The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1881-01-29


public.
The price paid by the committee ia prope
one, and is the price the architects employed
invariably obtain as they inform us, while In fac
they have agreed 10 do more work than Is uSua
on account Of the requirements Of the case.
We look upon the employment Of an architec
in the same light as II the county was to employ
Il lawyer TO conduct case in court or to give
legal opinion. We would certainly not lool
around FOR the cheapest man, but would select
person in whom We had confidence that he would
and could represent and defend our interests.
While therefore your committee have an eyc
to economy in all matters pertaining 10 budinS{
we felt, however, the necessity of employing
first class architects, believing that this would
prove to lie economy in the end.
The ncXS charge, that Mr.. Randall receives
commission on the iron work in the jail when the
contractors for such work are willing to furnish
plans and specifications for nothing, seems sd
absurd to us as to hardly necessitate an answer
That every contractor would gladly furnish
plans and specifications for work which I've is 10
perform admits of no doubt, and If this idea were
followed out there would be no occasion to EN-
ploy an architect at all, for we could even gel
plans ana specification for the court house free
of charge, on the basis that the contracHor|
should furnish the same.
Now if there is any part of the jall building
which requires close inspection and thorough.
plans and specifications, it is certainly the iron
work in the prison part OF the building, and the
committee would be satisfied with nothing less
than the opinion Of u competent and dtSnterested
person that before the letting Of the contract the.
plans for this work were all right, and that when
the work is done it be in accordance with the
plans and specifications.
II some architects depend upon contractors for
plans aud specifications for the iron-work for |
jails, it is probably because they don't know
enough TO get them up themselves.
The charge that the committee rave allowed.
the architects their necessary travelling expenses
is true, and there was no way of getting around
il except by appointing Mr.. FuIness, who re-
sides in Ottawa. But Mr.. Furncss was dropped |
by the unaL imous consent OF The committee even
before terms were talked Of, for reasons which
are the property Of the committee, utwhlch tho |
Board may know if they insist upon having inc I
information.
The charge that Mr.. Beers is to receive $1,000
il his plan is not adopted by the Board is subject
to this explanation thatif Mr.. Beers succeeds i2
getting up plan which meets the views of tfisy
and can be built for 100000 or less,
then and in case his plan Is rejected by the Board
he is to receive 81 OOO but il his plan is adopted
the $1,000 is to be part OF his per cent. COM
mission.
The committee thought it was but just to pay
Mr., Beers for his services in getting up set OF
plans to meet the views Of the committee, posi-
oily modifying and changing the same, preparing
specifications, making estimates ana gettlns
bids, il, finally the Board should reject the plan
or conclude for one reason or another not 70 |
build.
1t will be noticed from the report that Mr..
Beers has not yet succeeded in preparing plen
which meets the views of the committee and Gu,
be built for 100000, and il the Beard instruct
the committee to 20 ahead with the original ap.
preparation of Sl50,000 for both buildings, Mr..
Beers will have to try again at the RISK OF prepar-
ing plan for cheaper building, which may or
may not meet the views Of the committee.
In this agreement with MIR. Beers 1t must be
admitted that the advantage is with The county
il so far that Mr.. Beers has assumed all the FISK
of getting up plan to meet the views OF the
committee, while ut the same time the building
shall not cost more than Slc0OOO; ana, while
the plan which Mr.. Beers has prepared meets
the views of the committee, but will probably
cost more than 100000 to erect yet IN spirit OF
fairness towards Mr.. Beers the committee have
concluded to present the plan to the Board Tor
their action, before rejecting it on account oil
the cost.
Now we believe we have answered all the
charges which require our attention, 50 far as
they are known TO us. II there are others
which have not come to our notice, we stand
ready to answer any questions whlch may oe
propounded to u.s. We consider that the meet
ings of the Board offer us the only opportunity
to heard be in self defense when attacks are madkly
upon us, and we challenge the closest scrutiny
of our actions.
While we know that we may make mistakes
in dealing with questions foreign to our several
vocations, yet we spurn the insnuation that wo
have neglected the interests OF our county by
employing competent and honest persons at
fair price to the neglect of others who, as we
believed and now do believe would be nigh
priced men in the end.
In conclusion, we suggest that the Board ap-
point committee Of five members to examine
into any and all doings OF the building com
mittee, with instructions to report to the Boaro,
when it can be ascertained whether the facts
we have stated in this communication can DO
substantiated.
All Of which is respectfully submitted
II. BELLINGUAUSEN,
A. Il. BEACH,
s. g. BURGESS,
MARTIN FLAHERTY,
NATHANIEL MCINTYRE.
Armstrong objected to wasting time on such
business.
Lewis said it was not true that Furness had
been dropped by the unanimous consent OF th6>
far as he was concerned. Il
On motion of " iller the report Of the commit
tee was received.
The report was before the house, but it was
clear the afternoon was to be given up to lex
various phases OF family
row" among the committeeman.
Lewis began--said it was true there had been
dssentions; probably true that he had been the
cause of them, but the Board didn't elect him to
agree at all times, but to do his duty, and thatho
had endeavored to do. You (the Board) should
know all the causes Of trouble. He recounted
the history of the asking for plans, inviting to
only such men whose plans could BIO
used. The plans came. Mr.. Lewis's argume1H.,
from this on was to show that the circular was Of
the nature of contract with the architects in.
vited that they should all have fair chance-l
in 6-to win aud that their plans should be re-
turned to them as their property; that the archi
tects were all to be on a par and none was to
see his rivals plans. The plans were kept free
from inspection. They were all rejected and an
other made. He admitted it was just what no
wanted but he held it was made up OF ideas ap-
from the plans shown the committee
Mr.. Beers is not to blame for this but the COM
mittee That BODY has stole the ideas-acted In