Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-18
Two Tales of One Paper,

In It's issue or June ~ the dalVes'
ton News had an editorial on the
"Perplexities OF the State Capitol Az
fair" In Its issue of July 10 1t pro-
ceeded to give practical illustration
OF the perplexities 1t has encountered
in the matter by sitting down on itself,
80 to speak, demolishing its own argu-
ment with its own artillery. While
we are not disposed to add to the per-
plexities of the situation by introduce
ing the perplexities of the News, yet,
on behalf OF the public, we ask
solution of the following perplexity:
Galveston News, June n.
When 1t is asserted positively that
Texas stone of color, quality and d.
mension suitable for building the
sJate-house Is convenient and accessi.
BILE, the assertion conveys an implied
charge of imbecility or Of dishonesty
on the part of the building commits
sioners and superintendent of con-
str uction. These officials are filling
stations created for them by law
which constitutes them the advisers
Of the capitol board in respect to the
material to be used and the work to be
performed on the state-house. In
their final report with reference to
the use OF Indiana stone for portion
OF the building they use this emphatic
language: "In regard TO the adoption
of the sample of the Indiana
limestone in lieu of stone No
., we have already urged its
acceptance - In previous communities
lions and given our reasons therefor"
That this advice should be so strongly
urged, presumes that the commits
sloners have ascer, aimed that Texas
material for the outside walls is not
accessible and can not be used, unless
as in the case Of granite-at such cost
az to cause the contractor to throw up
| his contract IL the point were insisted
upon. II the capitol board suspectt d
the commissioners integrity or ca
pacity, their advice might well have
been rejected. But as they are the
Lawful and trusted advisers of the
board, on the face OF the matter no
other course wa4 open to the board but
to adopt their recommendations. On
the face OF the matter, too, IL would
seem that the contractor has more in
terest in using Texas limestone, If 1t
could be had of the required de-
scr,ption and accessible 10 Austin,
than any one else IL Is
not likely that he has any sentiment
enlisted in the matter, for the graf
itication OF which he Is willing to pay
out the difference In the cost OF trans
portaJion OF Texas and Indiana lime
stone. Apparently the Chicago syn
dictate, 30 called, wants to make the
most money possible out OF the con-
tract. That Is the tver-prevalent In
splration of Chicago contractors. The
sentiment, ii there Is any, that enters
| into the operating influences upon the
mind OF the contractor has the dollar
mark on II. But If he has the Interior
| purpose, which some imagine,
OF finally abandoning the con.
tract and walking off with AIS 900
acres of Texas land, which has been
earned at small cost, the acceptance of
his proposition by the board places
him at n disadvantage in final
settlement. The course of the
board gives the contractor no
defense In such case, and not only the
bond OF $3.50 900 would have TO be
paid, but other damages might be re-
covered. The board has acted equita.
bly, and can demand equity. Suppos.
ing that the commissioners have been
beguiled, and through their advice the
board has been entrapped, on the
ground that the contractor could near
Austin procure the required building
material, he would hardly have taken
the trouble TO deceive these officials to
enable him to build the house at
greater cost to himself than would &C
crue from the use OF tue Austin stone
| 10 hA aanhih eA
abandon the contract Ii this was his
purpose, the board hAs refused to give
pim the pretext. he and the COM
missioners, ON the othsr hand, were
correct "a to the character of available
Texas material, the board also acted
wisely.
Galveston News, Iuly 10.
The members OF the capitol board
ignore the fact that the law requires
the house TO be constructed OF the
most durable stone accessible, BY the
word accessible IL presumably meant
easy of access to Austin, and the word
was presumably inserted In order that
stone thus accessible should be used
rather than stone which Is remote
from Austin and outside the state. II
cannot be reasonably commended that
Indiana stone is accessible within the
meaning of the term as used In the
law or within the generally accepted
meaning OF the term. In the sense
that Indiana stone Is accessible,
Alaska stone Ia accessible, Scotch
granite or Greenland granite Is ac.
cessible. The legislature must
have intended that the interior
and exterior walls should be con.
structed of durable Texas limestone
having the requisite sustaining
strength, easy OF access to the capital
or that the house might be built OF
Indiana limestone, Scotch granite or
any stone difficult OF access to the cap.
ital. III the latter had been the inten.
ton, the word accessible would not
have been used, and the stone of which
the Travis court house is built would
not have bean DESIGNATED as the stand.