Al;>^t.. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) // ^^ /,. WJ'.n V- /M/a !.0 I.I 1.25 1^ 1^ ^ m 12.5 2.2 2.0 !-4 IIIIII.6 6" %. Vi >m /J. 'W Photographic Sciences Cornoration 33 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 672-4503 ^* I?- CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHM/ICMH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut canadien da microreproductions historiques 'g L\ 1987 Tachnical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the beat original copy available for filmirg. Features of this copy which may bo biblioqraphically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. L'Institut a microfilma le meillaur exemplaire qu il lui a ete possible de se procurer Les details de cet axernplair" qui sont peut-etre uniques du point de vue bib*iographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m^thode normale de fllmage sont indiqu^s ci-dessous. □ Coloured cowers/ Couvarture da coulaur □ Covers damaged/ Couvertura endommagee □ Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couvertura restaur^e et/ou pelliculee □ Cov« Le ti D D Cover title missing/ tre de couverture manque □ Coloured maps/ Cartes g^ographiques en rouleur □ Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ Encra de vjculaur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) □ Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur □ Bound with other material/ Rati* avac d'autrea documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ Lar»liure seiree peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion lu long da la marge interieure B'ank 626,000. Thr'-e others did not exceed $750,000. They wen for $708, ..00, $719,000, and $7;")0,()00. Ho that six out oi the nine tenders for the more expensive design did not exceed $750,000. The lowest, $(512,000, was by a competent firm ' al)le to carry out the work, which would leave a margin from the sum asked of about $150,000." After this we naturally supposed that we would hava some intimation from the Government as to what they intended to do. Notwithstanding, however, that we wrote several letters asking for information, and stating that we had heard rumors emanating from Buffalo to the effect that the Government had given ^^r. Waite the work, and tliat he was even then preparing plans for the new build- ings, the first information of any sort which reached us was when we read the following report of a speech de- livered by the Hon. Commissioner of Public Works in the House on March 23rd, 1886 :— NEW PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS. "Hon. C. F. Fraseu rose to make a statement regarding the new Parliament Buildings. The House, he said, had consented to an expenditure of $750,000, and he had made the statement that the intention was to adopt one of two sets of plans, which had been sent into the Government. After the House adjourned it was considered, that having reference to the important nature of the undertaking, a critical and close examination of the plans submitted by the architects should be again had. The gentlemen who had examined the plans sent in under the original com- petition, were the Hon. Mr. Mackenzie and two architects —Mr. Storm, of Toronto, and Mr. Waite, of Buffalo. The Government had decided that Mr. Waite should be selected to make this consultive examination for the Government and to advise the Government how far the plans would be suitable. On account of illness and other causes consider- able delays took place, and the result of Mr. Waite's enquiries was not known when he (the Commipsicur) left for England lust year. After his return from Kn<;liind he and the other members of the Government had several consultations with Mr. Waite, and the result of their consultations was that they became satisfied that none of the plans they submitted were suitable ; that thtro were such grave defects in heating, lighting and ventilation, that it would be inadvisable to proceed with building on the basis of either. The question arose what was to be done. The Government had pledged itself to proceed with the build- ings, and they had come to the conclusion that tin ir early construction was a necessity. Tiiey decided to secure the services of an architect, and to have A NEW SET OK PLANS prepared. A careful deliberation as to wlio the architect should be, resulted in the selection of Mr. Waite, of 13uiralo. Mr. Waite had been twice employed as an expert in con- nection with the matter, and it was thought that his ability and his position as an architect warranted the Government in selecting him. A letter of instructions sent to Mr, Waite, and accepted by him, embodied the agreement on which he was to prepare the phnis. T!ie cost of the