The record-union., 1893-06-14
CAPITOL BUILDING AND REMOVAL

CAPITOL BUILDING AND REMOVAL.
The San Jose Mercury is at it again,
and by its reiteration attempting to inn
press error upon the people. In reply to
the RECoRD-UNIoN's showing of the
enormous cost involved in Capital re-
mOval and the greatly increased taxation
that must result for series of years. it
revamps the old declaration that the ST.
900, 600 San Jose is to raise will erect as
good or a better Capitol building than
that the State now has.
In view of the fact that but one State
has a better or larger Capitol building
than that of California, this is simply an
absurd statement. The building could
not be reproduced or equaled for $780,
600, and there is not a competent con-
structor in the State who will risk his
reputation by affirming the San Jose
proposition.
Our contemporary, however, says:
under the San Jose offer Of ten acres of
ground and 81, 100000 to erect new build
ing, to remove the Capital will actually
cost less than to continue the repairs and
provide for the needed improvements Of
the building at Sacramento" This is
rank dogmatism. 1t assumes as existing
conditions that do not exist. Improve
ments are vaguely assumed as needed in
the present building, a comparatively
new structure and one of such massive
ness and stability as is not surpassed in
the Union save by the National Capitol at
Washington. Tho simple truth is that
our contemporary disingenuously mis-
leads by its statement. The Capitol
building of California is as complete as
the State needs or should contemplate
The only improvements suggested have
been made, or are under way, and they
are due to modern discovery and advance,
and are electric lighting and the intro
duction of an elevator, the one completed
and the other provided for.
against the present building and elimi-
mates it from the proposed new building
The fact is that no greater cost attaches to
the present building for such items than
would attach annually to similar build
ing in San Jose or anywhere else. The
Capitol at Sacramento has never cost for
repairs one half the sum usually attach
ing to such buildings of that size, mass
iveness and character. Most of them
such as the recent wall decoration and
the construction of the archives vault.
In fact, the building never was COM
pleted as designed, as for instance the in
terror finishing of the dome. All other
repairs relate to those incidentals of
painting, new furniture, replacing old
style for improved drain pipes, etc.
things that are incident to all buildings
But the Capitol building is not the only
one-the State Printing Office and State
Warehouse must of necessity be built at
San Jose if the Capital is removed to that
city. What, too, do the taxpayers think
the cost will be of improving the ten
acres San Jose proposes to give the State
in the nature ola bride to proceed with
a silly and unnecessary scheme? What
do they think will be the cost of aban-
doning in Sacramento grounds and
the permanent improvements that have
been made thereon?
AS to the Capitol property in Sacra-
mento reverting and being wholly lost to
the State in case of removal of the seat of
government. the Mercury admits that
that may be, though it casts doubt upon
a proposition of law that is incontrovert-
ible. But, adds our contemporary, if the
property reverts that is minor point"
Perhaps; but we apprehend that taxpay-
ers will not consider as a matter of no
consequence the abandonment of build
ing, grounds and improvements upon
the latter-which make them the finest
Capitol grounds in any State in the Union
as is admitted on all sides-the value of
which to the people of the State is not
one cent less than $4,000, 0OO-truly "a
minor point" Add the So 900, 900 to the
new cost, subtract San Jose's 81, 200, 900
and ten acres, and the taxpayers can
easily calculate upon putting up with a
loss or.expense equal to Sl5,O0O.OOO, a sum
greater than the entire cost of the State
Government for two and a half years.