Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-30
How Shall the Court House
Roof be Constructed?
Shall 1t be Fire-proOf, as is the
Building?
r Is 1t Worth $4,000 to Make the
Change?
Interviews with the Big Taxpayers on
This Important Question-Pro
and Con.


planned and contracted for, the roof is
to be wooden frame covered by slate
shingles. The wood in this frame of the
roof is the only ignitible material in the
building, from the lowest footings Of
the basement walls to the chimney pots
above the roof The walls are stone OF
brick, the joists and girders are of iron
or steel, the floors are slate. 1t is abso-
lutely a fire-proof structure until one
reaches the framework of the roof. In
this there is naturally large amount
of wood, as it must uphold covering of
slate shingles whose weight is very
great. There is not much danger of fire
getting into the roof if it is prop
erly constructed without dormer
windows or mansard features. In
case of a fire the roof only would be lost,
but the inconvenience and disfguring of
the building would be great. With a
roof of metal the entire edifice would be
absolutely fireproof in all its parts and
in all respects. The cost Of the proposed
change would be $42 900.
Knowing these facts, and that the
board was wrestling with the problem,
yesterday HERALD reporter was de-
tailed to gather up the views of num-
ber OF heavy taxpayers as to the desira-
bility of making such change at the
above expense.
John F. Humphreys was found at his
office on Spring street, and the mat
ter being explained, he said L
think the building ought to be all of
the best construction, and that it is very
desirable that the roof, like the other
parts of the building, ought to be fire.
proof. AS to the cost, am not prepared
to speak. All means ought to be
used to keep that down to what is fair
to the contractor and people. Being a
change from the original contract, the
builder will naturally expect to make a
good profit, but he ought not to be al
lowed to charge what is unfair.
General E. Bouton said: The
court house will cost, 1 suppose,
100000. 1t is to stand for all time.
To scrimp in the matter of the roof
looks to me like being pennywise and
pound-foolish..
L. N. Breed. of the Southern Califor-
mia Bank, said: 1 think the roof ought
to correspond in the main with the rest
of the building. 1t ought to be fire.
proof.
WI F.Bosbyshell, of the same bank, said ::
I think steel frame and slate shingles
the best, provided the shingles will
not be too heavy. l think slate shingles
should be preferable to iron; although 1
have not given that matter much
thought.
1t may be well to state that there is a
rebate allowed by the contractor of $2,-
900 for the change in the shingles from
slate to metal.
w. Lacy, sr., said: One is
hardly prepared to speak on so i'm
portant a matter in this off-hand
manner. have not given the subject
much consideration. But as mere off
hand view, l would say that so expen-
sive building, for SO important uses,
ought to be as near fire-proof as pos
sible.
W. J. Brodrick said: By all means
the roof ought to be of iron. The build
ing is for all time, and ought to be so
constructed that will not be needing
repairs or be in danger of partial des-
truction.
John w. Gafey and Fred. Hardness,
who were in Mr.. Brodrick's company
when the reporter interviewed him, said
that they entirely concurred in these
views.
w. H. Workman was the first met
who dissented from the iron roof. He
said: 1t is all wrong to change the
plans now. There will be very little
chance of fire in the roof if it is prop
erly finished, and therefore the extra
expense seems to me unnecessary, the
more 80 at time when taxes are very
high, and money rather scarce.
II. w. Hellman, of the Farmers and
Merchants Bank, said: The court house
ought to have tire-proof roof. The
extra cost ought not to prevent this be-
ing done. AS a taxpayer, say the
mistake made when the plans were
drawn ought to be corrected now. The
original plans ought to have provided
for a fire-proof roof.
J. M. Elliott, of the First National
Bank, said: 1 am not quite ready to
express an unqualified opinion, as have
not given the matter very close consid-
Grafton. But it seems to me that a
properly constructed slate roof would be
practically fire-proof, even with wood as
the frame work. There should be
no dormer windows in the roof, mol
castings or other woodwork exposed to
catch fire. The risk would then be very
small, and the expense of the change is
great. Then apparatus ought to be pro-
vided near the roof to extinguish fire,
if one by any chance should catch
there. The expense of such precaution
would be very small.
G. Prayer, said: As an ex-supervisor,
say the change ought not to be made.
A change is always bad thing under
such circumstances. All that could be
lost in the extremely improbable event
of fire in the roof would be the roof
itself. l would not take $42 900 more oi
the peoples money for such purpose.
The taxes are already high enough, and
no addition that can be helped ought tc
be made to them.
Tom Hays said: think we ought to
have as good court house as we can
get. 1t ought to be fire-proof in all re-
spects, SO as to secure it against all pos
sibility of destruction. am willing tc
pay my proportion of the extra $42 900
A. E. Pomeroy said: have kept the
run of this topic in the daily papers
/ think the change should be made. The
building should be for all time with nc
need of replacement of any parts.
Geo. H. Stewart of the County Bank,
said: 1t is better to have fire-proof roo
even at the extra cost of $4,000. But
that seems to me large difference. tc