Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-07-09
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.
The Cincinnati Narrow-Gauge Railroad
COnventiOn-RailrOad Freight Dis
crimIDatiOns-HOn. Casey YOung's
Statement i'm Regard to the
CustOmhouse.
Letter of Protest to John sherman
against the Fraudulent Schneider
COntract-The Burned Elevator
Must be Built-Opening Of
the Big Hatchie.

At quarter to four o'clock yesterday after
noon Mr.. Ben Eiseman, president OF the
chamber of commerce, called the regular
monthly meeting to order at the chamber.
About fifty business men were present for the
purpose of participating at the meeting. Mr..
Secretary John S. Toof read the minutes of
the previous meeting, when the following
business was conducted:
RAILROAD CONVENTION.
A communication from the Cincinnati COM
mittee of the National arrow-gauge rail-
road committee, containing an invitation TO
attend the narrow-gau2e railroad convention,
to be held in Cincinnati on the seventeenth
instant, was read and received. The follow
ing committee was appointed: L. ID. Allen,
F. S. Davis, j. T. Petit
GOVERNMENT REPORTS RECEIVED.
Several communications covering govern
ment department reports, comprising sever
al large volumes, were received.
RAILROAD FREIGHT DETERMINATIONS.
Mr. Hanauer, chairman of the freight dis
eliminating committee, submitted lot Of
correspondence had with different railroads,
namely: Chicago, st, Louis, and New Or
leans railroad companies. The committee
was granted further time in which to COM
plete report ON the communications re-
ceived, etc., which report would be presented
in due time to the chamber of commerce.
HON. CASEY YOUNG.
This gentleman having appeared, President
Eiseman called him to the chair and intro
duced him to the chamber. Colonel Young
thanked the chamber for the compliment ten
dered him. As to local matters OF interest to
Memphis, he would say that the passage of
the ~customhouse bill was very troublesome.
1t was violently opposed, but 1t became law.
at the closing hours of congress. Before the
ink in which it was written was dry, and I'M
Ill,
vising architect, or the secretary of the treas
ury, let out the contract to Mr.. Schneider, who
had the sandstone contract. The secretary of
the treasury explained to hun in an interview
that he did so because Mr.. Schneider would
have had claims for damages against the
government because the former contract was
annulled. After warm interview with the
secretary of the treasury, that gentleman
said that the contract given to Mr.. Schneider
would be annulled, and an offer for bids for
Tennessee marble would be made. But for
the prompt action of the chamber of COM
merce, ne Colonel Youngl would have
failed to secure the additional appropriation,
or the passage of the marble bill. If the
marble men of the country had been notified
in due time, the material would have been
supplied at much lower rate. The secretary
of the treasury acted hastily, not from any
improper motive. but from mistaken sense
of public duty. The letter, or protest, which
he addressed to the secretary of the treasury
is as follows:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHINGTON, D. c., July 2, 1873.
STIR deem it my duty to call your atten-
ton to some apparent irregularities IN refer
ence to the construction of the customhouse,
postoffice, ETC., at Memphis, Tennessee, and to
respectfully request that you will make them
the subject of official inquiry, with view to
their correction should they be found to exist.
Soon after the contract was let out (about the
first of May LAST to furnish material for the
building | was informed from reliable
source that Mr.. P. w. Schneider, to whom
the contract was awarded, was not the lowest
bidder; and | have in my possession what
purports to be COPY of all bids taken from
the books OF the supervising architect, from
which it appears that there were at least four
other persons who proposed to furnish the
same material at a less price than was bid by
the person to whom the contract was given.
| was also informed at the same time that the
material proposed to be furnished by Mr..
Schneider illinois sandstone), and accepted
by the supervising architect, was Of an infe-
rior character and wholly unfit to be used In
the construction of public building. Acting
upon this information, and desiring to be COR
rectly advised in the matter, summoned be-
fore the house committee on public buildings
and grounds a number OF architects and
builders, among them several government Of
fcers, and submitted to them specimen
of this sandstone furnished to me
by MIR. Hill, the supervising architect,
requesting them to examine 1t and state its
character as building material. This they
did; and herewith inclose you their report,
in which the information | had formerly re-
ceived in relation to the matter is fully con-
frmed in every particular. During the
progress of this examination, was informed
that the stone had been taken from quarry
recently opened; that no building had ever
before been constructed out OF it, and
| that he had accepted it without making any
test or examination of its quality except such
as could be made by simply handling and
looking at the specimen submitted. After
! the inclosed report was prepared and submit
ted to the house another specimen OF sand
| stone of greatly superior quality was sent me
by the supervising architect, with the infor-
nation that it had been taken from differ
ent strata in the same quarry, and that Mr..
Schneider proposed to substitute that for the
one first presented. An examination of these
two stones exhibits so striking a difference in
their quality as renders it extremely improb.
able that they should have come from the
same quarry; and | am informed by two or
three gentlemen, who | deem reliable,
that as a matter of fact they did not, but that
one of them was taken from an Illinois and
the other from an Ohio quarry. If this is
true, the contractor was evidently trying to
practice a deception upon the architect.
The bill directing the building to be con-
structed of Tennessee marble became law
on the nineteenth of June, and within two or
three days thereafter, without advertisement
or notice to other parties, the supervising ar
chitect Let this contract for furnishing this
new material to the same contractor who had
engaged to furnish the sandstone. This hasty
action was decided upon, am informed, un-
der the apprehension that otherwise the con-
tractor would claim heavy damages of the
government by reason OF the former contract
having been aanulled; but, if l am correctly
informed, this apprehension is entirely I'M
founded, and the contractor Can only claim
very trihing sum for all the loss he has sps-
tanned am told by one or two gentlemen,
who claim to have knowledge of the matter,
that two thousand dollars will cover the en-
tire amount OF such loss. There is a very
general, aud, to my mind, very just COM
plant among the owners of marble quarries
in Tennessee at this action of the department
in excluding all others from the benefits of an
act of congress except a single person, and he
not resident of the State to which the act
specially referred. ] feel that l owe it to the
citizens of my own state, as well as to the
| public interest, to demand that the furnish
| ing of this marble may be opened to public