Imatges de pÓgina
PDF
EPUB

Third. Copy of report of inspection, dated March 1, 1861. The amount of $28,382 70 was subsequently paid to the contractors, and no payments of any amount has since been made to them. (See documents at close of testimony.)

Questiou. Has there been any disposition on the part of the Treasury Department to have the contractors receive more pay?

Answer. Not to my knowledge, and do not believe such disposition could exist without my knowledge.

Question. Has any of the material which you have examined, been removed from the ground ?

Answer. None that I am aware of.
Question. What was the last date of shipment to Charleston ?

Answer. To the best of my recollection in the latter part of the summer of 1860.

Question. Has there been any shipped to Charleston since South Carolina seceded ?

Answer. Not to my knowledge.

Question. Have you a letter in your possession or do you know of a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury, dated January 24, 1861, wherein the contractors ask to be paid 75 per cent. on the amount of marble furnished ?

Answer. Such a letter is on file at the department, and is alluded to in document No. 1, now filed with the committee, and is the application upon which the inspection and payment heretofore alluded to is based

MAY 30, 1862. Committee met. Present: Messrs. Chamberlain, Sargent, and Wall. T. A. CURTis sworn: Question. What is your name? Answer. T. A. Curtis.

Question. Have you ever been employed in the Bureau of Construction ?

Answer. I have, as clerk.
Question. From what time to what time?
Answer. November, 1857, to April, 1861.

Question. Who was supervising architect while you were employed there?

Answer. Ammi B. Young.

Question. Do you know anything about a roof which was put upon the south wing of the Treasury extension, and afterwards taken off, during that time?

Answer. I do not know that the roof was taken off during that time.

Question. How was the first roof put on?

Answer. I went up to see it several times while it was being put on. The roof was formed by turning segmental arches between iron beams. The spandrels were filled up and levelled with the top of the beam. On that was laid slate in cement. The joints were not broken as is ordinarily done in layivg slate.

Question. Was there anything to prevent the water running between the joints of the slating ?

Answer. Nothing, except the cement in the joints.
Question. Would not such a roof necessarily leak when it rained ?
Answer. I think it would.

Question. What is your profession; and have you been employed upon any large works?

Answer. I am a civil engineer, and have studied architecture. I supervised the construction of Mr. Colt's buildings, at Hartford, occupying two years.

Question. What do you know about the heating apparatus originally put in the south wing of the Treasury building ?

Answer. The attempt was to heat with hot air, which was to come up from below through a perforation made in an iron baseboard runing round the rooms and passages.

Question. Were these perforated iron baseboards put in?
Answer. They were put in as far as the rooms were finished.

The upper story, and perhaps part of the second, was not completed while I was there.

Question. Was the furnace put in and the experiment tried while you were there?

Answer. The experiment was tried and was found not to work well. The rooms were not well heated. They then tried to facilitate it by putting in a steam engine and fan, but it still proved a failure.

Question. How is the building now warmed?

Answer. By hot water; an entirely different apparatus has been put in to warm the building by hot water.

Question. Who was the supervising architect at that time?
Answer. Mr. Young.

Question. Who is responsible for such failures and blunders as the roof and heating apparatus ?

Answer. The supervising architect.

JUNE 16, 1862. Committee met. Present: Messrs. Sargent, Wall, and Chamberlain.

0. B. LATHAM sworn and examined:
Question. What is your profession?
Answer. A practical builder and contractor.

Question. Have you ever had experience in building public works, as contractor or otherwise; and if so, what?

Answer. I have had such as stores, churches, mills, factories, court-houses, jails, canal and ship locks, bridges, piers, and abutments; was superintendent on the towers and anchor walls (on the American side) for the great suspension bridge over the Niagara river; also built the Buffalo and Oswego custom-houses by contract, and done much other work both public and private, and have made many estimates and detail propositions, and competed for some of the largest public works and buildings on the continent.

Question. Have you examined the work and materials of the Treas- . ury extension, and do you know how the work was to be done?

Answer. I have frequently, and more or less since the extension was commenced. I understood the exterior walls were to be of granite, executed in the same style of architecture and character of work as the exterior walls of the original Treasury building, with the exceptions mentioned in the advertisement for proposals.-(See Ex. Doc. No. 96, 1st session 34th Congress.)

Question. How does the style and manner of doing the work upon the south and west wings of the Treasury extension compare with the old and original building ?

Answer. The style is not in full keeping or harmony with the order as executed on the original building. The difference consists in swelling the columns and elaborately moulding that portion which should have been made in plain ashlar work. The locating of the egg and dart mould under the dental course is incorrect and not in accordance with the old cornice. This

