The Green Forest tribune., 1907-05-10
|APIT0L INQUIRY
Exhaustive Report, Taking Up In petztI the Charges and Criticisms M4de Upon Material and Compli- ance With Specifications.

0u(g WILT OpcCifCdtioHSs
 kPIToL INVESTIGATING COMMIT
 TEE MAKES REPORT TO
 LEGISLATURE.
 The Joint Committee on State Capitol ap- Inted on the part of the Senate and House
 Representa tives for the purpose of investi- ting the construction of the state house, omitted their report to the Legislature on The report Is very full and complete, going 10 details all points. After a lengthy eamble, showing their appointment, organza- 'n, place of meeting. how and why they lected c. B. Strickler of Washington, D. C., expert architect to aid them in their investi- tl0n, etc, the charges and findings are taken ! in numerical order.
 Following is synopsis of the committee re-
 CD Character of Stone. It has been charged that the stone used
 the basement story and that used in the 3ries above materially different and that e stone in the upper stories is vastly in- rior to that In the basement story. From c findings of the committee and from the inf0n of all of the experts who have examined 2 building, the committee is of the opinion that s et0ne used in the upper stories of the state pft0l comes well within the class of marble signated in the specifications as class A. le stone in the upper stories seems to be lined or diseolored, but we are assured by 6 expert employed by the committee that ose 6tains will disappear in time, and your nm1ttee in that respect must rsly upon what g expert has said about the matter.
 (2) Cement and Turing. Crif1tism has been made that the contractors ould have used Puzzelano cement in the upper orie& of the building and that the walls oul11 6nye been fHrred. We find that the use the Batesville marble taken from the second arrysis a substantial compliance with the Iltf4ct, and that the two stones are pract1- lly the same stone.
 ] Bush Hammering Stone in Basement Walls
 InStead of Using "No. Cut Work" r has been charged that the contractors have nh Hammered the stone in the basement story 5kead of having 1t finished by the method 0Wna S-cut work. Tour committee find ak B-cut work is used only upon granite and upon limestone.
 M (4 Granite Base Course.
 Und6r the contract, specifications and plans e frtnite base course was to be finely polished. le conmisioners decided to have the base lrse pin -ha mmered instead of polished and dered that change, taking credit of $1, 500 lder. the law they had authority to make the anGe and from the best information have en able to gather the credit taken for same Y Reasonable and just.
 ssa5t5ll%f Noj 1ulchuoSS ol otoio'
 It has been charged that the ashler stone a tn the construction of the building does eomply with the plans. specifications and nfrect in reference to the thickness In order saeccrtain the average thickness of the stone S( your committee had number of holes s Through the stone in order that they p&NW be enabled to measure the same. NnIisclosed the fact that this stone will f12e from four to eight inches, of the 5ne Being much thicker and reaching entirely rouGh the wall. The plans appear to the mmtttee to show that this stone shall be inches. The general average of the stone considerably greater than six inches
 Afe) Eight Columns on West Front ft has been charged that the contract has en &iolated in that the contractors have en maid extra for the construction of the yht 4ree columns the west front of the pitols We find that the commissioners agreed spax the contractors for the construction of c6e spillars or columns and the arehitraves ert Gi1ne $2T, ,2f6. The main drawings of the l1ding show that these columns were erased, tiIa the columns appear upon the west eleya- Tour committee is of the opinion that, under 2 -c&ntract. tho contractors could not be re- Ireds to put in the columns without extra
 CD Eluting of Columns.
 Considerable has been said with reference stfes fact that the columns on the east and eetsE Front have not been 6uted. The con acfQks frankly admit it is their duty. under . cpntract. to flute the said columns. but ey1eontend they be futed better after ~ nc set up than before. The expert em- oybdz by the committee advised us that the luFnhs can be fiuted after they are constructed i'd tfAt. in fact, it is preferable to have them ted afterward.
 SSfo3 Concreting Columns in Subbasement. 04eN of the extras paid for by the commits puAt9 to the contractors was for Concreting e1 Ton pillars In the sub basement; for this Q 94onmssioncrs paid the contractors $3, ,257 .31. 16HE the contract it not the duty of the NW4ctors to concrete the columns referred to d Ne do not believe that the concrete. which SHdm two to four feet thick, adds anything 2 fhe strength of the column the safety
 fse building a.d that the only purpose it m xossibly serve is 60 protect the pillars. HgI& the committee does not believe the action B $h8 commission in this respect wise. yet ST clearly had authority to have that work n8s and think the price paid for the same s{4HsonaDle
 x& (9) Old and New Brick.
 {NIpplaint has been mace against the {[bners for the reason that they purchased |Xabrick at q cost aggrcgating some S41. 0o0. 1l(4 the state had great number of brick at were taken out of the old penitentiary al 40X upon the ground, a part of which were l4&fd and ready for use. The commissioners tl9ln by saying that the old brick upon the 11Gd brittle and some of them had been & pp with concrete instead of mortar and 4&Ait was their purpose. in purchasing the
 Hsbrick to put the brick in the main
 sof the lower stories of the building and @he old brick in the upper stories. where
 1would have to sustain Il much less load, |I Muse them also In construction of <Gf house, which it will be necessary to $(3o) Construction of the Basemen. Floor. Aas been contcnded that it was the duty atte contractors to construct the basement 01kE Upon this question the members of the
 01ttee divided.
 lXEv view of the fact that members of the 11Hittee in their opinions are at variance 11 this proposition would recommend that 4 matter be submitted by the board to the <olncy general for his opinion and that if. in ' 8pinion of the attorney general, the board & made d payment which not authorized. III fthe matter should be taken up for set I<uont between the board, the attorney general " Xf&he contra 0tors.
 Sf GID Fireprocfing.
 TkS system of fircproofing used by the con =Itars has been very severely criticised. The I3ln used the reinforced expanded metal UE concrete. It seems to your committee Ethe contract has been complied with.
 <connection with the -proofing, wish 3 that on top of the floor it is our opin- 3kat the building Is fire-proof but that M the bottom of the floor the ceiling &Gch room it is not freproOf. The contrac- Xtare covering the expanded metal with a
 (eoat of ordinary plaster which, as We arc
 0hed by the expert, and we ourselves
 "a would quickly yield to intense heat,
 Yin addition. this plaster, when in con-
 1vith the metal, is said to be in danger & 5using corrosion of the metal. Some of
 fostering has been done. Under the advice
 expert we requested the commissioners
 bp further work upon the clustering of
 
 S.,,r>t. RaIFrv EIacefion PIace