Defective Brick in the Courthouse? The Former Superintendent Says Yes

“County Attorney Ayer recently said, in discussing courthouse matters, that the material and workmanship was all right but that the defect is in the architecture,” said a reporter of The Tribune to W. A. Rogers, the late superintendent. “Is this correct?”

“The latter is to some extent true,” said Mr. Rogers, “but as to material Mr. Ayer is wrong. For instance, the specifications say that the brick shall be the best quality, hard burned brick, hard, sound, square edged and true. No soft, salmon or defective brick to be allowed on the premises.”

“Are any defective brick in the building?”

“Yes. There is one main wall on the second floor that is built almost wholly of brick that were condemned by Mr. Evans for the reason that he himself said that they were not fit to put in anything. There are lots of brick built in other parts of the building that Mr. Ayer, or anybody else, could crush in their hands.”

“Are you ready to prove this?”

“Yes, to the entire satisfaction of Mr. Ayer or anybody else.”

“How about the south side of the building?”

“I noticed that the architect presented a bill for the tearing of it down and building it up again, and the commissioners did not allow it. I am glad of that. I understand that he based his claim that the cause of the defect was due to an earthquake shock. That is not so; in the first place, the architect was at fault in his plans. Now, I happen to know something about that myself. That there was a quake I admit, but in his case it happened to be a stonequake. When they were setting one of the upper arch stones it came down too quick and too far, and when it struck the center the jar started the lower arch and knocked the masons’ tools down to the ground. I have proof of this, also, and I fail to see why the county should pay for the rebuilding of that wall.”