Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-05
WHY THEY DID 1T.
,essrs, Swain, Templeton and Walsh
Tell Why Indiana Stone
Was Adopted
he 0ther Alternative, Abandonment Of
the Contract at the Loss
Of the State.
evsre Structures on siokly sentimentality,
and Sly Thrust at Some
a Recent Reasons,
onvict Labor a Two Edged Sword
Which smites the Hand
That Draws 1t.

VEIonVlct Labor Two Edged Sword
~ Which smites the Hand
That Draws It.
~ NpecIal 10 the Gazette.
AUSTIN, TEX, July 4.-The substi.
ntlon of Indiana for Oatmanville
tone In the exterior walls of the new
apitol has been made the subject of
auch comment throughout the state;
astly more indeed than the matter
emands. Whatever OF criticism it
gas incurred IL undoubtedly due in n
VRrge measure to misapprehen-
Avon OF the question, and
y correct this your correspondent
ought an interview to-day with
he three members of the capitol board
Who voted for the change. They con-
ented to give to the public the rea.
ons which actusted their course, and
u reply to the questions of THE GA
,ETTE reporter made the full, frank
Ind fair statements OF the matter,
- published below:
COMPTROLLER SWAIN.
q ~ have no objection to giving my
u views If any one desires to know
hem.p
A LEGAL VIEW OF IT.
"The law under which the capitol
contract was framed did not REQUIRE
r0trexas stone to be used for the outside
Voor exterior walls OF the new Texas
capitol, and the contract made in &C.
eordance with the law does not re-
quire it. The contract called for
Texas cement but soon after the com.
mencement of work upon
the building it was as
certained that Texas cement
in sufficient quantity of the STAN
dard required by the specifications
could not be furnished, and either
work would have to stop or standard
brand of cement allowed to be used
!, Ino matter where it came from, pro.
vilvided it was the best The colu INNS
J In the portico, the wsinsc 1ting in the
rotunda and in other portions of the
building are TO be Of Texas marble and
a, granite, but wherever Texas material
p'has been mentioned there has been
,llno trouble heretofore except TO agree
" upon change when it was necessary
The water.tables of the building wer e
not required to be Texas granite, but
by q concession on the part of the
board in dividing the size OF the blocks
called for by the plans, the contractor
agreed TO use the Texas product. The
contract calls for limestone, and the
board could not compel the contractor
Mo use granite.
l'rHE LEGISLATURE ON THE GRANITE
QUESTION.
"Tbe board subjected to the legisla-
ture plans for granite and estimates
basedlupon the change from limestone
" to granite, and the Legislature
failed to pass any act that would per-
nit the board to change the contract
1 Ilor give power TO IL to secure the desired
change. The change from limestone
ITO granite was not recommended by
Ethe Executive TO the legislature.
WHY A CHANGE WAS NECESSARY.
, ut soon became known that the
limestone at O ltmanville and the ada.
cent quarries had failed; that is, II has
&been demonstrated by actual inves.
SItigation that limestone of un.
~iform color, in sufficient guam
THY of the proper dimensions and
quality required py the specifications,
could not be found accessible, as the
? yiaw designates. Stone OF uniform
al color could be had for an ordinary
house, but this building the pride OF
ali Texas-the basement OF which now
covers over three acres Of ground, aud
y required by contract to be built of
II iimestone free from coloring matter,
v was FOUND to require more stone than
= our Texas qusrries that were accessible
could supply In accordance with speci-
u tications, there being about four nun
dred and fifty thousand cubic feet in
athe Exterior Of the building. The
stone Tor the building was required TO
correspond with a sample on tle.
POINT WELL WORTH CoNsID ERING
u III the board had refused the use of
a indiana limestone under the circum.
stances, and the contractor should
throw up the contract, the state could
two hundred and fifty thousand
> dollar bond, to say nothing
of penalty damages.
n OPPOSED TO CONVICT LABOR
Months ago the governor expressed
the 0pinion that limestone of the re-
4uifeu test could not be had acce ssible
! 10 austin, and had hopes of securing
\ granite instead, and the members OF
tne'ooaru without exception 80 de-
* sired. The governor went so far as to
oHer 10 the contractor one thousand
Y oonvicts at the cost of maintenance.
Q This was, i thought, stretching the
law, Is understand the statute pro-
Ehibits the use Of convict labor
4 ION the public buildings OF the state
am opposed to convicts being
5ylworked in competition with honest
abor.
i EQUITABLE RESULTS OF A REFUSAL.
- '"ro refuseL limestone OF good quality
.,,that complied with the requirements
."yof the specifications, except that il
n was not exactly like the sample on file
Nout superior TO il in every respect,
l%stoming from any source, when we
' y nave none In Texas accessible, think
iysaquivslent 10 forcing an abandonment
,n w. the contract. The commissioners and
y, ~ Nhe superintendent Reconstruction had
sagiyen their opinion that we had no
w %Saaimestone in Texas in sufficient qusn.
Il Tity that would meet the require
n meDts OF the specifications Of uniform
nli foior, etc. They also recommended