Cameron County press. [volume] (Emporium, Cameron County, Pa.) 1866-1922, 1907-04-04
So Investigating Commission Finds
New State Capitol of
Pennsylvania.
ENRICHED AT STATES EXPENSE
Were Those Who Benefited by APP
parent CoIIusion Between Architect
Huston and Contractor Sanderson-
Worst Is Yet to Come, Say Reports.

pressure mas Deen Drought 10 pear
upon the members of the capitol in
vestigation commission by interested
contractors and others who reaped a
golden harvest from the erection and
equipment of the new state house, to
induce the Investigators to drop the
inquiry or at least make only a pre-
tense of investigating.
1t is also satisfaction to know
that the grafters made not the slight
est impression upon the probers. The
inquiry will go on, and there is moth
ing to prevent the stirring up of
scandal the like of which has never
been known in this commonwealth.
The Investigators have gone far
enough to realize that. 1t is believed
that the worst phase of the situation
is yet to be developed.
Experts in building, architecture,
decorating and contracting of various
kinds have been employed by the in
vestigating commission and already
five rooms in the capitol building are
in use by these people and their as
sistants, and they are a busy lot of
people.
Some of the experts have discov-
cred that there was fraud of the worst
character in many departments of the
capitol that had not even been
dreamed of before. This will be
shown in due time, and it is alto
gether likely that the contractors who
grew fat at the expense of the state
in this way will be compelled to for
felt much of the plunder they have
so deliberately stolen.
Where the Graft Comes In.
One of these experts who was here
the other day and who was an unsuc-
cessful bidder on the furniture was
asked by one of the investigators
what his firm would be able to fur
nish a certain mahogany desk for by
the quantity.
order" was the reply.
well, would it surprise you if
were to tell you that desk cost the
state $435?'
The expert couldn't find breath
to answer the question. But this is
only one item. However, it indicates
very well the general trend of things
in connection with the capitol erec-
ton. AS a rule the John R. Sander
son Co. of Philadelphia who fur
niShed most of the so-caled trim
mings" made about 400 per cent on
their work.
The much discussed English inter
locking parquetry flooring which cost
the state something like 90 cents per
square foot, may not haze been the
genuine interlocking flooring at all,
and the probability is that the govern
ment will have to relay the flooring
for the entire building in course of
time as the blocks already are becom-
ing loosened and will warp and make
very rough floor in time. Even if
it were the genuine English inter
locking parquetry flooring the state
paid about twice as much for 1t as
it should have done.
Proving the Charges.
Just why it was necessary for con-
tractors for certain kinds of work to
make their bids direct to Sanderson
instead of to the board of public
grounds and buildings is not known
but such was the case. 1t likely will
be developed why such was the case.
Thus far the probers have found al
most $2,000,000 overcharges. If it can
be proved that much of the furnish
iHgs which went into the capitol were
sold to the state under false pretense
it will be easy enough for the state
to recover With the specifications in
hand and with the actual goods" be-
fore them, it will not be difficult to
prove the charges.
Before the building can be regard
ed as anything near adequate for the
purpose for which it was erected it
will be necessary to put in entirely
new lighting, heating and ventilating
systems. Architect Huston made a
botch Of the job. According to Ber-
nard r. Green, the consulting engi-
neer, Huston was more interested in
the artistic effect" than in the me-
chanical equipment of the building.
Fight on Coal Tax.
There is a bitter fight in progress
on the bill to impose a tax of three
cents ton on all anthracite coal and
one cent ton on all bituminous coal
mined within the state. This is the
same bill that was introduced last
session Both miners and operators
are making a fight against the meas.
ure. Some large consumers are
likewise opposed to it, for after all
II IS the consumer who has to pay the
fiddler. Even should such bill be-
come a law and the mine owners
were compelled to pay the tax, which