mould is improperly executed and located in the several pediments. The platform which appears at mid-height of the column in the east portico, with a view to form a balcony, is in bad taste and mars the effect of the order. Also the manner of constructing the work is very materially different, it being much more expensive and not so strong and substantial. The walls in the original building are built in courses of ashlar, with stretchers, headers, and binders, the antæ being formed in and made thereby, which allows the brick backing and cross-walls to be bonded in and on the ashlar work, as the same progresses, which insures a more workmanlike and substantial job. While on the extension (having reference to that portion from the bed of the plinth or string-course on the several fronts) very little if any ashlar work is done. The antæ or pilasters are formed in one entire piece, thirty-one feet six inches high or long. The side facings to the windows are formed by setting slabs of granite endwise, which extend from the sill course to the cap. The wall face between the antæ or pilasters at the angles of the building, with two exceptions, is made by setting slabs of granite endwise, of the same length as the antæ. The finish under, at the sides, between, and over the window openings, simply butt against the anta or pilasters, thereby making a continuous vertical joint from the base course to the facia of the architrave of the cornice, (a height of full thirty-three feet.) By this manner and character of work all headers and binders are excluded from the walls, which prevents the bonding with the brick backing and the cross-wall, and also makes the whole work less secure and not as substantial as the walls of the old building. By this extravagant manner of constructing walls the entire weight of all the superincumbent and internal structures is mostly thrown upon the brick backing and cross-walls; when the exterior as well as the interior walls should be made to bear their relative proportion of the weight of said structures in order to secure the best and the most permanent work.

Question. Describe the moulded work upon the extension, and how it has enhanced the cost beyond what it would have been if the work had been done like that on the old building.

Answer. Not having the outlines of all the various kinds of mould. ings wrought on the extension, I will not be able to show the basis of computation on many of them. I will, however, apply the rule of prices for stock, cutting, and a fair price for setting) one of the pilasters, as I understand the contractors are entitled by the terms of their contract and their basis of computations.—(See Ex. Doc., No. 96, 34th Congress, pages 10, 91, 92.) Stock.–Pilaster, 31 ft. 6 in. by 4 ft. by 2 ft. 8 in. = 336 ft.

336 – 30 maximum 306 x c., $2 301 X
44 c. maximum cost per c. ft. = $2 74} c. X 336
ft.

$922 32

Cutting.–176 ft. 6 in., sup. ft., No. 1 hammering, at 80 cts. $141 20 6 ft., sup. ft., bottom scotia, 1 curve, at $1 60

9 60 12} lineal ft. arris, at 20 cts. 5 ft. 10 in., sup. ft., top scotia and astragal, 2 curves, at $2 40.....

14 00 6 ft. 2 in., lineal ft., arris, at 20 cts. 20 ft. 8 in. beds, at 18 cts

3 73 94 ft. 6 in. rebate, at 90 cts

85 05

1 33

[blocks in formation]

An anta in ashlar work of the same size, which effects the same design, and would be much more substantial and workmanlike, costs as follows:

Courses to be 1 foot 6 inches high ; stretchers, 1 foot 3 inches on the bed; binders, 1 foot 9 inches on the bed; headers, 2 foot 3 inches on the bed. Stock.21 courses, averaging 9 ft. 4 in., 189 c. ft.

189 ft. at 44 cts per c. ft. Cutting.—160 ft. 3 in., sup. ft., at 80 cts .... $128 27

6 lineal ft., bottom scotia, 1 curve, at $1 60 per lineal ft ...

9 60 6 lineal ft., arris, at 20 cts.

1 20

$83 16

5 ft. 8 in., lineal ft. top Scotia, and astra-
gal, 2 curves, at $2 40 per lineal ft....
5 ft. 8 in., lineal ft., arris, at 20 cts.
31 ft. 6 in., rebolt, at 90 cts...
346 ft., sup. ft., beds and builds, at 18

cts. per sup. ft..

$13 60

1 14 28 35

68 28

$244 44

56 70

Setting.--189 cubic ft., at 30 cts. per cubic ft

384 30

Question. Have you examined the buttress caps on the south portico of the Treasury extension, and made computations as to their cubic contents; and what the stock would cost at the prices stated in the contract, and computed by the rule of computations as shown in the synopsis of bids and proposals ?—(Ex. Doc. 96, 34th Congress, 1st session, page 10.)

Answer. I have examined the buttress caps, and made such computations in accordance with said rule, to wit: Buttress cap.-18 ft. 3 in. by 17 ft. 6 in. by 1 ft. 9 in. =

558 ft. 10 in. 10 559 ft. 30 maxi.
mum=529 ft. by i c. = $396 75 by 44 c.
maximum cost per c. ft. $440 75 by
558=...

$2,463 793 Cutting.273 ft. 4 in., sup. ft., No. 1 hammering, at 80 cts.

$298 67
293 ft. sup. bed, No. 3 hammering, at
48 cts....

140 64
29 ft. 9 in. build, at 20 cts. per sup. ft. 5 95
67 ft. 6 in. sup. moulding in 3 curves,
at $3 20..

215 00
162 lineal ft. arris, at 20 cts...

32 40

692 66

Setting.559 cubic ft., at 30 cts. per cubic foot..

3,156 451

167 70

3,324 15

Question. Then you say that $3,324 15 is the maximum cost of the buttress caps under any fair view of the contract with Beals & Dixon?

Answer. Beals & Dixon had nothing to do with the setting. They can be fairly allowed no more than $3, 156 45, it being for stock and cutting.

Question. Suppose the mouldings upon the antæ or pilasters carry price to the whole stone, what would be the effect upon the cost of having them all in one piece ?

Answer. Upon the antæ and all similar work the effect would be to raise the cost from two to six times beyond what it would be if

H. Rep. Com. 137-43

« AnteriorContinua »