The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1906-07-20
IIP[RT|Si....E||:..N|'|.D|:0||.R||S!;I.E|:.....
M'C''L...A|!|'Y|' WORK |:||.'
Prominent Richmond Architects
Declare Concrete Wall at Jail
& Good and Substantial
COL. c UTsAAW WRITES i + III. Of II.
Says Concrete Appeared Good
and Cannot sUnde rstand Why
Tests Are Refused.
COL. c UTsHAW WRITES OF 1T.


55ss In view Of the conflict OF opinion be-
Is tween the Henhco county supervisors and
u their architect Mr.. Charles X. Bryant,
q on the one hand and Mr.. "A. w. McClny,
81 subcontractor, W on the other, regarding
the quality OF certain concrete walls Of
s the new county jail. the append ed card
Vi and letters will prove interesting n 3s:s X .g5
LAS q matter of xplanntion, the Stewart
* Iron Works are tho general contractors
( for the Jail: Ragland & Slaughter. ii Of
Il Richmond, contractors for tile building,
II and "a w. AfcClay, OF Richmond, con-
d tractor for the concrete work. It was
sSof certain portion, OF the work under
n Mr. Y NfcClay OF which complaint was
n made, and here follows his card and ex-3
~ pressions Of opinion from experts: I
"A Card.
Ii richmond, Va, July 10, 1906.
sR$ Referring to recent public announce
Il delnnation OF certain $s@ concrete walls
m erected by me for the new f4enrtco coun-
& pSr7aeticing engineers and architects md
" practical concrete experts to examine the
I walls In question. knowing my work was
eonsci ntiously done and an, Y,
8$9I beg leave to publish their letters and
I; opinion to show what recognized experts.
report rs to the merits Of this affair and
n my, position in, the matt and also to
VI correct any false impression that may
& have been made through previous state.
II ments in regard to this work. .4 XII
Very respectfully submitted,
Ss35i AZ. Richmond Va. July -. 1906. 385
Il Mr. "a. w. McClay. Richmond. ! Va:
Dear Sir,-Durlng my visit to the. new
NJ county jail be tween 5 and 6 o clock yes
Y 3terday, afternoon stated III the presence
y III sthe other gentlemen who were there
sE looking at the concrete work what ! nov
Il reitera tie; that is, that the concrete ap-
SAMPLES OF It and test 1t as to crushing
u and tensile strength; that it would be
n Impossible to state positively what pro-
i crete unless determined by tho analysis
OF d chemist, and that ] suggested you
wait for this chemical test to determine
the question OF tho proportions. now that
\ think that this. ought Is be done before
I You go to work TO tear the wall down.
& cannot understand why the architect or
the county authorities refuse to let YOU
willing for you to walt before tearing the.
NJ wall down. It seems to me that your
position In this matter is reasonable one.
& 5'5tf si Very .ruly yours,
.l f (Signed) RI w. e. CUTSHAW,
B p City Engineer.
$sSi3l concur fully in the above letter q
the wall in question.
81 Richmond Va. July -, 1906.
& Mr.. A. \ w. Mcclay. Richmond. Val
Dear sir.--On the request OF Mr.. ". 1;
lS.s E,agand OF tho firm OF Aiessrs, ltssland
Z Slaughter, | visited the site Of the new;
Y county jaiI and looked at the rear wall
or Same yesterday. Whilst 1t Is impos-
sible to say what proportions and lnsre-
II appearance 1t is in my opinion; about
@ ns good q concrete-as Is generally built
for the purpose for which 1t ~ Intended,
and scarcely nes s II could uain pc taken
# concur fuzzy with Colonel cutsfaw
@ that the proportion OF the various ingre-
dents could and should be determined by
y the analysis Of a chemist, and !. Ike the
civ engineer, cannot undertand why
s& the architect or county authorities re-
fuse to let you have these tests made
y before directing that tho wall be torn
Il n down; and ! feel sure that you would DO
M allowed to DO this.
ii desire to assure you that I have no
interest whatever In this work nor am
asking O. re,ly'nF any Fo ,s an ins
request OF Mr.. Reg1and who has done
similar work for me. and same has a.
ways been satisfactory.
lII(s,gned) CALVIN W1fITEigY, Jn,
Z 8T Chief Engineer virginia passenger hhn
Flower Company.
IA ssb Richmond Va July IS, 1868.
10 the Public and Whom y May Concern
tive the undestigned. have this day
"a made an examination Of the concrete
Il walls built by Mr.. A. ". McClay for tbs
new Henrico county jail and do herebs
certify that. from our Inspection of tn
work. the walls IN question are good ant
Substantial, and the spirit OF the con
tract and specifications have been com
p,ied with to thelr true meaning and In
Tent. Hi
~ flIIt is our opinion that Mr.. McClay &
Justified In refusing to remove tho wall
Under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
x (Stgned) A. r.. HUNTT, Architect;
IN WAi. Y. WEST, Architect;
4 - r.. MAkItIN,
* 5l4 Gt tsEI#l w, II. MASON,
II. 8. HAGLAND. 'tt
"a N. E,,.ASCARRoW,