Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1885-07-18

Jaln no sucn cODulucn. IL liz not tm-
probable that the editor of the Stand
ard has "understood'i that the build.
Ing was TO be constructed OF Texas
granite, trimmed In gold; but, from
some cause or other, his impressions
were not made the basis Of the con.
tract. The intimation that granite
wss discussed for the exterior walls,
but that the contractors objected to
1t as too costly to face" is wholly |
without foundation. The law which
preceded and provided for the contract |
made the Travis county courthouse,
built of limestone procured around |
Austin, the basis of the character OF |
the material.
HERE Is ANOTHER ERROR
which seems To be doing business at
the old stand
"Wnen we speak of the alternative
between Indiana limestone and Texas
granite, we refer to the fact that the
contractors themselves were giving up
the original material agreed upon, and
then was the proper time to have given
| them the choice OF continuing that
material, of which there was plenty,
or taking the grantee
AS matter Of fact, the change in
the contract
| WAS NOT PROPOSED BY THE CON-
TRACTORS,
but by the state, About the lst OF
May the commissioners, observing the
discolorations that had begun to mar
the beauty of the foundation walls,
informed the contractors in n
private conversation that thereafter
they would reject all that character
of stone, amounting TO notification
that they would accept
No MORE oATMANvILLE STONE.
Thereupon, the contractors decided
that they would substitute Bedford
stone, IL satisfactory to the state, filing
samples with the commissioners,
These were at once examined and
formed the basis of letter from the
commissioners to the governor, re com-
mending the adoption of the Bedford
product, and stating, among other
things
I'VE are induced TO make these sug-
gestions, believing the building
will be benefited thereby in
more respects than the mere change
of stone referring to improvements
sfterwaId adopted and from the
further fact that
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE
to disprove the statements of the con
tractor as to the impossibility OF oh
tanning Texas Limestone that will
meet the requirement, Of the contract
and specifications"
In reply to this, GOV. Gland on the
18th Of May wrote:
"While the state would prefer the
granite to any other material, il 1t
should be found on thorough test the
Indiana limestone is equal to the
samples on file and called
for in the contract, though
differing somewhat in color, the state
may accept such stone. In thus
changing the material, however, ioI
the building, the state would require q
change in the construction OF the
dome and interior walls, 1t would re
quire the dome to be built it's entire
height OF dimension stone, and the
thickness CT the interior walls in
i creased
To this last proposition the con
tractors dissented, declaring that i
? was enough to furnish superior ston'
/ at greatly increased cost, withou
e requiring them to make important i'm
e provements in the building at an ad
o ditional and heavy expense. After
d correspondence lasting several weeks
= however, which disclosed the fact tina
on no other basis would the state cor
sent to a change, the contractors finaI
ly acceded to these demands and az
cepted the proposition, as
: FIRST SHAPED BY GOV. IRELAND
and the capitol commissioners.
The Standard admits tbs III arits @
the new contract when it says the syn
q dictate could not aft ord to assent To
!, unless there was some job6ery at tn
e bottom. There have been a goo
:? many charges of jabberv lately, bu
T. the only one which has brought dow
. any game struck very close at tn
y granite interest which the Standar
q entwines so tenderly about its heart.
% If the Standard really desires to /
l. "fully l.: formed" on this subject, tn
q recommendation is made that 1t sto
s disseminating misinformation an
a atudy nm the recOruR r., Il, =.