| OCR Text |
Show THE JOIST nrjILDIXG. Wi: present in tills issue some facts connected with the proposed and long delayed Joint city and county building. The "Liberal" procrastination connected with that needed improvement has caused a good deal of exasperation among members of the party in power in this city, as well as among people not belonging to it. A question has been raided regarding the competency compe-tency of tho architect with whom the contract was made for plans, specifications and siperintendency of .construction, as will be seen by the documents which appear else-where else-where in the Xews. It is appropriate appro-priate now to examine, from the evidence presented, the status of the dIcusilon. lir. Apponyl's work wa3 referred to Mr. Hale, another architect, of this city. Thu latter severely criticised criti-cised tho drawings and sptciflca-tions. sptciflca-tions. Jir. Apponyi was given a hcarlngbefore the joint committee, and he disposed of 3Ir. Hale, whoe objections to the work submitted to him for inspection were overturned. It does not require any stretch ef conjecture to infer that had Mr. Hale floored Mr. Apponyi before the committee as completely as he had appeared to do it ou paper, the committee, or a majority of them, would have been satisfied to go no further. Seeing that the boot was on the other foot, someone else must be found whose criticisms could, by some means, be made to stick. Hence the reference of Mr. Ap-ponyi's Ap-ponyi's work to Mr. Charles JS. Ilk-ley. It will be seen by the report ot the gentleman last named that he also assumes to demolish Mr. Apponyl's plans and specifications. This cau-ea the Salt Lake TrJune which has been the inveterate and malicious enemyof the architect who secured tbe contract, from tho beginning to chuck!-. It will be observed, however, that It cackles over a onesided one-sided story. Mr. Iibley's report is cxpartc Perhaps if Mr. Apponyi geta a chance at It he will serve it in the same way he did tho criticisms criti-cisms of Mr. Hair. We believe, with Solomon, that "he who Judg-eth Judg-eth a matter before he heareth it is a fool." To base a judgment on a hearing of one side of a question is absurd as well as wicked, beca'ise in ninety-nine instances cut of a hundred it will be colored by the relator. The coloring process is certainly apt to be applied if there be a motive mo-tive present for its use. It appears from the document itself supplied by Mr. IUsley that he is an Interested party. It Is evident that he anticipates, antici-pates, in the event of Mr. Apponyi being rejected, that he himself will be awarded the contract Who that wishes to do justice would base a rejection re-jection of a contract upon a reportof a competitor for it? AVe do not pretend pre-tend to be able to judge of the competency com-petency of Mr. Apponyl's work, but we have some very decided ideas aboutjustlce. Hence we say that there can be no excuse for attempting attempt-ing to repudiate that gentleman's labors or render the contract made with him nugatory 02 the mere basis of an ex.parfe statement from an interested person. It is to be presumed that the previous City Council and County committee who accepted Mr. Ap-ponyi's Ap-ponyi's work and the "Liberal" officers who later entered into the contract with him dldnotoxsume their positions In the dark. As intelligent in-telligent agmts of the people they doubtless considered well the tteps Involved before taking them. It is well known, however, that Mr. Apponyi Ap-ponyi Incurred the bitter haired of the 'Jrtiune gangand the rabid wing of the "Liberal" party because he expressed himself to the effect that be considered the lioittiug of the j carpet-bag the insigula of the party over the stars and stripes to be an indignity to the national flag. For this he has been abused and cursed and an idea Is prevalent that the war waged against him is more on that ground than that of Incompetency as an architect. If bo is really Incompetent he ought not to be entrusted with the important im-portant work involved, but there is prima facie evidence that.he is not being fairly treated. JZx parte statements from interested parties are not proof. He has disposed of one set of criticisms of that character; he should be given a chance at the other. |
