Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-04-30
The President DisapprOyes Dallas
Public Building Bill
An Error in the Text of the Oklahoma
Bill in Describing the Territory
10 be Included.
Petition FOR the Insertion of an EiGhs-Hour
Clause In all Contracts for Gov
eminent Work


q message vetoing the bill to provide for
the erection of public building at Dali
las, Tex.
Following is the text of the message:
81 return without my approval bill of
the house S4S, to authorize the construc-
ton of en- addition to the public building
Dallas, Tex. The bill authorizes the
construction of q wing or addition to the
present public building at cost of $780,
900. find that the bill as originally
introduced by the member representing
the congressional district in which Dallas
is situated fixes 500 900 as the limit Of
the proposed expense, and it was so re-
ported from the committee on public
buildings and grounds. After confer
ence with the supervising architect of
the treasury q bill of the same
tenor was introduced in the senate by
one of the senators from that state fixing
the same limit of expense for the public
appropriation of 500 900 was made
in 1882, and subsequently in
creased to SIPS 900, and was only COM
pleted in 1889. It is probably inadequate
now to the convenient transaction of
business, chiefly in part assigned to the
post office. The material and ARCHITECT
tural style of any addition is fixed by the
present building and its grounds, as no
provision is made for buy
ing additional ground. The pres
ent building is S5x56 feet, and
Mr.. John B. Witwer, postmaster and
custodian of building, writing to the
supervising architect, advises that to
meet the present and future needs at
least two teirds more room than that of
the present building should be provided.
II will be seen from the following extract
from letter of the supervising
architect to the chairman of the senate
committee on public building and
grounds dated February l, 1890, that
building larger than that suggested can
be constructed within the limit of $780,
600. He says:
From computations made in this
Office based upon data received, it is
found that an extension or wing of forty
five feet by eighty-flve feet, three
stories high with basement giving
3400 square feet in addition to
construction can be ereoted on the pres
ent site within the limit of cost proposed
by said bill viz: 500 900.
cit may be possible that the expendi-
ture of 1926 200 for public building at
Dallas, IL the question of site, ma
tcrial, and architecture were all under
mined, could be defended; but under
existing conditions do not see how an
appropriation of $500. 90 could be justi-
fed when one-half of that sum is plainly
adequate to such relief as the present
site allows.
The legislation for the erection of pub
lie buildings has not proceeded, so far as
can trace, upon any general rule.
Neither population nor the extent
of the public business transacted
has always indicated the points
where public buildings were first to be
built or the cost of the structures. 1t
cannot be expected that in the absence
of some general law the committee of
congress in charge Of such matters will
make their Recommendations upon strict
equal lines. The bills are individual
and il comparisons are attempted the
necessary element of probable growth is
made to cover all apparent inequalities.
1t will be admitted, am sure, that only
public need should suggest an expendit-
ure of public money, and that il all
such needs cannot be at once supplied
the most general and urgent should have
the preferences. am not unfrlendly to
liberal annual expenditures for the erec-
AAOu Va PAOAAO cummings NAG SOn-
venient transaction OF public business de-
mands it and the state Of the
revnnes will permit. It would
be wiser, in my opinion, to
build more and less costly houses and
fix by a general law the amount of
annual expenditures for this purpose,
and some order of preference for cities
asking for public buildings.
But in view of the pending
legislation looking to a very larg,
reduction of our revenues, and Of
the urgency and necessity for q large in
crease in our expenditures in certain di-
rections, am of opinion that app.opria-
tions for tine erection Of public buildings
and all kindred expenditures should be
kept at minimum until the effect of
other probable legislation can be
exactly measured. The erection of pub
lie buildings is largely q matter OF local
necessity and convenience; while expedi-
lures for enlarged relief and recognition
of the soldiers aud sailors OF the war for
the preservation of the union,
for necessary. coast defenses and
for the extension of our commerce.
withother American states, are of uni
versai necessity and involve considsra-
tions not of convenience, but of justice,
honor, safety and general prosperity
lSignedl Benz. HARRISON.
Executive Mansion, April %, 1890.