Virginia citizen. (Irvington, Va.) 1891-1921, 1901-02-22
Communicated
HEATHSvILLE'S COURTHOUSE.

10 The S1TlZEN:
Sometime In the late summer. or
early fall of 1900, the contract for
building a new courthouse at Heaths-
vile was let to the b. +. Smith
Construction Co., of Washington,
ID. q. Sometime elapsed before the
work was begun. Indifferent material
was sent, and though rejected by the
lnspector,another lot equally inferior.
IT not more go, came down to 90 in
the new-buildiog. And so, from one
cause or another, the work has
dragged. About two weeks of good
weather at Christmas was wasted,
owing to hitch between the super
lntendent and timers. With about
one exception allthe wood work has
been done by local help, during The
past week two or three carpenters
aud one bricklayer being all the
force in evidence. In different parts
of the county the opinion is rife
that the people of Heathsviile were
instrumental in having this house
rebuilt. | want to correct such an
idea right here. There is as much
opposition in and around Hea,hsvilIe
to such q large expenditure as there
is anywhere else IN the county. This
opposition existed in the beginning,
aud instead of being allayed has
increased. In the first place the
construction companies throughout
the country knew nothing about the
matter. So far as | know one single
notice in the Northern Neck NewS
FOR one single week was all the adj
verhsement given. After the con-
tract was awarded several letters
were received from different parts of
the state making enquiries as to
plans, etc.
II seems to be the universal
opinion that the old building. should
have been recovered and other
improvements, costing possibly $500
or $1,000, put upon it, fixing it
similar to the one in Lancaster
county. The B. +. Smith Coustruc.
ton Co. put in a bid for $4,000,
which, with the accrued interest, will
cost about So, 200, independent of The
inspectors pay, rent Of Office, church,
etc. There We're other bids but this
was the lowest. 1t was then decided
the county would issue bonds. In
the opinion of many instead of selling
them privately these bonds should
have been put up to the highest
bidder, thereby putting in the county
treasury possibly $500 or $500. Then
again, these bonds are not taxable for
comfy purposes-the county doesn't
get one cent in revenue from them.
When B. Z. Smith was trying to
get the contract the old building was
represented osin ruiHous condition,
likely to collapse at any time. Not
withstanding its terrible condition
thousands of feet of lumber which
have been taken out of it have been
put back i'm the new building, for
which Smith did not pay one cent.
Then all the granite used for steps
and window stills has been free of
any cost. During all the time there
has been only few hands at work.
The pay of the inspector (Sl.5O) has
been going steadily on, eutailing
another loss upon the county. On
the 10Th of February the contract
expires. The people are waiting 10
see if the supervisors will give him
further time without an equivalent
1t has been suggested that he be
made to pay all the expense occa-
stoned by the delay. If this is all the
forfeit they are going to demand it
would be better to make him a
present of it. We would like, how
ever, to see the county come in
somewhere 1t might be we'll to
state here that the contract contains
no forfeit. Smith entered into bond
to complete the building in proper
way and at the proper time. The
people, however, who criticise the
Board of Supervisors for their action
should not forget That they have had !
advisors, who should with them, share
the blame. No one likes to see i'm
provements more than myself-but
not this kind, for the people seem to !
think cheaper building would have
answered to dispose of whatever
cases may come up in this county for
trial.
HEATHsvILLE TAXPAYER.