, 1879-08-03

of the city officials who had charge OF tho
letting of the contracts, and, IT not noe' II
should subject those making 1t 70 pfoseeo7~
ton for malicious libel. But the testimony
of number of rival contractors VINO "e.'
bidding for the work, including e7on 14D
WALLER himself, proves that they ali nsuloo
upon tho samo plans as wcre subnaiteeo 10
THoN1rssoN s REED, who secured the co.,
tract; thesa gentlemen have al aoentlneo
the plans according to which the worS ID no"
being done as the very same as those upon
which they made up their estimates and oe-
tormined their bids. 4 report OF experts
which is false in the most important point II
contains is ccrtainly not cnt;t}ea to credit IN
any other respect unless fully cosroporateo
by trustworthy evidence; instead OF cor
roboration, however, the other points in tho
report have been contradicted utmost MS
broadly as tbs libel in regard to the two sets
Of plans.
As matter Of fact, the experts modify
their first conclusions very materially IN an
swering Mayor HAnR1sos's questions, though
they have made no re-examinaaon Of the
work. Their answers, for the most part, are
vague, 1ippant: and evasiTe. For 1nstapce,
in reply to direct question whether certain
defects they had reported were sufficient to
impair tho stability of the building, they say
that their sssuperfcial view OF the walls
and "partial knowledge of the Internal de-
fciencies is ''entirely too partial basis for
calculating tho problem" These gentlemen
ought to have confessed the same super
fciality and partiality in their original re-
port. They were also asked whether they
beloved the defects will ultimately cause the
destruction of the building; they reply in
quibbling fashion that, "if this building is
not destroyed by some convulsion Of Nature,
or torn down for its site upon which to erect
some better building, then the defects will
ultimately cause its destruction" They do
not say whether they think this ultimate
destruction will come in two hundred years
or more this simply means that the build
ing will wear out and decay in the lapse OF
ages, rs most buildings are apt to do.
Finally, when asked If it will be safe to pro-
coed with the building, they quibble still
further, but conclude that certain additions
and alterations will 81 make it safe to con-
tinue the construction" It is evident that
they desira to s1nirch the building as much
as possible, but dare not 60 to the extent OF
recommending its demolition. The five gen.
tlemen who signed this communication will
find that they have not done themselves any
credit when it is compared with the first re-
port. They are the same gentlemen who
asserted so positively that two sets of plans
had been submitted for bids, which is not
true.
The facts in tho case would seem to be
these: The contracts were let at low terms ;
the stone contractors have endeavored
to comply with the requirements of their bid
and the plans; the so-called = defects in
certain stones ere not Of character to I'M
pair the strength Of tho building, and are so
placed that they do not mar it's appearance ;
thu brick contractors, under the influence OF
Eb WALKER, have endeavored to shirk their
part Of tho work wherever it was possible,
and have used cheap and inferior brick
there are not more blemishes in the structure
rs a whole than are common in similar
structures, and not nearly SO many as in the
County Building the stone contractors are
reaay to maintain the integrity of their work,
and make good any real defects. Now let
the building so ahead under the closest super
vision Of Mayor HARRISON and his subor-
dinates; let a, practical and impartial per
soua1 examination determine what changes,
if any, shall be made in the work already
done; and, finally, let tile nemont Stone
Ring once more step back after another and,
it is to be hoped, final defeat in their pur-
pose to get control Of this structure.