Tho building itself il a very
different structure from that origi
nally planned. From foundation
- turret the plans were changed
IN numerous respects. These al
lcralions were made under til,
authority of the Board Of Capito
Commissioners, ordered and made II
the interest of the State. After havin,
thus so modified and enlarged the
plan OF the building as to entail al
expense nearly double Of that whicl
would have constructed n buildin,
such as originally contemplated, woul,
it be an act of justice for the State
now, when il has got possession of tb
building, to turn around and repudiat
payment? Such n proposition is
mockery of ~justice-an act of infam.
which we cannot believe the State ca
be guilty of. The fact that the Boar
of Capitol Commissioners, who ough
TO know more about the necessity fo
these changes, and their value TO til
State, than any one, unanimously REQ
ommend the allowance specified
the bill before the Legislature, ougf
to be sufficient to satisfy evefy III
prejudiced mind that these additions
expenses should be promptly paid
IL is a portion OF their duty to kno'
all the facts, and toacquaint the Legis
iatSsre with them. They have don
80; and their report bears out th
statement which we made a few day
ago. On that report alono there ca
he no question about what the stat
should do in this matter. The bi
provides for the payment of the Cap
tol rs it will be handed over TO u
State. Ii is not such a buildin
as was originally contracted for, b'
"A better one Will the Enterpri,
c-ountenance the proposition that wht
private individual enters into a co
tract for the construction of a dwell
ing, and then fails TO furnish the III
terial according to contract, and in n
dition, directs alterations nearly dou
ling the value of the building, that