The Greenville times. [volume] (Greenville, Miss.) 1868-1917, 1899-01-14

message as originally printed with
I the message as IL now appears in the
journal of the two houses you Will
sec that the governor has stricken
Iout that portion of his message as
originally sent 70 both bodies, there
. by confessiug 20 having misstated
the president of the senate and the
speaker of the house, What posi-
/ ton for the governor of the state.
And yet he presumes To accuse the
| legislature OF "A job.
Both houses of the legislature
Presented this suggestion on the part
of the governor; they recalled the
| fact that IL was stated before the
| governor had issued his proClama-
| ton for an extra session that the
/ capitol question would be brought
before them and IN the governors
message he had recommended the
consideration of building a new cap
/ itol because as he said the old one
was dangerous and he knew II TO be
I So
If IL was so dangerous as 10 nee
essitate the calling of an extra SEES
sion of the legislature in what posi-
ton would the legislature have
been if they, ut the suggestion Of
the presiding officers of the two
/ houses should have adjourned and
left the capitol question to be con
sidered by the governor until the
following January
THE VETO OF THE CAPITOL
BILL.
The governor then proceeded to
write his famous veto message In
his Hazlehurst speech he says Il
vetoed the bill and incurred the de-
Inunciation of those who were more
concerned for an opportunity to
vent their spleen than they We're
about state house, as well as the
Legitimate criticisms of a great
many good citizens who We're desir-
GUS Of the building Of state house,
but did not know the merits of the
bill. 1t Is now admitted by every
impartial citizen who has investi-
gated the matter that by the veto
! / saved the state from the perpetra
tors of job and an outrage upon
it,"
Fellow citizens this is a grave and
scandalOus charge against your leg
islative representatives. 1t was
made without one single citation
OF circumstances or specification of
fact by the governor of the state; as
it is absolutely baseless of truth.
Such a wanton charge, fellow citi-
zens. made by a man in his own de-
/ tense record Is only applicable as a
"stop thief cry by the real guilty
one. And am now going to show
that if there is any appearance Of a
Job in either bill the jobbery is more
apparent upon the Weathers bill,
taken in connection with all the
facts and circumstances pertaining
thereto. than there is in connection
with the Gordon bill
have always been at a loss to I'M
derstand how it was that the joint
committee could so far disobey the
positive instructions of the legisla-
ture creating them as to do some
thing they were not authorized to
do but implicitly prohibited from
doing They We're net authorized
90 select plan or make a recon-
.meudatiGn Of plan They were
authorized 10 cOllate all plans and
Specifications and to report fully to
the legislature
am not an architect, nor have l
studied architecture, but since the
governors veto l have been at some
pains to investigate what is usual in
competitions of this sort l have in
terviewed personally architects in
New Orleans, in Louisville, in Chi
cago and other cities and | have in
variably been told that preliminary
specifications only are prepared by
architects. There was only 81, 900
appropriated as the award for the
successful competitor, and Mr.,
Weathers informed the committee
ON public works of the senate when
he was before them that at the com
petition he had only preliminary
plans and that he had spent since
the meeting of the committee APP
pointed by the legislature, several
thousand dollars in preparing his
specifications, which he then had
before the Legislature.
:. l wrote to every architect compel
ing, asking them whether or not
they had full working specifications
before the committee on only pre-
liminary specifications and in every
instance where l received an answer
it was uniform to the effect that
their plans and specifications and
estimates presented before the cap
itOl commission were preliminary
in form only. One of them wrote
me that the program dated May
18th, which was issued by the capitol
commission was issued at his sug-
gestion, so as to place the different
plans on an uniform footing, gener-
ally recognized as the fairest, There
were two circulars or notices issued
by the capitol commission, one
April 10, 1896 and the other May II,
1896. The circular Of May 18th this
architect wrote me was issued at his
suggestion.
One of these architects who
writes that he was president at that
time of the Southern Institute of
American Architects, says: 1T is
1 not customary for architects to sub
NIT complete working drawings and
specifications in competition I'M
less so requested. However it is al
ways customary and understood
that preliminary drawings, prelimi
nary details and explanatory specif
cations should be submitted, which
amounts almost to working draw
/. ings. Water color prospectives are
never attempted in professional
competition 1t is necessary to re-
Il.