Morning journal and courier., 1889-06-20
The Stare Rouse.

To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 To the leading taxpayers of the city, ana many of the rising minds among the younger
 classes, the State House question is simple
 one, although thus far the contents of the
 late injunction remains sealed paper to the
 public. The facts on which the cause of the
 State House rested were summated and de
 termined in 1887 as follows:
 After wrsnglings in the City Hall by mayors, aldermen, common councils ane committees for years as to what should bt done with it, they finally discovered that il would be unsafe to lay violent hands upoI it without consulting the people, for they and not the city government, were the own CTS, and must tell their servants what shal be done with or about it.
 To this end ballot was ordered to be re- sorted to at the city election of December 0 1887. Ballots were prepared and ballo1 box to receive them The day arrived; the ballots were cast; they were counted, and the result was announced-as carried for repairs by a majority of 1 ,25i votes.
 At the same time it was announced that 6 new mayor was elected by majority of 51E votes, And that 6 new board of aldermen
 and new board of councilmen were elected
 by various majorities.
 The State House balloting carried with it
 an appropriation of taxpayers money to the
 extent of $50, ,000 for the repairs, or so much
 thereof as might be needed for that purpose. Not one work was incorporated In this pro- ceeding in regard to occupancy or uses; 'sthat much" was left unsaid, and no voting, law or logic on that subject could then or now be sandwiched into the preparation for, or the result of, the question submitted, to wit: that of "eXternal repairs"
 Why did not the old mayor refuse to sur render to the new one2 Why did not the old board of aldermen and the old board ot councilmen refuse to surrender their seats to
 the two new boards electeda We apsWer-
 for the simple IeaseHs that the people had
 ballnttssir and no one was foolhardy enough to resist them, besides they knew that If they did the Superior court would oust them, and if they did not obey it's mandates, such as
 refused, would be sent to jail for contempt
 of court.
 To avoid such a dilemma why did not the
 previous holders of office insist upon appoint ing another voting day and try the election
 over again3 We answer, because the same
 court would, if appealed to, enJoln them
 from the attempt to perpetrate such an out rage when the first votings on those offices was legal, conclusive and final.
 The people therefore hold that the question of removing or ''repairing the State House. was as lawfully and finally settled as was thai of the city election.
 Next-No change can be made in the ex. ternal form of that building, for the people voted to repair it. In form, symmetry and elevation, it is a renowned, completed struc ture, with enclosing walls, columns, steps and buttresses, in harmony with its ancient and we'll defined architecture, and $50, 900 is more than ample to replace and repair to
 stay for all time, if properly cared for, and
 it did not need 8 college professor to tell us
 that the miserable and now weather beaten
 lime stone, used to veneer it's basement and
 make its steps, which were added after the building proper was erected, needed to be replaced by the use of the money which the people had appropriated for that very pur- pose, and to brush up the building in its ex- ternals as we'll from roof to the turf which
 surrounds it.
 Finally it was the State House question which upset the old, and elected the new
 mayor, for the old one was pronounced de-
 stToyer of $20O, 900 worth of property, and
 the new one was @ pronounced savior Of 1t,
 and yet in the face and eyes of his pro- nouncement before election, he signed in hot haste the bill to destroy it.
 The end is not yet. The State House will not go. MORRIS.
 For himself and others.