SD3 - Report of the Committee on the Enlargement, Restoration and Repair of the Capitol

  • Published: 1906
  • Author: Committee on the Enlargement, Restoration and Repair of the Capitol
  • Enabling Authority: JR (Regular Session, 1904)

Executive Summary:

The undersigned, who were appointed a committee to supervise the expenditure of the $250,000.00 (two hundred and fifty thousand dollars) appropriated by an act approved March 7, 1904, for the enlargement, restoration and repair of the Capitol building, and of the further sum of twenty-five thousand ($25,000.00) dollars appropriated by an act approved 12th day of March, 1904, for the erection of a heat, light and power plant, respectfully submit the following report of the work done under their supervision: The committee organized on the 25th day of March, 1904, by electing His Excellency, the Governor of Virginia, as chairman. Mr. Samuel W. Bigger was made clerk. It was agreed in a conference with the architects, Messrs. Noland & Baskerville, of Richmond city; John Kevan Peebles, of Norfolk city, and Frye & Chesterman, of Lynchburg city, who were retained by the committee for the work, that the said architects should receive the usual fee of five per centum upon the cost of the work, but that the said five per centum should be credited by the sum of two thousand, five hundred ($2,500.00) dollars, which had been paid them by the former commission on account of plans submitted to that commission for a scheme of renovation, which was afterwards abandoned. The architects were also required to prepare such plans and specifications of the contemplated work as would be undertaken by some reliable contractor for a sum within the two hundred and fifty thousand ($250,000.00) dollars appropriated. The plans thus called for were subsequently adopted and approved, with such modifications as the committee thought desirable, and bids were advertised for. Application was made to the committee by representatives of union labor organizations, requesting that a clause be inserted in the contract forbidding the employment of any person on the work who was not endorsed by union labor. The committee resolved, however, that, as the representative of the State, it had neither the right nor the authority to discriminate between citizens of the State.