The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1878-05-08

Mr.. EDlToR:-Perhaps enough has been said
on the subject Of building new school house
on Bracket street, and-perhaps not. Like most
matters of public Importance, when there is no
personal interest at stake, it requires great deal
of talk and hard work to bring results. If
there were chance for. one or two honest
though influential citizens to make "a good
thing out of it," the matter would be greatly
smpli6ed and expedited, regardless of expense.
As it is the Mayor tells US we cannot afford
to build large school house, but we will fix
up the old one at an expense of 81, 1000, and
build an addition or separate building at an ex-
pense of $1O,OOO-that's $1I,OOO Put a pin in
there
He says further-or we so understand him
that although school house large enough to
accommodate 485 scholars can be built for $10,-
600, it would cost $25 600 to build one which
would accommodate 800 or thereabOuts; or in
other words, where according to his own estl-
mate, two separate buildings to accommodate
485 pupils each Cor $40 scholarly can be built
for $4,000, it would cost $4,000 to build
single school house to accommodate 500 only;
we think the estimate of 1000 for repairing
the old building, If properly and thoroughly
done, is equally unreasonable; but never mind,
the whole estimate is SILL 900 and the result
with scholars and large, old building, only
half occupied with the lower rooms used as
cellar. Is that economy? Would not the old
building he paying very poor percentage on the
original investment for such miserably limited
accommodations ? And once repaired would
it not remain an elephant on the city's hands,
a monument of the "penny wise, pound foolish
policy" overshadowiDg the smaller buildings
which has cost US $4,000 and isn't what we
want. Real economy and true wisdom, it seems
to r,oo 10 tn prouida for tho no urnWth nd
increase of the school population for years to
come, rather than to patch up a temporary af-
fair to last out one or two administrations, or
to serve simply as sop to quiet the clamoring
of the discontinued.
Now the Committee on Public Buildings,
while protesting to be public servants, want
their own way in this matter, while they do
not wish to be held responsible if nothing or
next to nothing is done. One gentleman OBJ
jects to having the old building taken down, be
it looks to him like so much additional ex-
pense to the cost of q new building, when in
fact the value of the material when used in the
new building would more than cover the cost of
removing every timber and brick, so that the
actual cost of new school house large enough
to accommodate 800 or 900 scholars would be
no more than If there was no building now
on the spot
Aud what is the estimated cost of such
building? A responsible citizen says he will
pun uIuS6ll uuuoE JULIUS W uuuu Lew Uhioh
two-story building to accommodate 900 pupils
for 900, and this against the sam OF $1l 900
for the building and patching up suggested by
the Mayor aud committee. A tritiing differ
ence of 3d. 900 to obtain large, airy, commodl-
GUS intelligently- built school house to serve the
wants of the comm unity for years to come, in
staed of investing two-thirds of the sum in re-
pairing an old trap which has been q standing
disgrace to the city ever since it was built, and
erecting in the chlldren's play ground another
building which will always be insufficient for
the wants of the district. w.
Mr.. EDIToR:-I see from the report Of the
meeting of the city government Monday even
ing that our city fathers are still struggling
with the Bracket etschoolhouse.T Two propo
sitions are now pending, one from the comnit-
tee on public buildings recommending the tin
kering up of the old building, or rather the
upper stories of it and the building of a new
house on the present playground and in the
shadow of the old house, the whole to cost $11, :
900. The other plan is to take down the old
house and erect new one two stories high,
but large enough to accommodate 800 pupils, at
a cost of $4,000. These two'plans are simple
enough, and it will not require much reflection
to decide which is best. One plan proposes to
cover practically all the land with buildings,
one of which can be used only in part, with
extra cost of heating and caring for two build
ings, with no play ground for the children, and
the new house in the shade of the old. The
other brings the children all together, with
ample play ground on the sunny side, with no
climbing of dangerous stairs into third stories,
with only one house to heat and care for, new,
clean and light, aud the difference 10 cost only
four or five Thousand dollars. Can there be any
question as to which is the best and most
economical?