The Forrest City times., 1907-05-10
CAPITOL INQUIRY
An Exhaustive Report, Taking Up In Detail the Charges and Criticisms Made Upon Material and compli. anee With Specifications.
CAPITOL INVESTIGATING COMMIT. TEE MAKES REPORT TO
 LEGISLATURE.


 LEGISLATURE.
 The Joint Commttee on State Capitol ap. pointed on the part of the Senate and House nt Representatives for tae purpose of investi- satihs the construction of the new state house. submitted their report to the Legislature on May 8
 The report is very full and complete. going Into details on all points After lengthy preamble. showing their appointment orgauiza. uon. place of meeting. how and why they selected C. E. Stfckler of Washington, D. C as expert architect Co aid them in their investi- sauon. etc the charges and findings ale taken up in numerical ofder.
 Following is synopsis of the committee re- port:
 CD Charsc.sr of Stone.
 It has been charged that the stone used In the basement story and that used In the stories above materially different and that the stone Ia tSe upper stories Is vastly in- ferior to that h the basement story. From the findings of the committee and from tho opinion of all of the experts who have examined me building, the committee is of the opinion that the stone used In the upper stories of the state capitol comes well within the class of marble designated in the specifications class A. The stone in the upper stories seems to be stained or diseolored. but Gre assured by the expert employed by the committee that those. stains will disappear in time. and your committee in that respect must rely upon what the expert has said about the matter.
 t2) Cement and Turing.
 Criticism has been made that the contraeto should have used Puzzelano cement in the upper stories of the building and that the walls should have been furred. We find that the oc the Batesyile marble taken from the second quarry is substantial compliance with the contract. and that the two stones practi- caly the same stone
 (s) Bush Hammering Stone in Basement Walls
 Instead of Using No. Cut Work.
 II has been charged that the contractors have bush hammered the stone in the basement story instead of having it finished by the method that s-cut work Is used only upon granite and not upon limestone.
 (4l Granite Base Course.
 Under the contract specifications and plans the granite base to be finely polished. The commissioners decided 10 have the base course piuhammered instead of polished and ordered that change taking a credit of Sl GOO Tnder the law they had authority to make the change and from the best information we have been able to gather the credit taken for same was reasonable and just.
 (5) Thickness of Stone.
 IT has been charged that the ashler stone used in the construction of the building does not comply with the plans, specifications and contract in reference to the thickness. In order to ascertain the average thickness of the stone used your committee had number of holes bored through the stone In order that they would be enabled to measure the same. This disclosed the fact that this stone will average from four to eight inches. some of the stone being much thicker and reaching entirely through the wall. The plans appear to the committee to show that this stone shall bc six inches. The general average of the stone Is considerably greater than six inehes-
 (s) Eight Columns on West Front.
 r has been charged that the contract has been violated in that the contractors have been paid extra for the construction of the eight free columns on the west front of the capitol We find that the commissioners agreed tp pay the contractors for the construction of thnSe pillars columns and the architraves over sane $27 2i6 The main drawings of the osiiding show that these columns erased, w'tle the columns appear upon the west eleya- uaa.
 Your committee Is of the opinion that under n" contract, the contractors could not be re- i:ired to put in the columns without extra cost.
 CD Fluting of Columns.
 Considerable has been said with reference to the fact that the columns an the east and y.s. front have not been huted. The con tractors frankly admit it is theic duty under thc contract. to flute the said columns but they "oHtend they be 1uted better after they are set up than before. The expert em- 2.oyed by the committee advised that the columns can be auted after they constructed and that. in fact. it is preferable to have them duted afterward.
 (s) Generating Columns in subbasement
 One of the extras paid for by the commis- sioners to the contractors was for concreting thA iron pillars in the sub-basement; for this the commissioners paid the contractors S 2j7 3l. Under the contract it was not the duty of the contractors to concrete the columns referred to and do not believe that the concrete, which Ia from two to four feet thick. adds anything to the strength of the column the safety of the building and that the only purpose il can possibly serve is to protect the pillars. Nhiie the committee does not believe the action of the commission in this respect wise yet they clearly had authority to have that work done and think the price paid for the is asonable.
 (9) Old and New Brick.
 Complaint has been mace against the com nlissoncrs for the reason that they purcha sed new brick at cost aggregating some s41 900 while the state had a great number of brick that were taken out of the old penitentary al- ready upon the ground, part of which cleaned and ready for use. The commissioners explain by saying that the old brick upon the ground were brittle and some of them had been put up with concrete instead of mortar and that it was their purpose. In purchasing the new brick to put the new brick in the main wall of the lower stories of the building and the old brick in the upper stories where they would have to sustain d much less load and them also in construction of a power house, which 1t will be necessary to build.
 tlo) Construction of the Basement Floor
 Ii has been contended that 1t was the duty Of the e0ntraetofs to construct the basement floor. Upon this question the members of the committee divided.
 In view of the fact that members of the committee in their opinions are ut variance upon this proposition would recommend that the matter be submitted by the board to the attorney general fo- his opinion and that if fin the opinion of the attorney general the board has made payment which was not authorized then the matter should be taken up for set tlement between the board, the attorney general and the contractors.
 CID Fireproofng.
 The system of frcproofing used by the con. tractors has been very severely criticised The system used was the reinforced expanded metal clnder concrete. IL seems 10 your committee that the contract has been complied with
 In connection with the fra prootng. wish to say that on top of the floor if Is opin- ion that the building Is h.eproof but that under the bottom of the floor the ceiling Of each room it is not E--psoof. The contrac- tors are covering the expanded metal with thin coat of ordinary plaster which. as are informed by the expert and as we ourselves believe. would qGl.Sly yield to intense heat, and. in aidtion this plaster. when in con tact with t1e metal, .s said to be in danger VF.a al .aF