The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1933-02-28

tractor called By the committee "a
testify. touching the facts Or the al.
legged rumors," the report continues.
After naming unsuccessful bidder1
for the tile, masonry. and re-inforc-
Ing steel, the report states IL there
was any possible discrimination ad-
verse to North Dakota contractors,
men such a. these were best qualified
to testify"
Dissenting from the recommends
lions Of the ma ority, the report said
I'VE are absolutely opposed" to the
recommendation that the capitol com.
mission BE- taken over BY the board Of
adminstration, declaring It would
have to neglect the capitol project q
the supervision Of institutions placed
IN it, charge, or employ "men 10 rep.
resent It In almost Ill phases Of work
In connection with the capitol build
Ing"
Would Retain CommisGlon
Recommending that the presen.
capitol commission be retained, the
minority say I'VE believe. when Ill
phases Of the building Of the new cap
itol q considered, the board deserves
the whole-hearted commentator and
approval Of the citisens Of this state. =
Sale Of anticipation warrants q said
In the report to have been "fully
necessary and entirely proper"
Appointment Of . superintendent
the minority found, q contaminated
BY the capitol commission act, II the
commission had 90 decided, u not
mandatory or necessary" Z was held
the state Is amply protected In this
respect by the architects, at least one
Of whom Is on hand Z large part Of
the time.
The minority disagreed with the
majority that the payment for ma
terial Should be made after material
Is actually installed In the building.
The contract and the manner In
which the commission has handled
the matter Of payments" was said 70
protect the state In every day."
Technically, the report adds, failure
to furnish unit prices by the success
full contract bidder when the contract
was signed docs not conform to the
requirements In the proposal," but
adds 1.-THE minority does not attach any
Importance to the failure Of their III.
ing unit prices, nor does II believe
that filing Of unit prices based on the
original bid win serve any useful pur.
poses"
I'VE are firmly Of the opinion that
the successful bids on the part Of sub.
contractors are . far more reliable
criterion on which to base prices on
contemplated changes, than the So
called unit prices referred TO by the
the report continued. I'VE
do note, however. that unit prices
were filed Dec. II, 1882. covering many
items Of the contractors budgets. par
ticularly as to concrete and brick
work"
Use Of brick instead Of stone for
outside facing Of the building, recon.
mended by the majority. was held by
the minority to be purely . matter Q:
judgment on the part Of tho capitol
commission" adding "we believe the
capitol commission exercised good
Judgment In deciding on stone facing
instead Of brick"
Common brick needed for construc.
ton Of the building can be furnished
BY North Dakota manufacturers, but
from the record. however, We learn
that to date, no North Dakota manu-.
facturer has submitted q proposal for
common brick that Will come within
tho limitations Of . five.per-cent
preferential" the minority report said.
Hit sUltimate Facts
Taking issue again with the ma
jority, the Observation-Disclosures re.