The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-09-15
CONTRACTS FOR THE CONSTRUC-
TION OF THE CAPITOL AS GOOD
AS SIGNED.
ATTORNEY GENERAL cHILDS,
AS THE GLOBE PREDICTED, SUS-
TAINs THE ACTION OF THE
BOARD.
WALTER BUTLER STARTS SOON
Fer Georgia to Look After the Guar
rying OF the Marble That
Caused the Delay.

| This is all l have been waiting for, y
said Charming Seabury to a G o b re-
porter, as he gleefully tapped his breast
| pocket containing the opin:oa Of At
| torney General Childs II will now sign
the contract Immediately as author
lied by the board of commissioners
probably I will get around to it this
afternoon. Mr.. Cnilds opinion is just
what 1 knew it would be and sussains
the board in no uncertain tones. l sup
pose the contractors will get to work
Immediately"
/ Walter Butler, president of the But
| ler-Ryan company, announced that the
| contracts for the stone would be let
| Immediately. There will be rs, 00e feet
| of Minnesota granite from st. Cloud,
and the contract for this will be let 20
| w. c. Baxter, of Minneapolis, who will
| commence work at once and will en-
ploy about 125 men all winter. The
| $4,000 cubic feet of Kettle river sand
| stone will be contracted for with the
I Kettle river quarrieS, which will EN-
ploy from forty to fifty men on the job.
| The l28,000 feet Of Georgia marble will
| be qUarried in Pickens county, Ga, by
! the Butler-Ryan company itself, and
Walter Butler will go there in a day or
two to lookJ after the work. The ST.
| Cloud stone will be dressed at the quar-
ries, but all the rest will be cut in st.
/ Paul. y
The iron work will be done by a local
concern. ~
Work will be commenced Immediate
| DC nd I,n vet e,1,;
ment of the marble is expected in
about three weeks. A force of 125 to
200 men will be employed all winter
| in st. Paul, dressing the stone under
the sheds which will be erected for the
purpose. and by the opening of spring
about 100 more. men will be added.
The contractors are obliged to give a
bond in the sum of $3.50 900. one-half
| of the contract price.
The full opinion of the attorney gen
eral. the drift Of which was anticipated
by the G o b e Sunday morning, is as
| follows: s
In my communication of the 7th inst 1
suggested delay the part of your hon
erable board in the execution of the con-
! tract which had been awarded to the Butler
/ Ryan company for the erection of the su-
| perstructure of the new capitol building. The
suggestion was made for the reason that
| General Laws of 1895. Chapter 3l7 seemed
| at the time to present a serious question as
! to the authority of the beard to contract for
| the use OF Georgia marble for the exterior
! surfaclng of the said building. I have since
given the question such consideration as time
| at my disposal would permit and have been
aided therein by the opinions of number of
| gentlemen at the bar of the state expressed
orally and in writing.
| Two questions have presented themselves
| for my consideration: ~ The construction
of the the Law. Of lss5 and e. its applicability
| Assuming that the law of 1895 controls the
action of the board; does it authorize in any
| contingency, the use of marble for the ex-
| terror surfacng of the new capitol build
ing?
| Section 1 thereof is as follows:
All natural stone which shall hereafter be
used in the construction of public buildings
or other structures for which funds shall De
appropriated by the state Of Minnesota, shall
be quarr1ed. cut and dressed within the
boundaries OF this state; provided. that this
section shall not be constructed as prohibiting
the use of stone of at least as good a quail
| 1ty for such institutions and buildings where
ever (whenever) the cost thereof is less than
that of native stone.''
! Two constructions are contended for 1t is
insisted on the one hand that the legislature
| has thus declared in favor of native stone
and against marble, with the exception above
| noted that the proviso was added to section
| one as precaution against combination and
| excessive prices imposed by the owners of
nome quarries; and that foreign materials
may be used only in those cases where the
state having selected granite, limestone or
sandstone, may procure the same without the
state, if OF equal quality, and at less cost
than the native stone. 1t is urged in short,
that the legislative rule is, Minnesota stone
and use it we must, unless we can else
where get equally good stone of the same
kind and quality at less cost. This is the
view which early impressed itself upon NV
own mind. and which is certainly not with
out force.
| 1t is urged, on the other hand, that when
! ever 1t is found that some may be procured
| in other states, whether marble or other
KIND, equally as good as, and at less cost
than the home stone, it is lawful to import
and use 1t for such a purpose.
Whichever view is adopted it will be
found attended with difficulties. 1 am upon
reflection, disposed to adopt the latter as
which found favor with the majority of the
members of the board, whose views in such
case are entitled to great respect and con-
| Sideration. .-a
1t must be presumed that the legislature
was in 1891 as in 1893. DESTROYS of providing a
1 capitol for the state in the manner
most advantageous for it The earlier law
| home material and labor, yet left that
body free to contract with view to the best
interests of the state, whether as to material
| or labor
The act of 1898 comprehends in its terms a
variety of buildings. The proviso may with
much force be said to invest the act of
1895 with the same public policy. There is
! certainly no substantial reason unless found
| in the statute itself, why the state, whenever
compelled to go abroad for its building stone
| should not like individual, drive the best
! bargain it can. 1t is not question of senti-
ment but of business. The state by it's
power of taxation provides itself with build
| ings requisite to the public welfare. 1t owes
| it to the taxpayer to act prudently and ac-
cording to sound business principles in pro-
viding for such buildings. The proviso is
susceptible Of q construction in consonance
| with such policy, and such construction all
| in all, should, in my judgment, be adopted.
! In creating a board of state capitol COM
missioners the Legislature made them the
! exclusive judges of the character of the
! building to be erected, and imposed upon
| them no other limitation than a maximum
/ expenditure of 81 009, 900. They were enjoined
! to give preference to Minnesota stone in the
original act, but they had the undoubted au-
| thority under its provisions as long as they
acted in good faith to use marble or granite
/ or other stone wherever procured. The law
| of 1895, assuming it TO have any application
| to the case, does not limit them to any par
| ticular stone. Whenever the law applies, an
| official is bound to patronize a home quarry,
unless an equally good stone can be else
where procured at less cost. The decision
of the official board is, and, from the nature
of the case, must be- conclusive. In select
| ing Georgia marble 1Ithey may have acted
| unwisely, but they have not, as / view Ii,
| done violence to- the law of 1895.
But I am able TO approve their action by an
| altogether different course of reasoning.
The act providing for the erection of state
capitol building &c. L. 1S93 C. p was designed