The Wilmington daily Republican. (Wilmington, Del.) 1890-1902, 1893-07-10
THIRD EDITION.


Building Inspector Daniel Dohl has
written this open letter In relation to
the Armory Building at Twelfth and
Orange streets, which has been the
source OF so much comment the past
few weeks:
In the first place as Building Inspec-
tor of this city, L have not condemned
said building or have | given or been
asked TO give an official opinion In
reference to the same. Being men,
Der OF the WILMINGTON Turngemelnde,
was invited by the committee to view
the premises. which did, and having
an interest in the welfare of the Turn
gemeinde, advised against the pur-
chase OF said building, giving as my
reason that the building was not in a
satisfactory condition for the cungre.
CATION OF large numbers of people,
where dancing was INDUCED in, the
purpose for which the Turner's want
ed a building. This did purely as u
member of tho association and not in
any way in an official capacity.
in the second place / beg to call
your attention to u letter published In
the Morning News and Every Evening
of this city, and signed by Messrs.
Philenma Chandler, S. Reed, Lynn
& Phillips and Edwin Talley. The
letter was drafted by Mr.. L. l.. Rice.
and at his request. understand, the
the above gentlemen signed it. This
Information | have from some OF the
gentlemen themselves. These gentle
men do not say the building is salts
factory for the purpose intended by
the Turner's" for OF that they hay
no knowledge; but they do say I'll
Building is in safe condition at tln
present time" which | do not contra
Inf Tn I haNA nnnIaIn aI IA.
building rs being unsafe.
| also would call your attention t.
the letter of Mr.. Tarbutton, the fore
man In charge OF the erection CT this
building. He says the building ia IN
the same condition as when he turned
1t over to tho owners. This Is perfect
ly natural. for TO say otherwise would
be condemning his own work.
As to Mr.. Mulvena's testimony. he IL
one OF the most Interested parties IN
the whole transaction having tlnau
DIAL interest in said building. As &c
AIR. ltice, he Is in the same capacity
being financially interested in tn,
building. ms captain OF Troop B, th'
owners.
As to Mr.. Chandler, "a gentleman
for whom l have nothing but the kind
est feeiing). his opposition to me !
well understood.
ne was one OF my opponents when
was elected to the oifico now occupy
md he has tried since that time Il
hurt mo In overy way. / am careful
In all my work and have TO In0ke tn
contractors live up to the law. l IL
not propose TO have accidents occu
TO buildings during my term OF ollic
" can help it. as happened to som
OF my predecessors.
MIR, Reed, ono of the slgners TO tn
letter published, informed me that Ii
refused 10 bid ON tic erection of thi
building ON account of the foundH
Tons. This Is corroborated by Mi
W. G. Seeds. who also refused to li'
f0r tho Same reasons. | can produce
n necessary, other contractors In tht
city. and architects as we'll, who too
the same view as did Messrs Reed am
Seeds. and who did not bid on I'll
erection of the building for simlla
reasons.
As to tho remarks made by Mr.. Rice
In reference to the expert from Phlli
deiphia. have nothing to say. | ii
not know tho gentleman and canine
EAy whether lie Is an architect an
more than l could say Mr., iice Is a
architect
The opposition to my action In TIL
matter comes, firstly. from those VIII
opposed my election TO the posltio
now occupy; eeroudly, from thoe
who have n financial interest In tn
sale of this building; thirdly. froi
those whom | have made to i've u
TO the building laws OF this city.
In conclusion, | have nothing [
fear from public criticism in this ina
tor and will hava nothing further {
Say on tho subject after the abo'
explanation.
Very respectfully yours,
DANIEL BoHL.