The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-04-01
WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK
Decorating the State Capitol.
o the Editor of The Journal.

To the Editor of The Journal.
It looks to me as If the newspapers Of
the twin cities have conspired to misrep-
resent us in the action brought in the
courts regarding the decorating of the
new state capitol. They insist that the
unions have brought this action. It is
true that most of the. men interested in
the matter are union men, for the reason
that nearly IS per cent of the painters and
decorators of the twin cities are members
Of the union, but there were at least
three of the parties who made affidavits
in this case who were not members Of any
union. The action was brought by rciti-
zens of the state of Minnesota, by men
who considered that they and their bust
ness had suffered an injustice by the ac-
still believe this to be fact, notwith-
standing the decision Of the court.
Another place where the papers seem
to be determined to misinform the public,
is that we are objecting to the employ
ment Of such artists as La Fargo, Blash-
field and Simmons or any other noted ar
lists to do the picture and figure paint
ing in the capitol. This charge is abso-
lutely without any foundation. We do not
claim any jurisdiction over that class Of
| artistic work. There is no person that
! realizes more fully that great artists are
born and not made than the men who are
working at decorative and artistic work,
| and there is no class Of citizens who will
| so greatly appreciate the work of these
great artists. We have not, nor have we
| ever thought Of objecting to the employ
ment of the above-named men or any
other noted artists to do that class of
work.
AS I understand it, that Is, If an ordi-
nary citizen has any right to dare to try
| to understand what these cars of Min
nesota, the capitol commission, are do
ing, the above named artists are to re-
ceive something like $4,000 for doing
mural paintings in the capitol building
| Now, Mr. Guernsey has pnothing what
ever to do with this work; and if the
state of Minnesota has that much money
to spend for fine paintings, as I said be-
fore, no one will appreciate them and en-
joy them more than we will But, besides
this $685. 900, Mr.. Guernsey Of New York
has secured the contract for the painting
and decorating Of the wall and ceilings
for which he is to receive s125, 600. Thi:
is the work for which we are contesting
We claim, and can prove that, with thu
exception Of two 1unettes mentioned in thu
contract, and for which it is specified tina
$4,000 is set aside within the price Of thu
contract, to hire special artist to paint
and perhaps a few other lunettes AM
! spandrels, which may require more thai
ordinary ability to paint, and for Whicl
we might allow another $4,000, all tn
other work is ordinary decorative Wor
which we are doing every day. We hav
dozens Of men in the twin cities who ar
just as capable of doing that work a
any men Mr.. Guernsey has got or ca
: get. A large part of the work consists Q
: putting five coats Of oil paint onto tn
walls and ceilings AS any one knows,
Edon't require an artistic do that class
! work, but it can be done, and is bein
= done, by frst-class housepainters at 371
cents an hour. Aside from the lunette
L and spandrels referred to- for which W
have set aside $4,000, the rest of tn
& work for which the commission are pay
. ing this great and only man Guarnsey
L the magnificent sum Of s115, 900 IS notn
5 ing but artisan work I defy any one t
& show the contrary. This is the work tina
we claim, according to the law, shout
e have been submitted to competition. an