Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-05-26

/
| grounds a report which only wants one vote
that of Mr.. Jones-of being unanimous,
| In favor of Tennessee marble over all other
| materials for the construction of the Mem
phis customhouse. This report is the result
of patient investigation, and rests upon the
evidence of all the architects and stonecut-
tiers of Washington, except Mr.. Clemence A.
| DiddeD, who, however, was forced to admit
that marble was preferable to sandstone, and
| that the material for building, as classified
by the committee, was that which architects
generally adopted. The following is a COM
plete copy Of the
MAJORITY REPORT.
The undersigned, members of the house
| committee on public buildings and grounds,
beg leave to submit the following as the ma
lority report OF said committee, to accompany
senate bill No. COS, providing for the use of
Tennessee marble in constructing the GUS
| tomhouse, postoffice, bonded warehouse and
| United States district and circuit court-rooms
in the city OF Memphis, Tennessee.
In order to enable the house to understand
fully the entire matter embraced in this re-
port, and the reasons which influence the
majority of the committee in the recommend
alton which they make, it is deemed proper
| to give briefly history of former legislation
upon the subject, and the action that has al
ready been had in pursuance thereof. The
erection of public building at Memphis for
thorized by act of congress, approved 1859,
| in which it was provided that the sum of if-
teen thousand dollars should be appropriated
for the purchase of a suitable site for its loca-
ton. In pursuance of this act a lot was pur-
| chased for the sum appropriated, which was
then thought to be proper and eligible one
for the purpose. Nothing more was then
| done in the matter until the twenty-first day
Of February, 1873, when congress passed an
| other act directing the secretary of the treas
ury to cause plans and specifications to be
prepared for the building, and authorizing
him in his discretion to sell the
lot previously purchased, or to exchange
it for more eligible one, and also appropna-
ting the sum Of twenty five thousand dollars
to be used in addition for such purpose.
Subsequently, the supervising architect of the
treasury department visited the city of Mem
pbis and examined the proposed site for the
building, but deemed it entirely too small
for the purpose, and disadvantageously loca
ted to meet the wants and purposes for
which it was designed. He, therefore, en-
deavored to purchase a more desirable one.
as provided for In the act Of congress referred
to, but found that he was unable to do so ex-
cept for a sum largely In excess of that ap-
propriated for the purpose. In this emer-
gency, the city of Memphis. by ordinance of
its general council, donated, free OF charge to
the government, handsome and eligibly To-
Gated lot of land, situated in the center of the
city, embracing an area of three hundred and
sixty-six feet square, and valued at
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and
this grant was afterward confirmed by act
of the legislature of Tennessee, such confirm
alton being deemed necessary by the law-offi-
Ger OF the government, In order to perfect
the title.
By act of congress, approved February
"a, 1877, the government of the United
States accepted this donation, directed the
or Of h1I IN ha
menced, and fixed the limit OF its
cost at the sum of four hundred
thousand dollars. In June, 1877 work was
begun upon the building and the basement
walls were constructed of solid and substan-
tial stone. The supervising architect then
advertised for proposals to furnish granite
marble, sandstone or brick, for its compile
ton. Upon opening the various proposals
received, it was found that only those for
sandstone or brick could be accepted, and
keep the cost of the building within the pre-
scribed limits. In the meantime, it being
thought that a building of the charac-
ter and kind contemplated should
be constructed of a material more durable |
and better suited to the purpose than either |
sandstone or brick, and the proposal to fur
nish Tennessee marble beng, next to these |
two, the cheapest offered, the senate unani.
mously passed the bill under consideration |
The committee, IN order to determine lntelll- |
gently what material in point of economy, |
style and durability 1t would be proper to use |
in the construction of building OF this char |
acter, caused 20 come before subcommittee |
of their number Major General John G. Park, |
of the army engineer corps; Brigadier- Cen |
eral Thos. l.. Casey, corps of engineers and |
commissioner of public buildings and grounds; |
Hon. Edward Clark, architect of the Capitol |
extension; and nearly all the prominent archi- |
tects, stonecutters and builders In the city of |
Washington, and requested them to give |
their views in respect to the different mate |
rails used IN the construction of public build |
ings. The statements of these gentlemen |
were taken down in full by one of the steno- |
graphic reporters of the house, and are here |
with submitted as a part of this report. |
From the information and evidence thus OBJ |
tanned we learn that granite is the most val
liable, In some respects, OF all other building |
Materials that, next to this, marble is the |
more durable, while sandstone is regarded as |
the least suited for building purposes. We |
find, from the concurrent testimony of all the
witnesses whom we have examined, with
single exception, that marble for such pub
lie building as the one contemplated at Mem
phis is In every particular more desirable
than sandstone or brick, and that its extra
cost above that of these other two materials |
would be more than compensated 10y its su-
perior quality as building material, and |
that to adopt 1t IN this instance would be a |
measure of public economy. Specimens of |
Tennessee marble were submitted to and ex-
amined by the witnesses, and they all testi-
fed that, in point of style and durability. it
was equal, II not superior, to any building |
material of similar character to be found in
any part of the United States. In view of !
the facts stated, the size and commercial i'm
portance of the city of Memphis, the extent !
of the government business transacted at |
that point, and the public spirit and liberality
manifested in the voluntary donation of 80
nd UaluQhln n SltG he. hn5l
recommend the passage of the bill.
This report. indorsing the bill which passed |
the senate through Senator Harrls's influence
and efforts, and in spite of unanimously
adverse report, will, am assured, pass the
house, so that the people of Memphis can re-
ly upon it that they will have Federal build
ing worthy of the city and its growing i'm
portance. 1t has the Endorsement of Messrs.
Phil. Cook, chairman; Casey Young, j. A.
Nj kenzie, k. +. Lyon, II. l.. Humphrey,
William Lathrop, A. NJ. Bliss, Francis d.
Collins, L. G: Stone and Benz (. Frank
lin. Mr.. j. s. Jones stands alone, minority
OF one, and has made a minority report that
will have but little weight. Testimony addi-
tional to that forwarded in a previous letter
was given In favor OF the marble and against
sandstone or brick, by Hon. Edward Clark.
architect Of the Capitol extension; Mr.. Wn-.
]. Acker, stonecutter; Mr.. D. NJ. M'Mena-
min, dealer in granite, marble and sandstone;
Mr.. Jacob Veighmeyer, stone cutter and
builder, and Mr.. S. r. Seibert, architect and
builder. Against these and the names of em-
inent engineers and architects already fur
nished you, there stands the name of Didden
aud that of Supervising Architect Hill and
Secretary of-the-T Treasury John Sherman.
sustained by Mr.. Solitary Jones. To this
minority, of little influence and less stand
ing, the house, with the example of the SEN
ate before it, is not likely to yield anything.
The weight of evidence and experience is
against them, and the weight of influence is
more than they can stem or counteract in the
popular branch of the national legislature.
CLAIMS.
The hiil introduced by Mr.. Potter, of New
YORK, for the transfer Of I'll claims against /