Walker Lake bulletin. (Hawthorne, Nev.) 1883-1926, 1883-10-10


such steps in the promises as to Won, the
| Honorable Board, seem meet and proper.
D. }. Rohh, John NJ Campbell,
John Forbes, j. L. Stoner
w \. Hawthorne, {. b. Kimhall.
D. ]. Lewis. District Attorney.
Croker, Gnrler n Bowler,
Attorneys for petitioners,
Chairman Glenn wanted to know
whether the signers to the petition
understood what they were doing and
were willing to stand by their action
lie Was informed, very emphatically,
by Messrs. Curler and Bowler that
the petitioners knew what they were
doing and were prepared to abide by
the consequences.
Mattingly informed the Chairman
that he had no right, as a member of
the Board, to ask such question; that
the citizens presented a petition, and
it WIS the duty of the Board to CON
slider it.
He then moved to grant the prayer
of the petition. Seconded by McNett.
1t was resolved that each member of
the Board select member of the in.
yeStigating committee.
Adjournment till next morning.
October 6th-Board met. Present,
full Board
Board named, as members of the
investigating committee, the following
gentlemen: j. B. Hiskey, by Mat
tingly; G. w. White, by McNett; j..
L. ellison, 10y Glenn.
A recess was then taken, to enable
the committee TO perform the duty
assigned to them.
The committee assembled, and
accompanied by the Board, went to the
Court house and spent several hours in
examining those parts of the building
which the petitioners claimed deviated
from the specifications.
In the afternoon the Board again
met and ]. B. HisSey, on behalf of the
committee, handed in a written report
which being read by the Clerk, was
adopted by the Board on motion of
McNett.
McNett then called for comparison
of the report with the specifications.
Mattingly announced to the Board
that he had discovered some descrep.
ancies which were not set forth in the
petition and consequently not included
the specifications call for iron bear
ings over all openings in brick wall,
both inside and outside; neither doors
nor windows have anything but timber
bearings. The specifications call for
brick piers under every partition, and
there are piers only under the hall par
titions.
The plans and specifications were
then brought in and compared with
the report of the committee.
Referring to the riveting of the
vault tanks, Mattingly asked Mr..
Hiskey whether he considered them
securely riveted. The reply was that,
in the meaning of the specifications,
they were not. Mr.. White agreed
with Mr.. Hiskey. Mr.. ellison thought,
as against fire, they were secure, but
not against burglars.
Boiling necks to vaults-Mr. Hiskey
stated that it is usual for vault necks
to stand against the lining, and be
securely rivited. These were not ac-
cording to specifications, and should
the wall fall out the few bolts in place
would not hold the necks. Messrs
White and ellison concurred.
MIR. White, questioned by Mattinglv,
said that if u burglar wanted to get in
he could blow the four little bolts loose
very easily.
Commissioner Glenn said, in regard
to the missing partition, that it was
his recollection that it was left out at
the request of Mr.. Hiskey.
Mr.. Hiskey explained that P. II.
McGrew, the iron contractor, and Mr.
Glenn, the architect, visited him and
asked if wooden partition with
pigeon holes would not do. He told
them that so far as he was concerned,
it would, but that ne had no authority
to make any suggestions or give any
orders concerning the building of the
new Courthouse.
THE FOUNDATION.
Next came long discussion over
the depth OF the foundation.
Mr. Glenn seemed to think that an
average of three feet complied with
the specifications.
MI. Hiskey said he had done con-
siderable building and always counted
the depth of the foundation from the