The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1906-02-14
BOARD REPLIES TO
PUBLIC EXAMINER
Continued From First Page.

John De Laittre. George A. Du Tort,
Charming Seabury and Edgar Weaver.
It takes up. the examiners charges in
detail. Mr.. Seabury bought only two
lots for the site at private sale, it is
claimed, and all other land was con-
demned in the courts. The auctioneer's
refusal to turn over. money realized
from the buildings is admitted, with the
statement that the claim was turned
over to the attorney general. Fees col
lected by the auctioneer from con-
tractors are declared to have been Gus
ttoma1ry, and not a matter for the
board s interference. =,
In regard to Claiming Seabury's bill,
the statement says:
Seabury's Time Well Spent.
Sessions were only a convenience to
the board. The duty of the commission
was to spend as much time attending to
the business Of building the capitol as
in its judgment, was necessary. Mr.. Sea-
bury spent only such time as the board
deemed necessary, and the state saved
many thousand dollars, by his labors,
more than he has been paid for. Thou
sands of details were attended to by
one member residing in the, city quite as
| well as if attended to by the whole board,
The first three years of our work 1--WE
had no office room for secretary. We
saved more than $4,000 a year by ar
ranging with Mr.. Seabury to keep our
records and accounts and attend, to our
| official correspond iace.~ The board has
never had a 3stentJ@ aH4hlseg." H.. g.,.s x
1sgsBaa saS tbs e ssTsd
the state by rejecting the first low bid
! AS to the purchase Of coal, it is claimed
| that the matter was turned over to Mr.
Seabury because of the strike and the
resultant coal famine. He bought
where he could get a guarantee of de
1, livery. - .s@-... .s...l-.
The six marble columns rejected were
simply g not the exact color to please
our architect" They were accepted
with credit to the board Of 81, 500: Al
to letting contracts for decorations
without bids, the court sustained the
board in that action. Other criticisms
are handled as follows: .>-
| Got Unit. Prices Generally.
Market prices exceeded for extras
/ This may appear to be true in certain
cases, but the class of work required ant
secured must be considered. Work 0
an ordinary character cannot be com
pared with this, which is to be closet
inspected by the worlds experts, and n
criticisms have yet been made by then
Unit prices were secured generally, and i
all contracts Where possible. Where I'm
I possible, all items charged for wer
checked carefully by no less than thre
men in the architects office .as
Elevator supplies are inferior, and con
tract was not let to the lowest bidder
E We have selected the very best, safes
and most reliable elevators known in tn
country, and they are first class in ever
respect We deemed 1t our first duty t
be certain of their safety. While bein
installed, we asked the attorney for tn
elevator company to hurry up this-worl
which he did
Il Contractors charged 10 per cent prof
y on work done by sub-contractors. OF
8 board has never recognized sub-cor
s tractors. The profit Of 10 per cent fabov
L all actual cost usual In large construt
ton, was considered reasonable and wa
f sometimes paid.
I No penalties for exceeding the tim
a limit were enforced. This is true III
I commission has neither enforced tt
8 penalties nor have we released contrac
, ors from any equities which the stat
: may have under their contract ar
!, bonds. We did, however, consult tt
:, attorney general, who IS our legal az
J wiser, about this matter. This boar
= agrees with him that we could not r,
i. ! cover, unless we could show actual dan
) ages, and we do not think the state h:
r suffered any. If we are mistaken, Il
/ state can still collect upon the bonds.