buildings was not to exceed $7.00,000, and within the limits of that expenditure accommodation must be secured for the several departments, olHces, and vaults, legislative chamber, committee rooms, speaker's chamber, &c., as fully in all respects as set forth in the general instructions issued by the J)ei)artment of Works, in 1880, for the guidance of the architects. The architect's remu- neration was to be at the usual rate of five per cent. ui)ou the contract cost, such cost not to include sums which the contractors may be entitled to as extras. No extras to be allowed, except to the extent authorised by the Commis- sioner of Public Works, for the Government has the right to reject any plans, first, if deemed, unsuital)le, or second, if it is considered that they cannot be constructed within the limit of expenditure above stated. In the event of the rejection of the plans, the architect's remuneration is to be fixed by the Commissioner. The plans were to be ready for inspection on March 15th, and the plans and specifi- cations to be finished so as to admit of tenders being advertised for on May 1st. The architect of the depart- ment fully concurred in the opinions of Mr. Waite as to the two sets of plans, and his conclusions were endorsed by the department. The new plans with all details and Hi)eciti- cations would be ready in three or four weeks, and provided these plans were approved, it was the intention of the f> Government imracdiati'ly to a'lvortiso for tondern. and it was expected that in two or three months the contract would he let, and tho work ready to proceed." B' lieving that the report of Mr Waite, as stated hy the Commissioner of Public Works, was not justifiahld, we requested Mr. Storm, one of the experts previously ap- pointed by the Government in the competiti(m of 1880, to pronounce and report upon our design, and in compliance therewith we received the following letter : (Copy.^ Toronto, ir,th M, for the building completely finished in every respect. It .vas in due time submitted to tender ; with the result, that after considerable reduction and cut- ting: down, the lowest tender amounted to a triile over the entirt appropriation — seven hundred and fifty two or three thousand dollars, end this for a portion of one trade only, masonry work ; the stone and marble staircase and arcades of the same, as well as all other interior marble or polished granite work (such as dadoes, fioors or columns), being omitted ; as well as drainage works, concrete fioors, and other matters. The result of tl.is will be that the building when finished will cost at the very lowest possible calmilation some eight hundred thousand dollars more ($800,000) than the sura which Mr. Waite was required to confine himself to — or a total at least of something over a million and a half of dollars v$l,500,nOO). 20 Mr. Waite will propably say ; in fact he has already said so ; vide the Globe, that such a statement is absurd. He very naturally would, but any sensible man at aU con- versant with such matters will prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that he is wrong, and the figures mentioned are correct. How best to procure a committee of perfectly unbiassed and unprejudiced professional men — (I say " professional men " because the question of cost being eliminated there exists no necessity for the employment of the so-called *' practical " man — and the matt^-r resolves itself purely into a question of Architectural merit, of which an Archi- tect is naturally, and properly so, the best judge;) is a subject that requires some consideration, but it seems to us at first sight, that if the President or Executive Ccumii- tee, of the American Institute of Architects — a body representing the very highest talents in the profession on this continent — was communicated with, the difficulty might be solved — let him ppoint a committee, the names of those composing it to be kept secret. The drawings, if thought desirnble, to have the names of the authors remov- ed — a mark of some sort being substituted — furnish that committee with all the necessary information and let them report direct to the Government. Th!i would place the A^hole question beyond suspicion and the arrangement could without doubt be managed. In any event should anything of this sort be done we must insist on our rights to have some say in experts to I -^ selected, and as to the sort of instructions and information to be supplied to them. We are agreeable, also, if some such scheme should be adopted with regard co me question of the fees in dispute between the Government and ourselves- -provided the ex- perts selected are men of the highest standing personally, and professionally, and not in