Evening star., 1898-10-31
SWEEPING CHARGES
Continued from First Page.)

tContnued from First Page.)
in the contracts for plumbing. gas piping
etc, and for heating and veutilating appa-
ratus had been executed changes were made
by the department in some of the interior
arrangements that cost the government in
two extras over $4,000.
Not n Fire-Proof Building.
A criminal mistake was made in the frs.
instance in putting much wood into the
roof construction. Now, another biunder,
quite serious, is being committed in the
so-called fre-prooflng in the ninth or roof
story. Unless a radical change is made and
some rational method adopted for correcting
the existing serious defects the upper por-
ton of that building will be veritabie
fire trap. 1t has been stated sem-offi-
cialiy that the supervising architects Office
promised a congressional committee that
the building should be Gre-proof, but it will
come far short of this.
The main Skylight over the court Cor cor
tile) was constructed according to the draw
ings and specifications. but has been d
source of trouble from the first Although
1t has cost the government nearly 81 900 al
ready for repairs. it leaks badly and is
likely to cause much damage to interior
work. The stone forming the roofs of the
turrets, cut according to the design, is with
out any drip: consequently these roofs are
leaking like sieves.
The lower skylight over post office work
ing room in first story. covering an area
or ABOUT -otoo square feet was put In place
by one contractor against my recommenda-
tons to the department, only to be badly
broken and damaged during the execution
of the work around the cortile under SUBJ
sequent contract. Indirectly this stupidity
has cost the government considerable sum
of money. which might have been saved.
In the early summer of 1897 the contract
Crs for heating and ventiiating plant were
greatly delayed by the insistence of the su-
pervising architects Office that the Hawley
down=draft should be used in connection
with the boilers. This device was finally
discarded upon my urgent recommendation
ana the work proceeded rapidly.
Drnuehty Windows.
Nearly 600 of the windows are of the
"Hydebrand" patent variety. Bad in de-
sign and worse in workmanship. they are
a standing disgrace to the building. The
frames were nearly all in position prior to
my reinstatement. June I, 1897, and as a
result of my first examination a large por-
ton of the work was condemned as being
unsatisfactory. The official records will
show many pages of reports in reference
to these windows but nothing in their favor
from any representative of the government
on the building The pulley stiles were
grooved deeply at the mill to receive the
sash pivots, and afterward, when the frames
were put together. the exterior angles of
the grooves were chopped off with a hatchet
or chsel, under the foolish impression of
the workman in charge that it would facili
tate the operation of the sash All of this
wretched business was without authority
and met with my unqualified disapprovaI
and condemnation. However, the subcon-
tractor for the window work appealed from
my decision directly to the department for
an official Endorsement and got it in a most
unusual way. The supervising architect
visited the building, made a personal in
spection of the windows and subsequent
ly addressed me a letter directing that
r. a ar1fp Ia nufp
of the grooves uniformly. This could
not be done. as many were already marred
beyond redemption. but all of them remain
ed. The Sashes are loosely fitted, and as
there are no parting strips in the lower half
of the pulley stiles il will be impossible to
keep out the rain, snow and wind. Now
that sidewalks have been laid on two sides
of the building. some of the frSt-story win
doWs are on exhibition. 1t is only a Ques
ton of time when all of the Hydebrand win
dows viii have to be taken out of the build
ing or radically changed at expense TO
the government of many thousands of
dollars
Rotten Concrete.
One of the first things that attracted my
attention after reassignnent TO duty as su-
spread over the floor arches throughout the
building. This stuff was condemned al
though it had previously been accepted and
paid for. having been put in place in ac-
cOrdance with the Specifications prepared
by the department. Subsequently this rub
bish was removed from the building and
good gravel concrete substituted. State
ments having been made by department
officials to the press of this city that my
successor, the present superintendent, was
for long time chief of the computing di-
vision in the supervising architects office,
it is proper to state that in this division all
of the specifications FIR public buildings are
written. BY indors.ng my action in con-
dcmninS the SO-called concrete the depart
nent stultitied its own record and reouked
the man who responsible for the speci-
Ecatons
Il the department was right in its speci
fcatiOns, why was my recommendation for
new concrete approved? If it was wrong.
why was the man who drew the specitica
TICS given my place as superintendent?
Can the public have confidence in bureau
Of the department which, after making a
mistake that has cost the government many
thousands of dollars on this one item alone,
deliberately puts in charge of the building
where it occurred the man who is response
bic for the costly error? Mr.. John n.
Holmes. who has been general foreman en-
the building fer five years past. and is,
therefore, in position to speak advisedly,
stated in an official report that the gov
erumeut got exactly what it specified and
what Il paid for that. in his opinion, good
concrete cannot be made from cinders and
he so expressed himself during the progress
of the work.
Time and Money Wasted.
The department had so wasted and fool
ishIy expended the public money during the
four years from June. 1888, to June, 1887,
that there was not sufficient available cash
at the time the bids were opened, on De-
cember 10, to proceed with the work of in
terror finish on and above the second
story. Waiting for Congress to appropriate
the necessary $175,000 delayed matters two
months, or until February 8, 1898. After
operations began another month was lost
in removing the rotten concrete. Subse-
Quently, or during April and May, two
months more of precious time were lost on
account of suspension of the work by order
of the department to procure bids on con-
templated changes in work then under way.
This suspension was against my judgment
and recommendation, it apparent
from the most casual observation that the
changes could not be executed for less than
$40 900 extra cost to the government. The
supervising architect maintained that they
could be made without additional cost, and
after the long and exasperating delay the
proposals obtained aggregated over $4,000.