The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-02-13

Ihh OOoI Ot FOBLlC BUILDINGS.
The amount of money used to construct
public buildings by the Federal Government
seems almost fabulous. One gets glance at
it through report recently made by Mr..
Stockslsger, now representing the Third Dis
trict of this State in Congress. He is chair.
man of 'the committee on public build
ings," and the report accompanies his bill to
reorgsnize the Office of supervising architect
of the Treasury. From 1907 to 1861 there
was disbursed for the purchase or construc-
ton of public buildings s21, S71139 Since
1861 there has been discussed for the same
purpose about S66 900 coo, making the total
amount S87, $50. 425. Theses sums are ex-
elusive OF the District of Columbia. OF the
total given above, there was spent in New
York state SIS, s5j, 545; Pennsylvania, s., 1885,
1913 Massachusetts, s. 239 675 Illinois
sL1S,2S1; Ohio, 81 S54,23 Louisiana, So
39s,252; California S4,S95, s9S; South Car
olina, 1886 $50, Maryland, s. 19S, 3S4;
Maine, s. o7s COS; Tennessee, 81, 432 932;
Connecticut, Sl086 $50; and other states
smsl er sums.
Mr.. Stockslsger has prepared also, list Of
ing as fixed by Congress and by way of con-
tract the amount actually expended after.
ward. In almost every case this maximum
limit was largely exceeded. The cost OF the
present Chicago Custom House, which was
originally fixed at 81 900 600, exceeded that
less than 90 per cent, which is q moderate
excess compared with some OF the buildings.
The original limit in the case of the Boston
Possoffce was ST. 800 900, and no money was
spent till contracts for the completion of the
building within that limit were made aud
yet the building has cost over 1900 600.
The original cost OF the New
York Postofice was to be s., 600 600
and there was the same provision as
in the Boston Posteflice that no money
should be spent till contracts for the compile
ton of the building within the limit were
let The building cost very nearly 50 OOO,.
Geo. In Cir cinnsti the limit was IS, 500 600.
Nearly 50 GOO, 0C0 in excess OF that has been
spent, and the building is still in progress.
In Philadelphia, the original limit was 81
100000. This was increased to s, 600 600,
and then 81 600, 600, and the building actu-
ally cost over So 600 600. This sort of thing
is not confined TO the great Cities Congress
ordered building in Columbia. S. c., to
cost S75, 0OO and it cost S4O7 GOO. A building
IN Knoxville, Tenn, was to have cost
Sss,0OO and it cost SiOS, 500. The buildings
st Raleigh, n. c., and Portland,
Ore, cost three and four times the
original limit. The building at Windsor.
VI, was to have cost $25, 600, and it cost
$4,000. The building at Milwaukee was to
have cost SOS, 1000, exclusive OF site, and it
has cost S199. 2S5. The building at Mobile
cost nearly four times the estimate. That at
Hartford, Conn, c0st SS46 600, instead of
100000. The building at San Francisco has
exceeded the original limit more than 80
per cent, and il is unfinished. The Custom
House at New Haven, cost more than double
the sum first fixed The building at Atlanta
has cost nearly three times the original
limit, though the site wassobtained g-atuit-
ously. The Louisville Custom House cost
more than three times, and the building at
Bangor, Me-, nearly fOar times, the original
limit
This report is valuable and instructive,
and We desire that our Republican friends
should cut out the cases cited IN the forego-
ing for future reference. These expendi-
lures, made during the last two decades,
were made for the most part under the
auspices Of the s. o. p. We Will see whether
future Democratic administrations will i'm
prove upon them. We premise, Of course,
that the ''g, 0. p" has found grave from
which there will be no resurrection.