pny way connected with the Government, and that we have some voice in their selec- tion. We confess that we are not sanguine thai the Govern- ment will fall in with our suggestion — but we defy them to say it is not a fair and reasonable one, and one which they are bound in all honor to agree to, if they are as sincerely anxious to do the honest thing in this matter as they have always professed themselves to be. We have always done the best we could to maintain our rights in this affair from the beginning, but it is an uphill fight for a private firm to struggle against a powerful and influential Government, and we now appeal to their gen- 21 erosity to afford us some opportunity to remove the stigma whicli their action has now unjustly and undeservedly cast upon us. You have always borne a reputation, both as a politician and as a private citizen, which is above reproach ; and it is from knowin<; and believing' this, that we feel confident that we shall not appeal to you — and through you to the Gov- ernment of \\nich you are the head — in vain, for a rehear- inji;. and rovipenin<^ of the case and a reconsideration of the utterly unfair proposal which the Conin:issioner has made tons, with reference to our remuneration. I have the honor to remain. Sir, Your most obedient Servant, Fh\nk Daulino, For Darling & Ciuky. (Copy.) Mail Blilpino, Mauch, 1887. Ti) the Honnurahh the Commisnoner of Puhlic M'urks : SiK — In your speech in the House on the 10th instant, when opposing the motion for papers re the proposed new Pavliument Buil(iinj:;s, you made certain statements which we tliink call for some remark. Pjrst — " That we had no claim to further consideration after it was proved by the tenders submitted for our desi<,'n, that it could not be built for the sum of live hundred thousand dollars ($500,000. )"' We cannot see what the fact of the lowest tender being over and above that sum has to do with this matter. Neither by implication, word of mouth, or by document, or writinji of any sort, kind, or description were we asked or required to keep within that amount, on tiie contrary, we were informed both by the Honorable the Attorney- General and by yourself, that the money limit imposed in the original competition had been dropped, the Gov- ernment realizing that they could not obtain what they wished ♦".ir that sum. Mr. Mowat knew it, as I told him— when he saw me in December 1881, relative to our making the pencil sketches — that if we were to be rigidly conlined to the half million appropriation we would decline undertaking the work, "iou knew it also, as the same up'lc'-standing was arrive' at in my conversatioa with you on March 25th, 1882, — and the official communication from the Public Works Department of same date, whei u we were ordered to proceed with the preparation of t.c working drawings in 22 ncconlance with the sketches, contains not one word ahout a money limit of any sort. It was, however understood, and that very clearly, thi.t we were to keep that amount of monev constantiv "in view and not to oxccod it further than \u> Jonsdered ahsolutclv necessary. In March. 1885, you hrin- down to tlu- House /m//j///(),()(iO was ^'ranted for that purpose. Not a word was said ahout our ha\int put ourselves out of eourt hecausc the lowest tender nnne to more than iialf a million, and no matter what un.ler- Btandm;,', or misunderstanding, you mav have heen lahoiin.r under prior to that date, you cannot now use it as an excuse lor throw.n- us overhoard— to attempt to do so, is neither fair in principle nrr in arf^'ument. Second— You are roi)orted in one paper as having said that our design could not he carried out for douhle the original appropriation, i.<'., one million dollars— in another tbat it would CO' t more than .$7oO,0()0. What you meant hy this it is dillicult to understand. You said in the House in March, 1885, that every care had been taken in the preparation of the plans andspecilicaticms to avoid all chance of extras; and that the tenders sub- mitted were from lirst-ciass firms, able and willing tocarrv out the work satisiactory. ^ The loweco tender .vas for $(512,000 for the entire build- ing, complete and finished in everv respect. Why vou should now say tliat th.' extras on that amount wolild IVvA^nnnZ Z^ ^T'^'f.^'''^ thirty-eight thousand !. u'^nn' -^^ '^'''''. ^>"»'^'-«'^ a»J eighty-eiglit thousand (!?rf»8,000) IS more than we can imagine, and we will ven- ture to say more than you can explain. Third.