Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-04-17

surface. and in the high school 80 feet to
SOO. With this amount of light no room
will be darkened when shades are lowered
to keep out the sunshine.
Mr.. burgers plan is spaced, and ample
desk-room shown for sixty-three primary
and forty-eisht secondary pupils to each
room. The three stairways are Of equal
use, each carrying the pupils to two
rooms. The plan is SO made that all
doors open outward, an essential thing in
public building. One stationary wash
stand is provided in each school-room.
Ample provision is made for heating By
either furnaces OF steam.
The ventilation is of the most approved
kind-being four registers for foul air in
each school room and one in each cloak
room, connected by flues lined with tin into
hot air stack, discharging above the
roof. This building will contain 14,OOO
cubic yards, and, if the same quality of
| work is done, must cost proportionately
less than one containing 19, 900 yards.
ROBERT A. EVANS,
II. z. RHOADs.
Mr.. Rhoads offered the minority report
rs substitute for the majority report.
MIR. d. Hartman said he was not pre-
pared to vote for either plan, not having
had an opportunity of examining them.
MIR. Wilson argued in favor of the adop-
tion of the majority report The plans
had been carefully considered by the COM
mittee and their excellencies and defects
closely scrutinized. He argued that the
middle rooms in Mr.. Burgers plan was
fatally defective both in height and vcnti-
latiOn, and none of the other rooms had
windows ON more than one side. Mr..
Burgers plan sacrifices everything to a
left light, and the rooms will be too
dark on dark days Or when the blinds are
pulled down to exclude the sun.
MIR. Slaymaker added in behalf Of Mr..
Davis's plans that they had been prepared
for Harrisburg school, and might require
some modification to adapt them to our
wants. He thought the attack made upon
the plans by the minority of the commit
tee to be unfair and unjust. Mr.. Slay-
maker also desired to make acknowledge
ment of the courtesy of the Harrisburg
school board in permitting these plans to
remain for so long time in the hands of
|
Mr.. RhoaGls explained that Mr. Burger S
| plan would also admit of notifications. If
the board felt the necessity of having
| light from two sides of each room there
| would be no difficulty in having it SO ar
ranged. The architect had adopted the
idea of advanced and experienced educa-
tors in having the light admitted from the
left side only.
Mr.. Spurrier objected to Burgers plan
on account of the imperfect light and VEN
tilation Of the middle rooms, and Mr..
Erisman made the same objection, adding
that the reason why New York architects
had recommended left light on one side
of the room only was because in Il closely
built-up city it was generally impossible to
get light from more than one side, and the
left being the best side, it was therefore
recommended. The Columbia school,
built with light OH one side only. had
been proven to be very defective in light.
Mr.. Rhoads explained that Mr.. Burgers
plan was very different from that of the
Columbia school with which it had been
compared. The Columbia school room
was 43 feet in length and lighted by three
small windows in one end of the building
Mr.. Burgers plan provided for three
large windows not in the end, but in the
side of the building, the distance from the
light of the most distant pupil being little
more than 90 feet.
Mr.. BrOsius made an argument of some
length in behalf of the plan of Mr.. Davis.
The majority of the committee had not
thought it necessary to point out all
defects in the Burger or other
plans as the minority had done in
the Davis plan. The minority report
shows the ear-marks of an architect, and is
evidently not the production of the gen.
tlemen who have signed it. Mr.. Brosius
took up the objections of the minority
seriatim and proceeded to answer them,
and point out greater objections in the
Burger plan.
Mr.. McCOmsey asked permission to give
reasons for the vote which he was about to
give. He said in considering the various
plans presented to the committee the
choice soon narrowed down between two,
about which there was still difference of
opinion-both presenting more or less good |
and bad features; and either of which, if |
adopted, would have to be modified Hav-
ing to vote for one or the other he had |
tried to balance the best features of both,
and to his mind, 1T the time, the balance
was in favor of the Burger plan, and he
had voted for it in committee. But there
was very large majority against him,
amongst whom were some of the most
practical and experienced members of the
board, whose judgment he respected, and
he would therefore vote for the majority
report.
a vote being taken on the motion to
substitute the minority for the majority
report it was rejected, the yeas and nays
being as follows:
Yeas-Messrs. Eberman, Evans, Harris,
Johnston, McConomy, Morton, Rhoads,
ochmid, Schwebel, Smeych, Snyder-11.
Nays-Messrs. Brosius, Cochran, Eris-
man, McComsey, Richards, Slaymaker,
Spurrier, Westhaeffer, Wilson. Yeislcy, c.
Lecher, G. w. Zecher, and Warfel presi-
lcnt-13.
The following named members asked to
De excused from voting, not having formed
IN opinion as to which plan was the bet
or: Messrs. D. Hartman, Levergood and
Marshall.
MIR. Eberman moved to amend the Davis
'lan by providing that the building shall
'e an eight-rOom instead of twelve room