The weekly democratic statesman. [volume] (Austin, Tex.) 1871-1883, 1882-09-14
KespectfuIIy,
+. j. DUHAMEL,

anu
On that very day the board voted
the contractor $4,000 ON his contract,
and he and the architect and the
superintendent were thus vindicated
and the STATEsMAN's charge repudi-
ated. The catastrophe of yesterday
morning shows how wise it would
have been to have listened in the
proper spirit to the warning raised
by the STATESMAN. 1t was by no
means alone in the opinion that those
walls were unsafe. 1t was the uni
versal judgment of all observing o
citizens of Austin that the work
was false, and it was the
common expression among them
that it could not stand. The STATES
MAN simply agitated the matter and
forced an investigation, such as it
was, knowing then was the time to
apply corrections if ever they were
to be applied. But this very fine
architect who has been employed
to look after the building of a three
million dollar capitol, said the work
was all right, and that was enough.
All the STATESMAN was after
was protection of the public
interest, and in this it had
the moral support of the people of
Austin, who agreed that it had
adopted the proper course in charg-
ing that the contractor and SUPER
visors of this work were not doing
their duty. In the STATESMAN of
the date in which appeared the
above official document, we dis
cussed the question at issue, saying {:
The capitol commissioners, yesterday.
referred the matter concerning the con-
struct1on OF the temporary capitol to the
architect with which they were associated
in supervising the public works. These
commissioners were first appointed to su-
pervise the construction OF the new capi-
tol, and when it was decided to erect the
temporary building they were entrusted
sponsible for the manner in whichthe work
is being done. The architect, MIR. Duha-
mel, makes his report, and in it he SAYS
the construction is being done according
to the specifications of the contract. If
this be true the contract is at fault, but
the STATESMAN positively insists that the
work is not being done in the manner
contemplated in the contract. The ma
terial used may be just such As the con-
tract calls for, but 1t was certainly not
understood that the work should be done
in improper style, and this we insist is
the case, no matter what the architect
may say, and the STATESMAN will yet spe-
cifically prove this fact. 1t is true, this
Is small job, costing the state only
for 1t enables the people of Texas to con-
slider the ability and zeal of certain pub
lie servants. If Mr.. Duhamel and asso-
c1ates do not pay proper attention to a
work like this, If they cannot prevent
false construction In this case, they are
not the man to entrust with the supervis-
ion of building costing, as it is expect
ed, at least three millions of dollars. The
temporary building enables us to Judge
of those in charge of the
public works, and If they look not well to
small matters how can il be expected
they viii properly supervise great
work?
1t was the purpose of the STATES
MAN to specifically prove what it
had stated, but while waiting for
the proper moment to do so these
walls tumbled and fell to the earth,
and what is still left standing is
leaving it perpendicular bearings,
and is ready to fall with the first
gust ofwind or through weight i'm
posed by water though a driving
rain from the south or west. Having
stated the responsibility for this
false construction, as shown in the
above extract from the STATES
MAN of August IS, we are called
upon now to make them more en-
phatic. The agencies employed by
the state are at fault; on their shoul-
ders rest the responsibility, and they
should be made to pay the forfeit.
They have shown themselves unfit
for the trusts reposed in them, COM
pared to which the building of this
temporary capitol is but as one to
one hundred. They should resign
and state officials, who are