The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1889-08-07

lie Tells the Board of Trade that the Federal
Building Site Should Not Be Changed.

Messrs. j. w. Murphy, N. S. Byram and
John II. Holiday. the committee appointed
by the Board of Trade to investigate and
report on the proposed new location for the
postoffice, have submitted their report to
the board of governors. They state that
the government owns the entire quarter of
q square on which the present building
stands, and it is the intention of Congress
man Bymum to introduce bill at the APP
preaching session of Congress providing for
the erection of new building, at a cost of
S1,OO0,O00 They state that it is the opinion
of Mr.. Bynum, with whom they have con-
ferred. that the ground is amply sufficient
for q building that will provide for all
needs of the community for great many
years. and that it's purchase has removed
the greatest obstacle in the way of securing
new and better edihce. To demand
change of location would. Tin
the Congressman's opinion, be likely
to jeopardlZe the new enterprise and delay
its accomplishment for some time. The
reasons he gave are: First, the government
is satisfied now; second, it will not
purchase or care for more ground than it
approve change that will cost more un-
less there snould be some important
reason, which does not exist in this case;
fourth, to reopen the subject and to ask
new paves the way to interminable diff
culties, for different sites will be advO-
Gated, and n contest may be begun which
will end in Congress refusing to pass any
bill OF make any appropriation.
1t is Mr.. Bynum's opinion that the change
could be made only by the unanimous
agreement upon site which would cost no
more than the value of the present
one with positive arrangement to take
the present property off the hands
of the government without loss. This
brings forward, the report states, the ques-
| ton as to what reason there is for a change,
and on this point the committee says it can
| see but one. That is, to secure larger
| piece of ground which might give a better
architectural effect. and thus beautify the
city. 1t says that, so far as the present 10
| cation is concerned, it answers the require
ments of centrality and accessibility, and
no great departure from it has been sug-
gested. So the only ADVANTAGE of change
would be the use of more ground.
| whether this would be an adj
vantage or not" the report con-
tinues, lis matter of opinion, but the
main objection to it, stated by Mr. Bynum,
to hold no more ground than is necessary.
and therefore it will not spend money to
maintain or beautify such extra space. If
this cannot be overcome ii is not likely the
government WOulu agree TO change, nm
less the ground were given free or at a low
cost. Your committee, therefore, can only
| refer the subject to your further considera-
| tion, with the expression that if it should
be deemed advisable to work for the change
| it will be necessary to secure the site and
! have 1t approved unanimously, so that no
antagonisms may arise which may be used
| in Congress to defeat an appropriation and
also secure purchasers for the present prop
| erty, the whole at prices which shall in
| VOlyR the Government in increased "
pense. This will be task of great magni-
tude and difficulty; indeed, considering the
conflicts of opinion that usually arise in
such a case, we are justified In saying that
| it will be work in which the chance OF
| success is comparatively small"
| The report of the committee was received
| and it is not likely anything further will
be done by the board in the matter.