— You say that our correspondence is confiden- tial— that it IS incorapl-te- and that consequently it would be unfair to bring it down. Pardon US for differing with you on all these points. It 13 distinctly not confidential -r,he wider publicity you give it the better we shall be pleased. If it is incomplete— whatever you may mean by the expression-that is your fault and not ours— we have no desire to prolong it. and it is in your power to close it- but 80 long as you pursue your policy of not answering our letters, IS quality of incompleteness may be continued indefinitely. It is unfair not to bring it down, as bv doinf^ so it dooes the only avenue we possess of publicly defending our reputation and of speaking la our own defence I r 28 FoiitTH. — You say that Mr. Waito's report is mainly verbal, ami cousecjuontly it is imi)ossil)le to briny it down or to publisu it ; but that, if we (U'sire it, you will iustr\jct Mr. Waito to draw up a report voir, and you will submit it to the House. We desire nothing of the kind, thouj^h we have no objec- tion to Imviii}^ our plans exainiiiod and rt'portt'd on l)y any connnitteo of unbiussod, impartial, and competent profes- sional men and will willinj^ly and cordially aj^ree to have that report submitted to the House and jjulnished in any way yon like, but we protest most stroii<;lv aj^ainst Mr. \Vaite beinj; nt)w allowed to rejort on our drawinj^^s. as we do not believe ourselv&s, nor do we think that even t'le Government will be prepared to say that sueh a i)roeeeding at this time, and under the cireuuistancos would be a just and i)roi)er course to pursue. We desire, however, and consider that we have every right to ask that the Government sliould produce the written olVicial rei)ort sent in by Mr. Waite prior to the session of 1HH(>. That such a document exists both Mr. Mowat and yourself have admitted (though of course we are not in a position to say as to how meagre or how exhaustive it may bri). we object however to its l)L'ing supplemented by Mr. Waito at this late date in any w.iy wiuitever. Allow me in conclusion to call your attention to the fact, th.i' i.ofvithstandiny thi't o.u- letter of the 8th instant nskod lor ;ind ;i.q ;:red an answer, we have not as yet been lav. led with a reply, nor even the usual and ordinary courtesy of an acknowledgement of its receipt. I have the honor to be, oir, Your most obedient servant, FiiANK Darling, For Darling & Curry. Mail Building, Tor(mU.,2Cth Marcl',1887. To the Iloyi. the Attorney-General for Ontario: Sir, — We learn by yesterday's Globe that the question of the new Parliament Buildings comes up for discussion on Tuesday next, and as that apparently will be the last occasion on which our views of the treatment we have received in this matter can come before the House — a"" 1 through it before the country, and the public— we leel compelled, owing to the action of the Hon. the Commission- er of Public Works in refusing to bring down our cor- respondence, to take the thing into f^nr own hands and make it public in whatever way ma seem to us best. 24 We have always treated the wholn afifair as a private business transaction between the Government and our- selves, and as one with which the public had nothing particular to do: and we wish much that it could have reiiiained so. We have no longing for notoriety and this making our private affau-s a matter of common property is most repugnant to us. But as the Government has evinced no desire to deal fairly with us, in justice to ourselves, our profession, and our reputation, we are forced with great regret to take a step which we would gladly have avoided. It is not a question of politics at all— it never has been— it should not be— and we have never considered it as such. It 18 purely a question of equity, and fair and honorable dealing and should be settled honestly and above-board and strictly on its merits, and we appeal therefore to the generosity of the Government and tbe House to gr .nt us r. fair trial and hearing ; and if nothing else at any rate a more liberal remuneration than the utterly inadequate and disproportionate amount offered us by the Hon. the Com- missioner of Public Works for all the" labor, time and skill expended upon our drawings. When it is considered that all this work was done more than hyp yetirs ago, it will be conceded we think, by any- one, that we have been pretty harshly and unfairly dealt with ; and that our patience in the matter is a fault rather than a virtue. Failing any better treatment than we have met with heretofore, we will, we suppose, be compelled to petition for leave to enter action, and have t-o matter ventilated and settled in the Courts. This, however, we most certainly do not wish to do if by any means it can possibly be avoided. We have the honour to remain. Sir, Your most obedient servants, rr, . ,r , ^ Darling & Curry. Toronto, Mardi 26, 1887. Printed by Thou. Moobe ■«. Co., 20 Adelaide Street East, Toronto.