Capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1893-1895, 1895-04-17
ARCHITECT W. D. PUGH's REPORT
A Lengthy Statement in Answer to
the Findings Of Acting Super.
intendent Harrild.

| ASSISTANT superintendent OF the con-
strlction of that structure:
10 the Honorable, the Mayor and
Common Council of the City of
Salem
In accordance with a resolution pass
ed at the last regular meeting of the
common council take the pleasure of
submitting for your consideration the
following report in answer TO certain
charges preferred by Mr.. Henry Har-
rid, in which he alleges the work
mauship and materials are at a var
lance and fall short of that contained
in the specification and set forth in the
drawings for the construction of the
new city hail, and say: Admitting
that there Were certain changes made
as the work progressed, the following,
l am confident, will prove to your hon
orable body, We're for the benefit of
the building, rather than a detldment,
as is the puTpOrt of the report. Ger
tain castings being heavier than neces-
sary were made lighter and the re-
duction thus made was placed in other
portions of the building as will be seen
Farther on. l explained this matter to
n number of the present building COM
mittee at the time the reduction was
made. AS the report plainly and fore
IDLY points out. the shortage of weight
Of several castings, 1t would have been
no more than right for it to have in
cluded such castings as were furnished
over and above the detailed list of iron
| to be furnished.
| First. In reference to the change
made in THE foundation from concrete
| to stone masonry: The following is Sllf-
| ficient to subStantiate the fact that the
change was made by order of the last
| building committee, wiz: We, the
| building committee of the city council
| OF Salem, Oregon, and the architect
OF the city hall building do hereby au-
| th0riZe the change of the Specifica-
lions as to the foundation walls of said
city hail building, attached to the CON
tract of Hutchins & Southwick with
| the city of Salem, SO that said speci-
fications as to foundation may be ac-
cording to the copy hereto annexed,
the same being Those prepared by said
/ architect, and used at the time esti-
| MATES were taken, and that stone be
used i'm the construction of said found
| alton walls. Dated at Salem, Oregon.
this 9TH day of August, 1898.
The fact of the matter is, the order
l received from the council was to al
low the various contractors to figure
on eithe; a concrete or stone founda-
| ton At the time the work was about
to be commenced L know the present
contractors Were willing to proceed
and to adopt whichever mode of con-
struction the council would suggest
without any alteration In their bid.
The report embodieS an erroneous as
Sertion setting forth the alleged fact
that there Is an actual difference in
cost between concrete and masonry of
S1,O1250. 1t does not require much
inquiry from the proper authorities.
viz: men engaged in that business, to
ascertain that to be vastly incorrect,
the cost being practically the same.
Second. With reference to the sub
stitution of the steel I-beams for the
riveted iron box gipders, an alleged
difference in the cost of the same is
made of some $3.50. The carrying ca
pacity OF the same, which Mr.. Harrild
once argued in favor of the box grid
ers, seems to have been omitted /
have aScertained that the cost between
THE two is nominal; but there is a vast
difference, in favor of the steel l.
beams when the carrying capacity is
considered Quoting from one of the
highest authorities: "Take for eX-
ample q span of 90 it. between sup
ports, the box girder as detailed will
carry safe load of 50 tons, while the
combined strength of the two so lb.
steel I-beams will sustain a safe load.
of - .2S tons; hence a difference In car
rying capacity OF lips tons IN favor Of
the I-beams, and being far more dur
able | see no objection to the Use of
the same, inasmlIcll as the city Is get
| ting something preferable to that CON
tacted for, as the mechanism of the
steeI I-beams Is beyond Question and
| 1t would be possible for the box grid
ers to contain flaws in the way of
| faulty riveting. / readily consented
10 the change, knowing 1t to be ben
eft 10 the construction Of the build
| ing, II was found to be impossible
to procure the box girders by the time
they would be required. as the iron
would necessarily have To be shipped
from the East and built here; and as
fhe l. beams could be made at once,
the change was made 10 avoid delay
10 the building.
Third. In regard to the reduction In
| weielTt in certain places or cast Iron
used In the building. will say: The
pier plates, 4Sx4sK3 were detailed ex-
IRA heavy IN the firDt place with ref
erence 20 concrete piers, and as stone
piers were used instead this was not
necessary, and they Were changed TO
30x30x2 instead. This reduction and
also q Reduction IN the weight Of the
first story hntles was made for the
purpose OF balancing extra lintles In
che basement. II In the tower, and 5
iyaaIing plates 10 avoid an extra;
thay did DOt appear ON the detailed list
OF Iron work furnished 10 contractors
| from wlACdi tO 1gslre There still arises
another erroneous calculation IN refer
6nns 10 alleged shortage in weight Of
sauare columns used and The round
columns originally intended 10 have
basn u,sad, The report goes on 10 ex-
plain that round columns would weigh
1868 lbs, and the square eolninns
lBSlD HIS making a difference IN
weight Of s.S62 lbs. Ia favor ~ the
round columns; WHOM An fact fhe az
iual weight of lbs square columns y
In ,ahs lbs and the round columns "a
| a Al. a a la