Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1908-03-15
MEMBER OF ASSOCIATED PRESS
zz& % o. p
CRITICS AND CRITICISMS

CRITICS AND CRITICISMS
A letter addressed to the editor OF
the Tribune, signed by George Han
cock of Fargo, an architect, and
which appears in some of the papers
of the state, deserves a passing ref
erence: At the time this letter was
written, dispatched and received at
Bismarck, the editor of the Tribune
was in the east upon personal bust
ness mission, and there has been no
opportunity to comment upon it, or
otherwise to dispose of it, prior to
it's appearance in the papers allud-
ed to, and for which it appears orig
inally to have been intended, as the
letter followed the editor to Chicago.
The Tribune published few days
ago some inquiries regarding the ma
ture of some public buildings at
Fargo, their defects in construction
and sanitation, if they have any,
and asking who was the architect
who builded these buildings? Arch
itect Hancock was not charged with
having been responsible for these
defects, unless these inquiries touch
ed upon the conditions which actually
do exist and unless he is the archi-
tect regarding whom inquiries were
made. From the acute sensitiyeness
displayed in the hasty reply from
Architect Hancock, it would appear
that there was something in these
Inquiries that touched a tender spot
Indeed, it to be hoped that there
are no buildings in Fargo whose con.
struction has been SO faulty as was
indicated in the inquiries published
by the Tribune and no architect who
Is SO unduly sensitive as Mr.. Han
cock appears to have been. But i
may be possible that the one condi
tion results in the other.
MIR. Hancock has been in the pas
persistent and public critic of thu
state penftentiary for trustee t.
which institution he was nominatet
at the last session of the legisla
tive session, and which nomination
was not confirmed by the senate
He has indicated defects in construt
ton work of various kinds and ha
intimated more than he has state
publicly. This, doubtless, is the mai
uraL. result of the dissapointmen
as small men are sometimes, indee
frequently, affected as Mr.. Hancoc
appears to have been. There haV
been no criticisms of the plumbin
at the institution, of the yard wa
and Of other matters. It is we
known that the penitentiary is a
old building. 1t was built more tina
twenty-five years ago. The plum
ing and sanitation were old styl
1t was difficult for many years
get appropriations. The appropri
ton made for the penitentiary,
the way of improvements, at the la
session of the legislative assembl
was more than has been appropriat,
for the same purposes for the t,
years preceding. 1t is not stran
therefore. that there has been
Gently opportunity to make need
improvements. This need was
ten pointed out, and as often
legislature cut down the appropr
ton beyond what it should ha
been.
1t is well to remember with
ference to the yard wall that t
brick was made by the institute
and laid by prisoners and the CT
was Insignificant. The wall is
good wall and will stand. 1t was +
laid by experienced masons, but
prison labor. For the cost, it is
splendid wall and only superfic
and gratuitously unfair critici
would attempt to make it appe
otherwise.
Mr.. Van Horn, who was clerk
the twine plant OF the institute,
acted as architect for the vario
buildings at the institution, the twi
buildings at the Institution, the twi
plant building, the hospital buildi
and others, where the services of
independent architect would ha
cost the state a good many thousa
dollars. We believe Mr.. Hancock
architect of the present impro,
ments It might be well to knt
what fee he is receiving from t
state and whether the payment