The log cabin Democrat., 1907-05-09
CAPITOL INQUIRY
An Exhaustive Report, Taking Up In Detail the Charges and Criticisms Made Upon Material and ComplI- ance With Specifications.
CAPITOL INVESTIGATING COMMIT. TEE MAKES REPORT TO
 LEGISLATURE.

| pointed on the part of the Senate and House | of Representatives for the purpose of investl- l gatinc tbe construction of the state house, | submitted their report to the Legislature on
 May 8. ,
 into details all points. After lengthy | preamble, showing their appointment orgaiiza- | tion place of meeting, how and why they | selected G. B. Strickler of Washington, D. c. 1 as expert architect to aid them in their invesu-
 gation etc, the charges and findings are taken l up in numerical order.
 l Following is synopsis of the committee re-
 port:
 l CD Character of Stone.
 It has been charged that the stone useo
 in the basement story and that used In the
 stories above are materially different ana that
 the stone in the upper stories IS Vastly ii- | ferior to that in the basement story. From l tbe findings of the committee and from the l opinion of all of the experts who have examined
 the building, the committee is of the opinion that 1 the stone used in the upper stories or the state | capitol comes well within the class of marble
 designated in the specifications as class A. | The stone in the upper stories seems to be | stained or dscolored, but we are 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.
 (2) Cement and Turing. | Criticism hns been made that the contractors | should have used Puzzelano cement in the upper | stories of the building and that the walls | should have been furred We find that the use l of the Datesville marble taken from the second | quarry is substantial compliance with the | contract, and that the two stones are pract- | cally the stone.
 | (s) Bush Kammering Stone in Basement Walls | Instead of Using No. Cut Work" | It has been charged that the contractors have bush hammered the stone in the basement story | Instead of having it finished by the method
 known as S-cut work. Your committee find | that S-cut work is used only upon granite and
 not upon limestone.
 | (4) Granite Base Course. l Under the contract, specifications and plans | the granite base course to be finely polished. | The commissioners decided to have the base l course pin hammered instead of polished and | ordered that change, taking credit of $l,6oo | Under the law they had authority to make the l change and from the best information we have | been able to gather the credit taken for same l was reasonable and just.
 (5) Thickness of Stone. | It has been charged that the ashler stone | used ill 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 be | six inches. The general average of the stone | is considerably greater than six inches. | (6) Eight Columns on West Front. | It has been charged that the contract has
 been violated in that the contractors have | been paid extra for the construction of the l eight free columns the west front of the
 capitol. We find that the commissioners agreed | to pay the contractors for the construction of | these pillars columns and the architraves | over same $27 .246. The main drawings of the l building show that these columns were erased, | while the columns appear upon the west eleva- | ton.
 | Your committee is of the opinion that under the contract the contractors could not be rc- l quired to put in the columns without extra | cost.
 | CD Putting of Columns | Considerable has been said with reference | to the fact that the columns the east and | west front have not been futed. The con l tractors frankly admit it is their duty. under | the contract. to flute the said columns, but | they contend they can be futcd better after | they set up than before. The expert em- | ployed by the committee advised us that the | columns De huted after they are constructed | and that in fact, it is preferable to have them | futed aftcrward
 (s) Concreting Columns in subbasement
 One of the extras paid for by the commits | sioncrs to the contractors for concreting l the iron pillars in the sub-basement; for this the commissioners paid the contractors S325 31. | 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 | Is from two to four feet thick adds anything | | of the building and that the only purpose it | can possibly serve is to protect the pillars. | While the committee does not believe the action l of the commission in this respect wise. yet l they clearly had authority to have that work | done. and we think the price paid for the same | is reasonable
 | (9) Old and New Brick. | Complaint has been mace against the
 missioncrs for the reason that they purchased | new brick at cost aggrcgating some $41, GOO, | while the state had great number of brick | that taken out of the old penitentiary al
 ready upon the ground, part of which were | cleaned and ready for The commissioners l explain by saying that the old brick upon the | ground brittle and some of them had been | put up with concrete instead of mortar and | that 1t was their purpose, In purchasing the | new brick to put the brick in the main
 wall of the lower stori,s of the building and | the old brick in the upper stories, where | they would have to sustain much less load,
 and them also in construction of l power house. which it will be necessary to | build.
 | (l0) Construction of the Basement Floor. l It has been contended that it was the duty l of the contractors 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 at variance | upon this proposition we would recommend that | the matter be submitted by the board to the | attorney general for his opinion and that if. in | the opinion of the attorney general the board has made q payment which was not authorized, | then the matter should be taken up for set | tlemert between the board, the attorney general | and tke contractors.
 | CID Fireproofing.
 | The system of fircproofing used by the con | tracSors has been very severely criticised The | system used the reinforced expanded metal | cinder concrete It seems to your committee | that the contract has been complied with | In connection with the irc-proofng, wish | to say that top of the floor 1t Is our opin- | ion that the building is fire-proof but that
 under the bottom of the floor the ceiling | of each room it Is not fireproof The contrac-
 tors are covering the expanded metal with a
 thin coat of ordinary plaster which, as We are
 informed by the expert, and ourselves
 believe. would quickly yield to intense heat,
 and. in addition. this plaster, when in con
 tact with the metal is said to be in danger
 of causing c0rrosion of the metal Some of
 the plasterng has been done Under the advice l If our oXnert reauestel the commissioners