Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1900-01-26
THE COURT HOUSE.
Meeting Of the Statutory Board
Held Thursday,

Thursday morning Messrs Hadley,
Randolph and Strecker, of the Board
OF County Commissioners; Probate
Judge Rood, Sheriff McCallister, Clerk
Trotter and Mr.. ]. H. Grafton, mem
bers of the Board appointed by law to
approve plans for the new Court
House, met and organized at the re-
quest Of the four members of the
Board outside the Commissioners.
After the organization, the following
resolution was introduced by Judge
Rood:
Whereas, the County Commissioners
aid on the 2Sth day OF October, A. D.
1899, invite competition on the plans
and specifications for new Court
House and Jail to be erected at the
northeast corner of Putnam and Sec
and streets in the City of Marietta,
Washington county, Ohio, and
Whereas, seven reputable and eX-
perienced firms of architects did, pur-
suaRt to said invitation, respond, and
submitted such plans and speclfica-
tions for inspection, examination and
approval or rejection by the Board of
seven created by law to inspect, eX-
anime, approve or reject plans and
specifications for Court House and
Jail in said county, and
Whereas, said Commissioners re-
turned said plans and specifications to
said firms respectively without the
knowledge or consent of a majority of
said Board, and before said Board had
an opportunity to pass upon them, or
any of them, according to their several
merits and before any action whatever
had been taken by said Board respect
ing the said plans and specifications,
therefore be it
Resolved, by said Board, that each
of said firms be and each is hereby in
vited to submit said plans and speclfi-
cations for the inspection, eXamina-
tion and action of said Board provided
by law and charged with said duty,
and that all the proceedings and votes
of said Board, including this resolu-
tion and preamble, be entered of rec
ord in the Journal of the Commission
ers of said county.
This resolution was adopted by a
vote of four to three, the Commission
ers voting against it.
Following the adoption of this reso-
luton, the Commissioners notified the
other members of the Beard that they
had employ cd an architect whose plans
would be submitted to the Statutory
Board for their approval or dlsap-
proval on the 7th day of February.
Mr.. Grafton made a motion, which
carried, that the County Auditor in
vite the firms of architects to return
their plans for further inspection.
The proceedings of the meeting
shows that perfect harmony does not
exist between the Commissioners and
the other members Of the Statutory
Beard. The reasons for this situation
so far as four members are concerned,
are set forth in the above resolution.
They are evidently dissatisfied with
the course of the Commissioners in re-
turning the plans of the unsuccessful
architects without giving them an op-
portunlty of carefully inspecting them.
The Commissioners, however, claim
that they have acted according TO the
best legal advice, and feel that they
have made no mistake in the matter.
Section 1876 of the Ohio Statutes
provides that the Commissioners may,
in such cases, make plans or procure
an architect to make plans for the
;,,o ho5 honn 1nnn thyy Nh q
Commissioners, who have employed
Hannaford G Sons, of Cincinnati, as
architects.
Section 797 provides that after the
architect has been chosen and his
plans have been submitted, these plans
must be approved by a board consist
ing Of the Commissioners, Probate
Judge, Clerk of Courts, Sheriff and an
other person appointed by the Gem
mon Pleas Judge. Under the proyls-
ions of this statute, this Board has
nothing to do except to approve or
disapprove plans. The Board was
formally notified by the Commission
ers yesterday that Hannafords plans
would be ready to submit 10 them on
February Z.
The Commissioners say that they
opened competition between architects
in the first place in order to determine
in their own minds who was the best
architect before entering into con-
tract. They say that they have en-
tered into a contract with Hannaford
& Sons, have suggested changes in the
plans first submitted by them, have
taken all the legal steps necessary and
cannot see why the remaining men,
bers of the Board are working against
them. They feel confident that they
will win in the end, but do not like the
apparent opposition, as it will delay
the building of the Court House, as
they think, unnecessarily.
The other members of the Board
contend that they should have been
consulted before the rejected plans
were returned that they might have
an opportunity of informing them
selves as to the best plans before they
were called upon to vote on the ap-
proval of Hannaford's plans.
1t is hoped that the apparent tle-up
will be settled satisfactorily and that
the building of the Court House will
not be delayed.
Hot,rt NeuyS.