OCR Text |
Show SALT LAKE IS ENRAGED OVER LIMITING CAPITOL OUTLAY, About the best act of David Matt-son Matt-son as a state officer was his letter Of Thursday recommending that the expenditures on the state capitol be limited. As was to have been expected expect-ed Mr Mattson's proposal has aroused arous-ed a storm of Indignation In Salt Lake, where the "boosters' cheer every Increase In-crease in the proposed cost of the Btate building and wail and gnash their leeih whenever a suggestion of retrenchment is made Here is the Salt Lake Tribune, the organ of the prodigals, offering the following criticism crit-icism of Secretary Mattson's sound advice. Doubtless Mr Mattson Is not in fa-vor fa-vor of erecting the state capitol at this time at all; or else he wants to set a "back fire" on some proposition proposi-tion considerable sentiment in this slate Is of that opinion, and Mr Maftson is from a seciion of the state where that feeling is vcr strong. Therefore his letter and prop osition to reduce as much as po-siMe the capitol expenditures musl be taken tak-en as coming from an idea hostile altogether al-together to the capitol. or else, as suggested, sug-gested, he wants to call off t.ome activity ac-tivity to which he is opposed It Is manifest that no creditable capiiol can be erected in this state for 51 ,"am, mm nn the plans that have been adopted If the legislature should by :in freak notion adopt the Mattson proposition, It would be a good idea for the capitol commission to stop procedure altogether, pay such damages dam-ages as are fulr to the contractors and postpone the capitol proposition until some more favorable time It has been known from the first, and the Tribune called attention to it . frequently In considering the long delays de-lays of the capitol commission, that there would likely be some adverse proposition sprung upon the legislature legisla-ture against the capitol unless more! speedy work were manifested than I the capitol commission had shown. And here we have it Mr Mattson does not want a creditable capitol to be buiit for the state of Utah if his letter is to be taken at Its face value. If the legislature agrees with hlm.i Ihe state administration should certainly cer-tainly call a halt, for it will be no credit to the administration or to the state to build an inferior structure on the splendid site which is owned by the stale The act of Secretary Mattson indicates indi-cates a lack of harmony in the state administration which In itself Is disadvantageous dis-advantageous to the state, and we trust that the legislature will not be swayed bv any mock plea for economy, econ-omy, which is really an evidence of hostility to the construction of the capitol and is not in fact a matter ol economy at all, or it springs from a bidden motive. The amount of it Is that the enemies of the plan for the construction of the capitol, having hav-ing been unable to head off the contract con-tract for that construction, would now be glad to do something that would make the whole capitol movement ridiculous, ri-diculous, and put up a structure of which the whole state would be forever for-ever ashamed this or a secret purpose pur-pose that In fact relates to something else We can conceive :hat a legislature might be willing to postpone the construction con-struction of a capitol, but it would be difficult indeed to account for a lce1sltur thnt Reeinc the construc tion of a capitol already contracted for, would deliberate! take steps to mutilate the capitol plans and to give us a structure which, in finishing and furnishings, might be a jmt subject I of contempt. Nor do we imagine fori one moment that the legislature will take seriously this letter of Secretary Mattson's. There is not one line of sound criticism crit-icism in the Tribune s entire article. I Mr. Mattson, going over the capitol J commission's own figures for the new structure, made the following tabulation: tabula-tion: Appropriations lor capitol building Bond istfue authorized in 1M09 $ 200.000 Public builulng fund 85,000 Bond Issue authorized in 1911 1.000,000 Special appropriation 750 111111 Grand total 5:.0C3,OOO Specified cost of capitol: Stewart contract price for the bare building ?1 040,000 Stewart contract price for heating, w iring and plumbing plumb-ing ., 66.00(1 Allowing for additions and alterations as listed in contract 3r.4,9ln Total cost $1,470,910 Total funds set aside and Otherwise provided for .. 2,035,000 I Total funds required to con-I con-I struct the capitol. includ-1 includ-1 ing additions and altcra- t'oos 1.470.910 Excess runds now tied UP $ 564.090 I hen the K?rrotan- concluded with this sound advice "1 would suggeKt. therefore, in view of the above figures, the advisabll-it advisabll-it of reducing by law the ultimate maximum cost of the capitol building to 11,500,000. Unless you take such action at this session there is nothing to hinder the commission from making mak-ing such further additions and alterations alter-ations as would entail the expenditure of the entire $2.000 000 or more which are now available and at the disposal dispos-al of the commission I would not he understood as positively committing commit-ting the commission to such a policy poli-cy of extravagance, nevertheless I do not hesitate to point out the possibility possi-bility of such action. You will observe, ob-serve, therefore, that by limiting the maximum cost of the capitol building to $1,500,000 you will not be curtailing curtail-ing nny necessary expense thereto" Tho Standard repeatedly has said that the capitol is not a necessity; that, on the score of economy, the building of the structure could be postponed, yet this paper, in good grace, has accepted the decision of the state administration to erect a capitol and has been In favor of a state house of sufficient size to anticipate the needs of the 6tate for years lo come and of such architectural beauty as to compare favorably with other capl-tols. capl-tols. but. at the same time, noting the hurrah in Salt Lake in favor of unlimited un-limited expenditures, we have Issued n word of warning to the legislators, cautioning them not to be hoodwinked into extravagance or any semblance of sanctioning loose supervision of expendii ures David Mattson. wl'h greater emphasis and with fibres lo back him. brings out the same thought., and his position and that of the Standard is for the best interests of all Utah The "boomers' in Salt Lake must be squelched if Utah is not to have a capitol scandal perhaps noi now or in a vear from now but in th years to come, as the fruits of the present indifference as to the total cost of the building Of course, if Utah has gone into the art business and has resolved to drain the state treasury to creale a beautiful beauti-ful picture, on the side of the mountain moun-tain known as Capitol Hill, then we have nothing more to say. Those who go In for the architectural and the artistic must not stop to count the cost. Utah, having become esthetic, esthet-ic, is now In that peculiar frame ni mind that makes the act ot placing ol dollars over against the attaining of a magnificent architectural effect seem crass and vulgar. |