The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1883-02-21
THE STATE HOUSE INyESTIG ALTON.
General Morris, One of the Commits
sioners, and Contractor Denig Ex-
amined Last Night-A Com
munication from the
Commissioners.

Last nights session of the Investigating
Committee on State House Matters was
called to order at 7:3O, with General Morris
on the witness stand. Mr. Morris was de-
tanned but short length of time. Among
other things he was questioned with regard
to the State Supervising Architects bond,
which he said amounted to 100000,
and that under this bond the architect
was compelled to work TO the best of
his ability in the interest of the State. At
ter answering few questions which in
quired into the appropriations which had
been made by the Board he was allowed to
depart. and Contractor Denig's exam
ination continued. Mr.. Denig was
asked who had had the general management
of the business of the contractors. He said
been on the ground watching the progress
of the work almost every day. He also stat
ed that since the awarding of the
contract he and Mr.. Howard had built three
or four houses outside of the State House
work. He was asked if he had ever operated
any stone qusrries He said he had, to a
considerable lo:s. In answer TO q question
regarding the cost of the tools and nipple
ments used in the construction of the State
House, he said that they were at present
worth about $4,000 or $4,000. He
stated that he estimated his loss at present
on the contract TO be about $287, 900. He was
then asked what constituted the assets of
the firm, to which he answered brick and
machinery, and on the former he put a
value of about $4,000. He said
that he had discovered that he
was losing money about the first year the
contract was awarded. He said that when
Mr.. Howard had formed the agreement with
him he was not very we'll off, He was
asked what his claim against the State
amounted to. He said it was about SIS, 900.
On being asked whether it was the intention
of the firm of Howard & Denig to complete
the State House. he said he did think they
would do it, Mr.. Denig was then asked
few immaterial questions and Mr..
Johnson, the Civil Engineer for Howard &
Denig, was examined. He said that he had
been employed ever since the contract had
been let. He stated that from his own per-
sonal knowledge $2S0,000 had been lost by
the contractors, and that $17, 900 of this
amount had been lost by the increase in the
cost of labor and material. He could not
state the amounts separately and did not
know at what prIce Kanmacher & Denig
had taken the contract. He stated that it
would take 81, 100, 900 to complete the build
ing at the present prices, unless there were
changes made in the plans and specifica-
tons He said that he had done all the
figuring on the building.
Inc witness also thought that there was
as just good stone in the Court House as was
going in the State House. He was then
questioned with regard to the losses which
had been sustained by the contractors after
which the Committee decided to defer fur
Their examination until tonight.
The following suggestions from the State
House Board were read aloud by the Clerk
Hon. Horace Heffren, Chairman of the State
House Investigating COMMITTEES:
SIR Enclosed herewith is bill prepared by the
undersigned at your request, watch we think en-
braces about all the legislation necessary to
tinue the work on the new State House building
and complete ii in the least possible time.
We prefer to let the work of completing the
building TO the present contractors because their
preparations for working are all ready and there
would be no delay in the progress of
construction. IL we invite bids from
other contractors the work must be delayed un-
I'll new plans and specifications are prepared, a
lettings advertised, bids examined and contracts
made; and 10 do this vii. consume so much time
that the successful contractors viii do little more
than to make preparations for working before the
season ends Again, we are assured IL the present
contractors continue the work. that the entire
cost OF the building will not exceed the limit OF
s2.0OO,O0o. II other bids. are resorted
to we have no such assurances.
on the contrary we think that q new contract
would require considerable increase over the
two millions.
These are briefly the principal reasons why we