The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1877-04-06

NEW
dieting The undersigned. however do not assume 10
be qualified 70 instruct the Senate upon question OF
20 cr.c, y certain
tiers OF importance which have been dsregarded or
left in obscurity 10 the report Of tho majority.
Frst-They think the senate should be advised that
u appears that the cost OF completing the new Capitol
under the present plans, exclusive Of the domc and
from responsible conraclors With ample security
q little over 81, 500 900. and thai OF this amount
qursd TOR tho interior work. Tho more i'm.
portant changes up TO this time made N the
plans Of n, building ~ the present ,n
changes set forth IN report last year given TO tho
Senate. Briefly, u was stated that tho commission
found Tho wallis improperly constructed aud ncon-
venisnt uncoulh, awkward aud poor yet extravagant
arrangements and style Of work in The senate and As
corridors starcases and approaches OF the building
No attempt has been maze 70 show your committee
exaggerated. During the last year tt
DEvEcrIvE WALLS
have been removed ana SOUND oucs built In their
place, and various arches piers and other structures
necessary 10 make the building safe aud strong have
been erected Your committee was promised BY coun-
sci appearing be that some OF the moro import.
the changes would be shown TO be unnecessary
undesirable, Objectionable and wholly cxtrava-
CANT II attempt made 10 fulfil these promises
Il entirely failed. The undersigned arc satisfied from
personal examination and tho general testimony OF
experts that all changes have been generally TO the
advantage OF tho building and the credit oil tho COM
mssion which has secured them
IMPORTANT FIGURES
Annexed to the report OF the majority statement Of
q comparative cost - gwen as ioows:-
Cost OF completion OF building az per pres
eut design. 20
Cost oil terrace. oolov1 w
Cost of building according 10 old plan.. 4,245,22a 70
Difference in favor Of old plan........ ss92.2l2 10
This statement without qualification or explanation,
presents method OF approach 10 building placed
side hill, with It's entrance floor thiry-slx feet above
the grade Of adjoining streets, winch shall DO less
formidable both In appearance and fact, than
straight uninterrupted stars Of sixty steps
or more, as was contemplated in the plans
OF 1869. It Is u tentative study Of one of
several methods OF accomplishing that object, and has
commission. The commission OF OPINION that
some expedent OF the kind would be found necessary
whenever the buildings in front OF the Capitol should
BIO removed and IN compliance with The law Of 1876
report OF It's cost was procured. II nothing Of the
kind IS needed as Is assumed in the estimate OF the
cost OF proceeding under the OLD plans, or needed 1t
Is thought that less costly structure will answer tho
purpose, the Item should be removed from
statement OF the cost alike Tor both
plans This alone would mako tho comparative
statement more favorable 10 the new plan by the sum
oil $780, UO0 Furt hermore, 1t should be Understood
by Senate that the comparative statement neither
takes account OF the obligations OF outstanding con-
tracts Tor supplies and work upon building OF
the expense that must be incurred In taking down the
work which would DO made useless by the proposed
RETURN TO THE OLD PLAN AGAIN.
statement arc presented as equally authentic and Al
though the committee was promised that the
the Su,ia,ns according 10 tho old plans
would DO proved ny bids IRON RESPONSE
bic parties, no such o ia have Deen presented,
accuracy OF The architect, who, in 1861 and again In
1852 estimated the cost OF the entire building, dome
approaches included 1T less than 81 DOC, 00O the
outlay upon having now already exceeded 81 600 0O0
MISLEADING THE LHGIsLATURE.
Finally that tins comparative statement Of cost may
q n n I
reference 10 the new pan ~ not based on the lowest
bids received, these IN some Cases having been SGT
aside by the commission account OF inior-
malitics, which may DO corrected Accepting
these bids tho amount given as the cost
be further reduced ny moro than $500 900. .ho
minority therefore feel safe ~ assuming that the state
with many others which heretofore from time time
have led th Legislature SO widely astray !. Is as
serted by tht majority OF tho committee that there
was no authority given the New Capitol Commission
10 make any changes IN the style Of architecture Of
the building but just what the Legislature intended
can only be inferred from It, onactnentR The
law OF 1876 required approval ny the commits
sion OF the completed plans aud spec .hatons There
were no such plans in existence Ut that time They
mad TO be prepared and were so prepared late In 1876
and not completed until January IL 1885, as up
pears by the report OF the Commissioners TO the Sen.
alto last year. These, when complete, tho commission
did not approve New plans were then, therefore,
necessarily prepared in which extensive changes were
proposed in all parts OF the building not yet actually
Constructed. These plans lard by the COM
mission before the Legislature aud received its un-
quulueQ sanction, except tue comparatively unlms
poranI part oi them against which as involving the
change OF style the remonslrance Of certain architects
had been received Tue question Of approving this
part OF the new plans by the act OF 1879 referred
10 the Land Commission and the Governor, and by
them u was finally and legally determined In the
judgment OF the undersigned tho commission has not
exceeded It's authority but has rendered the State SER
vice OF great value in
OVERCOMING GLAZING DEFECTS
Of portions OF the Old plans and laying before the
Legislature In 1876 estimate OF the total OF
pieting the building which is now verified ny actual
bds from competent contractors, secured by proper
bonds, that whether this work hereafter done in
part entirely by contract the State has, Tor the rst
time IN its history the assurance Of knowing what 1t
will cost In view OF the TACT moreover that return
penditurc for work already done upon the upper story
OF the building during the year, the recommends
ton Of the majority clearly too absolute 10 be recon-
ced with a truly economical policy.
The undersigned have confidence IN the ability OF the
present commission TO deal wisely with the archtectu
raj question with all Others and 10 II they
mend that the whole matter be again referred.
). H. HAMMOND
concur generally in the above. but do wish TO
be regarded expressing confidence In the estimates
OF the OF completing the building mado by either
or the disagreeing architects On the contrary, am
satisfied the building complete in every way Will
expended. Neither do wish to be considered
the building is question OF architectural taste,
and my opinion concerning such matter is worthy Of
consideration. JOHN g. JACOBS.
INSURANCE INVESTIGATION.