The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-02-08
STATE HOUSE INQUIRY.
The Attorney Generals Answer to the
Committees InterrOgatories.
Messrs. Howard and Denig Examined at
Length Some Pointed Questions
Facts and Figures,

| The session Of the State-house Investigating
committee last nght,was occupied in the examin-
/ ation of Messrs. Howard and Denig. The testi-
mony of Mr.. Denig was taken first and the inter
rOgatory thumbserews were pretty vigorously
/ applied by the committee. Mr., Denig stated that
he had a one-ihird interest in the CONTRACT, Mr..
Howard holding the other twO-thirds by virtue
of a personal contract made with him (Denigl.
Mr.. Howard, no explained, was not one OF the
bidders, but after the contract had
been obtained by the firm of Kan
maeher & Denig, he had been given a One-third
interest in the profits in consideration of his pro-
curing the sureties upon the bond of the con-
/ tract. In reply to the questions of Mr.. Heffren,
! the chairman of the committee, he said that
work upon the State-house building was begun
in 1878, and that 100 men were employed the
first year Mt 81 per day. Very little stone work
done with the exception of footings. The
/ first stone used was obtained from Greensburg,
and in 1879 the work was largely upon footinGs
ana dimension blocks, which cost thirteen cents
per cubic foot, and about twenty-five cents de-
livered In this city. He did not think that all
/ tho stone of the class needed could have
been contracted for at that time.
Their quarry at Spencer was opened in 1870,
and labor there cost $1.25 per day. The work
of preparing the stone for use could not, he
thought, have been done cheaper at Spencer
than here great deal of stone was rejected
by the State-house Commissioners, some of
which, he thought, was fit for and some not.
The condemned stone they were compelled to
sell for considerably less than it cost, and some
was yet remaining on hands.
A RISE IN PRICES.
| In 1880 there was a gradual rise in
common labor from 81 to $3.50. A
| great deal of brick had been rejected
because it was regarded by the commissioners
as too soft. The condemned brick had been
used in the construction of some of the best
buildings in the city, including Englsh's Opera
house. There had been an increase in the price
of stone up to 1880, when it cost twenty-seven
cents-delivered. Mr.. Denig said that he had
lost largely upon the work done, resulting from
different causes. There had been increases in
prices, principally upon stone, and the COM
missoners' Interpretation of the speeifi cations
had caused them great losses. The contract
he said, had never been profitable
one. In investigating the causes of IL
not being profitable, the committee questioned
| Mr.. Denig very closely relative to the costs of
materials, the object evidently being to ascer-
tain whether the losses had been caused by bad
management on the part OF the contractors
whether due to causes unavoidable. and for
which they were not responsible. Their oolitic
limestone had been obtained from VOrhis e. Co.,
! OF Bedford, under a contract made In 1881, at
thirty cents per fOOt, which, Mr., Denig thought,
was the best contract that could have been
made. If the contract which had been made for
iron was fulfilled they would lose nothing upon
| 1t. The brick required, he said could not
| be manufactured for the price which they
were paid for them in the wall The first change
made by the commissioners in the plans and
specifications was in the material used in the
| basement story, which caused them a cOnsidera-
BILE loss upon the roek-faced work substituted,
which was the hardest possible TO do. instead
! of the iron columns and pilasters specitied in
| large additional expense In consideration of
these changes the contractors had
ceived $4,000 additional to the con
tract price. Other changes had been made
in the dome and in the Washington-street front
of the building, which also added largely to the
cost.
FACTS AND FIGURES.
"what amount have you expended in work
upon the building thus fart" asked Mr. Heffren
"We have expended" replied Mr.. Denig
something 100000. and have received
from the State 1858 .00O."
Mr.. Heffren-What do you estimate the cost of
| completing the budng2
| MI. Denig-Between So, 100000 and $780,
| 600
In referring to the cost of materials and the
opportunities for making advantage
| GUS contracts, Mr.. Denig said that
the best propositions which he had received upon
stone was from Vorhis & Norton, who had offered
| TO take contract for furnishing it at 80 cents
| Propositions had been received from others. He
estimated that the freight on the stone needed
for the construction of the building from the
| quarres where they were obtaining it would he
about $57, 900 less than the freight from the
VOrhs & Norton Guarries.
Mr.. Heffren asked Mr.. Denig II he intended to
| continue the work and complete the building
| Mr.. Denig's reply was that the question
and in answer to subsequent inquiries stated
that he did not himself have sufficient funds to
complete the work under the contract but he
| thought 1t possible that he could, if he desired
obtain the aid from others. When asked from
whom he expected such aid, or by what means
he expected to get If, Mr.. Deng replied that he
did not think the question pertinent one.
SOME POINTED QUESTIONS.
Mr.. Heffren asked if it the intention to
continue work upon the building whether the
State made any further appropriations or not
Mr.. DenIg's reply was that he could not con-
time the work by himself il Mr.. Howard failed
to furnish any more means. Mr. Heffren here
| raised objections to the answers of the witness
| which. he complained, were indirect and evasve,
| He then asked: 'sWhat is your opinion in re-
gard to your ability tn carry out the contract
| Can You do III" Mr.. Denig, after some hesita-
ton, replied that it might be possible for him TO
carry out the contract under correct I'M erpreta-
tion of the specifications OF work, hut unaer the
conditions which he has been working he could
| NOT. .
Mr., Hefren-Do you intend to carry out the
| conIractf
Mr.. Denie That is my intention now.
| He explained that the contractors had claims
which they intended to present to the commit
| tee, and that much would depend upon the ae-
| ZION taken upon these by the General Assembly
They had claim for changes in specifications
amounting 70 $65, 900, and they were compelled
| 70 make suh-contraers by which they were dam,
| aged S66 900, while by q readustment of the
schedules they loit $55, 900. making in all claims
aeainst the State amounting TO about $4,000.
The examination of Mr. Denig was continued
until Friday, and William Il. Howard was placed
upon the stand.
TESTIMONY OF W. B. HOWARD.
Mr.. Howard explained that in his connection
with the state-house contract he held the power
OF attorney, between the bondsmen and the con-
tractors, in approving the estimates of expend
lures. He was not partner. When asked IT he
had been furnishing money for the prosecution
of the work. he replied: 81 am sorry to say that
I have" The amount which he had furnished