The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-03-17
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.


ers to say that the controversy between the
Journal and the Commissioners in regard to the
State-house plumbing originated in general
unqualified charge by the Journal that
''the plumbing of the State-house was defective"
This the Commissioners met by requesting
specifications Of defective work in detail. The
Journal then produced specifications Of bad
work made by Mr. Hudson on behalf Of the
Journeymen Plumbers Association. Each and
all of these specifications Except as to the sewer
under the State house), the Commissioners
stated did not apply to the State-house, as there
was no such work in the State-house, nor was
ever any such contemplated.
The answer of the Journal to this is that the
commissioners statement is not evidence, al
though it still regards the statement of Mr.
Hudson as evidence enough to reiterate its orig
inal charges. The Commissioners have no de-
sire to disturb the Journals confidence in Mr.
Hudson's veracity, and would have given the
matter no further attention, had it not been
probable that others might be led astray by the
Journals assertions.
The result of the controversy thus far is about
this: The journal has found out and admitted
that the earthen tile pipe that Mr.. Hudson
stated was used In connecting the oil-pipes and
sewer is really cast iron enameed pipe as
stated by the Commissioners, and they congrat-
ulate the Journal in making some progress to-
wards the truth about the matter.
The Journal repeats its statement that the
Plumbers Association made an offer to the
Commissioners to pay the expense of an expert
to examine the work, and in order to prove it,
produces statement from Mr.. Hudson that he
had made such an offer through publication in
the Journal of Nov. 3. The Commissioners
stated that Mr. Hudson had made no such offer
to them, and the above statement of Mr.. Hud-
son proves it. The Commissioners now decline
to avail themselves of Mr. Hudson's liberality to
bear the expense of an expert. The work is
daily inspected by the superintendent OF the
Statehouse, while it is being done, and if any
imperfect work is DONE or bad material used,
the superintendent requires it 20 be taken out,
and replaced in accordance with the specifica-
tions of the architect; and when the work is fin
ished it will then be subjected to careful ex-
animation of the architect, and an expert of
recognized skill whose opinions will be entitled
to respect; and if approved by them will be ac
copied by the Commissioners. The fact that the
work will be ''bricked up" or otherwise hid from
examination is groundless. The work will not
be hid from view until it is known to be all right
and even then no brick walls will be used.
The Journal charges that "when the inspec-
ton of the plumbing was being made by the
Board Of Health" the superintendent of the
work said "that he condemned the system of
trap venting which had been adopted by the
Commissioners, remarking that because the
matter was still in dispute, he had stopped the
plastering in that part of the building" The
following note addressed to the Commissioners,
this statement:
SIN the Journal of March IL, in an article
headed State House Plumbing / am quoted
as saying to the Board of Health that I con-
demned the system of trap-ventlug adopted by
the Board of Commissioners. This statement
pronounce as unqualifedly false. When the
Board of Health visited the State-house, l
showed them through the building. pointing out
the work as far as it had advanced.
"Mr. Hudson was with the board and did all
nnpzlA kln&%
was a total failure, stating that the safe-waste
was connected with the vent pipes from the
traps No traps are yet in place, that are to be
vented, and of course no connections are made
with them. l denied the charge of MIR. Hudson
but did say that there was a misunderstanding
between the contractor for the plumbing work
and the architect as to the method of venting
the traps as called for by the specifications, and
that l had stopped the work, and reported the
matter to the architect as | do in all matters Of
dispute as to how work shall be done in all de-
partments of the building.
'The dispute or misunderstanding with the
contractor for the plumbing work In regard to
venting the traps occurred long before there
was any public discussion as to the plans of the
Statehouse plumbing j. G. PENDERGAsT,
MARCH 13, 1885, Superintendent"
The Journal thinks that the statement of the
Commissioners that the pipe had been mali
cionsly damaged since this controversy with the
Journeymen Plumbers Association is only "a
however state that such damage can be proved
beyond doubt, and that they have circumstan-
tial evidence pointing pretty clearly TO the Of
fender, and with the detectives now on his
track they hope soon to bring him to public
view
The Plumbers Association is very fearful that
the Commissioners rely too much on their own
knowledge and that their ignorance of plumbing
will cause grave mistakes in the work. The
Commissioners, however do not depend on their
own knowledge but on that of their architect;
but would not hesitate to adopt the specifca
tons of one of the Commissioners rather than
those of the Plumbers Association, as he is a
practical plumber of more experience than any
one of their number.
The Commissioners are glad to know that the
Journal has already discovered that it is only
the system and not the work of the plumbing
that needs further attention, as the following
editorial Of the 18th inst indicates. 1t says:
'sIt may be we'll to remark before anything
further is said, that the criticisms of the State
house plumbing go much more directly to the
system and plans and specifications than to the
manner in which the work has been done by the
workmen."
The Journal says the answer of the Commits
sioners to the charge that the safe-waste pipes
are carried up to the roof and there con-
nected to the soil vent Is simply bubble in
words and involves another question of
veracity."
1t is not plain where the bubble in words
comes in, but the question of veracity certainly
is involved. Either the pipes are carried up and
connected as stated by your witness, or they are
not, as stated by the Commissioners Both
statements cannot be true, and one party or the
other has not told the truth.
The same may be said i'll regard to venting
the traps into the safe-waste pipes Your wit
ness has stated that they are so vented, while
the Commissioners say they not vented into
the safe-waste pipes. or for that matter into any
other pipes, as they as yet even inside Of
the building, and that when they are put in
will not be vented into the safe-waste pipes and
that it was never intended that they should be-
Respectfully, JOHN M. GoDowN, Secretary.
Worse than Charged.
To tho Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
Everybody has known by sad experience that
every business has suffered from the bad man
agement of the present administration, but we
were not prepared to even imagine the axtant