The Ottawa free trader. [volume] (Ottawa, Ill.) 1843-1916, 1881-01-29
SUPERVISOR BELLINGHAUsEN'S STUMP
SPEECH.


We do Nj Bellinghausen all the justice he
can IN reason ask of us by publishing, among
the proceedings Oi the supervisors IN today s
FREE TRADER, his stump speech IN reply to
certain a,,,.yts upon the Court House and Jail
Committee by "the press and notably the
Ottawa FREE TRADER. The speech Is Ger.
tainly curiosity in lis way, and we are not
surprised that the Board heard 1t with I'M.
patience and laughed NJ the idea Of copying it
INTO ITS records. Our reply to it shall be very
brief
What authority has Mr. Bellinghausen for
saying that the criticism OF the committee by
the FREE TRADER was "insti gated by parties
who have Failed to receive consideration al the
hands If the committce?" "When people talk
about thing they know nothing about they
are apt 10 talk loolIshiy." The FREE TRADER
aillrms II had but one motive IN the matter,
and That was, to save money to the county.
Passing over as pueric carping about words
Mr. Hp,,mghau~cns enumeration from Onethly
to ,cu'hy Of the FREE TRADERS misstate.
mcn,s, i; IS sufficient 10 say that the gravamcn
of our criticism Of the committee was that it
agreed 70 pay more To the architect for the Jail
plans ltan other architects agreed to do the
wur6 for; and that it agreed not only TO pay
more than was reasonable or necessary to Mr.
Beer, for the court house plans, but that in
both cases 1t dealt unfairly towards other
rCh'ncts
In rcgqrd to the Jail, our specification was
that the committee allowed Mr.. Randall per
cent. when other architects offered to do the
work for 3 per cent. (and we referred particu-
larry to Mr. Meyers, Mr.. Furness and Dir. vii.
COX, though we have since learned that the
last asked per cent? and that the allowance
included the cost of iron work, which was un-
necessary. Mr. Belinghausen admits the
truth Of our statement, but answers it by an
understandable attack on the character OF the
other architects, which can certainly go for
nothing without proof; and rs to the iron
work, laughs at the idea of accepting the spe-
citicatlons of the manufacturers as absurd. On
the contrary we say it is the only sensible
thing to do The iron work is all made in one
way, and the manufacturers submit cuts, draw
ings and specifications of all their work. The
committee is exactly as competent to select
from these rs the architect, and are a great
deal more likely not to take fee from the
manufacturer for giving him the job than the
architect would he.
Secondly as to the court house. Myers, Fur
nnsS md Wilrny rertainlv did mot aSk over
per cent on the cost ana stipulated for no local
superintendent or board bills; and Mr.. Beers
is the poorest of all the architects" confessed.
Iy from the fact that his plan as originally
submitted VIGOROUSLY had the least merit of
any of them. Aud then see the injustice of
the manner of employing Mr. Beers. Mr. Bel.
lnghausen, 1t is true, denies that the commit
tee turned all the plans over to him with dI.
rcctions to shake them up" etc. and so far
as the FREE TRADER can be held responsible
for the want Of literal truth In what it meant
simply as figure of speech, the denial may
be true. But substantially is that not what
was done? 1t is true the plans were not liter
ally passed over to Mr.. Beers, but the commit.
tee had carefully studied all Of them for
month or more and was acquainted with all
their details; and they eliminated from them a
rough plan of what they wanted, and then
asked Mr. Beers to draw plans IN little bet
ter shape than the committee could to meet
those ideas. Was that not the case. and is not
the plan as perfected by Mr. Beers and pre-.
senled 10y the committee SD bstanlially-in all
save n few minor Enthusiastically IN fact, the
plan of Mr.. Wilcox-stolcn from Mr. Wilcox,
not to put too fine point upon 1t.
We say nothing about the indecency Of the
innuendoes against Mr.. Myers, Mr.. Wilcox,
Mr. Furness and the other architects involved
IN the statement that the committee had no
choice but to employ Mr.. Beers, because they
had no confidence IN the other architects Why
employ them, then, to submit planss What
are the charges against them-what the proofs
Our impression is that those gentlemen will
hardly be inclined to pass under cloud of
that sort without some pretty vigorous remon.
STRANGE.