The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-03-05
Strong Tide of Opposition to the
Fire-Proof Project.
OPINIONS OF TAXPAYERS.
A Majority of Them Believe 1t Should
Be ThrOttled.
The Herald's Crusade Has Created Radi-
cal Change of sentiment-The Ex-
penditure Is Believed to Be
Unnecessary


extravaganza and needless expenditure on
the joint building meets the commenda-
ton OF the tax-paying public.
The figures presented by this paper,
showing at what an alarming rate the ex-
tras were crawling up, and that unless
the food were speedily arrested our $780,
600 building would cost the public nearly
million dollars, has created a general
sentiment in favor OF calling halt.
The tide of opposition to the scheme of
expanding SIPS, 200 for defective and I'M
satisfactory fre-proofng system is setting
in SO strong that it promises to sweep the
whole foolish project to destruction.
Many OF its most enthusiastic advocates
are already beginning to hedge and to
qualify their position, for the expendi-
ture of S125, 200 of the public money in
one lump is no trifling matter.
The HERALD this morning presents the
opinions of many prominent taxpayers on
the hre- PROBING subject, from which it
may readily be seen that public sentiment
has undergone radical change while the
estimates were growing from $50, eco to
SIPS, 900. The members of the city coun-
ell and county court should take note of
the drift of public opinion before taking
g final vote on the proposition next Tues
Ody dlt6ruOOu.
VIEWS OF THE TAXPAYERS.
w. S. Mccormick am opposed to it
and l am glad to see THE HERALD come
out against it. The danger OF fire, under
the conditions surrounding the building,
is too remote to justify any such expendi-
ture. If a fire should break out from the
inside the building would burn almost
as quickly. The people cannot afford it.
Wendell Benson-lf they are going to
make job of it, they had better quit
right now. | was in favor of fire proofng
three months ago, but the way the extras
are crawling up, they ought to go ahead
now and complete the building according
to the original plans.
j. ii. Baconl am in favor of fire.
proofng, provided they can get fair
contract, but | don't think they should
go ahead recklessly. think the building
should be made as thoroughly fire. proof
as possible.
Simon Bamberger-I am opposed to fire.
proofng, unless by so doing we can Sc
cure the tile plant. If the materials can
be made here, l think we would be JUS
titled in undertaking the expenditure.
Otherwise, it is a luxury we can get along
without.
J. <. Gillespie-I am against the fire.
proofing proposition because l don't
think there is the slightest probability of
the building burning down if constructed
according to the present plans. Then it
can be insured against loss at very low
rate, because the fires for generating heat,
light and power are all removed from the
building. | am opposed to the proposed
change because it will be a needless ex-
penditure of public money. The slow
combustion plan makes the structure
safe enough for all practical purposes.
Frank E. McGurrin-This scheme to
fire. proof the joint building ought to be
defeated because the benefits to be de-
rate with the amount of money to be ex-
pended. The slow combustion method
affords all the protection needed.
Louis p. Kelsey-When the citv coun-
Gil considered this matter originally all
these points that are being discussed now
were fully considered, and the admins
tration arranged to give US the best build
ing the city and county could afford.
There has not been such q change in our
prosperity since then as would warrant
the large additional expenditure pro-
posed. More than that, am opposed to
breaking contract that has been made,
because it gives the contractor a great
deal of latitude.
w. Z. Lynn-When the plans for the
building were finally adopted, was a
member of the city council, and all of
these matters received due consideration
at the time. | believed at the time the
action taken was wise, all things con-
sidered, and nothing has since transpired
to change my mind.
S. B. Westerield-It would be folly to
put in fire-proof wallsIand wooden floors.
Unless the building can be thoroughly
fireproofed am opposed to changing the
ori9ina plans. 1t would be throwing
big sum away.
Architect Carroll-Situated as that
building is, in the center of an immense
square, there is no danger of its ever
catching fire from an adjoining building
If fire starts inside it will burn just as
fast if fire. PROCEED, according to the pro-
posed system, as without it.
Walter p. Jennings-I think the
HERALD has struck the nail on the head,
l am opposed to it.
Probate Judge Blair-I do not think we
ought to pay out S125, 900 just to secure
the tile plant. If the building was to have
been fre-proofed it sboulds have been
planned with that end in view, instead
of waiting until it is half completed
]. G. Bechtol-I should like to see the
building completed In frst-class style
and made credit to the city, if it can be
done in proper way, but if it is to be
steal am opposed to it. 1 think if they
would expend that money on a beautiful
park and grounds 1t would be better.
j. S. Groesbeck-I am not in favor of
it. The finer they make the joint build
ing the better it would be for me, for
am interested in property all around
there, but dom think such an expendi-
ture is justified.
M. II. Lippman-If the city can afford
it and thinks it is the proper thing to do,
we should have it.
Councilman Bell-If it is to cost more
than $50, 900 am opposed to it.
A. d. Woolley-As / look at it, it is
simply steal OF about 100000. Grant
them this extra and they will demand
the building viii cost what THE HERALD
said it would-over $500, 900.
Mayor Beardsley-I am in favor of it.
That is, conditionally. l am not in favor
of it regardless of expense, but if its con-
struction can be brought within the pres
emit estimate | will vote for it.
II.