LIBRARY OF 
 
 CONGRESS 
 
 014 751840 7 
 
 Conservation Resources 
 Lig-Free® Type I 
 
REPORT OF 
 
 IndianaCentennial Commission 
 
 H^ 
 
 ^1^ 
 
 TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY 
 1913 
 
1— 0<2. Y 
 
 D. OF D. 
 
 1313 
 
^ Indiana Centennial Commission 
 
 r 
 
 
 Charles L. Jewett. New Albany, I'residiMit. 
 
 Charles W. Fairbanks, Indianapolis. 
 
 Joseph M. Cravens, Madison. 
 
 Frank M. Kistler, Logaiisport. 
 
 Demarchi's C. Brown, Indianapolis. Secretary. 
 
 To the Sixty-eighth General Assembly of the State of Indiana: 
 
 This report is made in compliance with the act of March 1, 
 1911, creating a Commission, to consist of five members as follows : 
 The State Librarian, one Senator, one Representative and two 
 other persons to be appointed by the Governor. 
 
 The Commission was therenpon made up as follows : 
 
 State Librarian, Demarchiis C. Brown. 
 
 Senator Frank M. Kistler, named by the President of the Sen- 
 ate. 
 
 Representative Joseph M. Cravens, named by the Speaker of 
 the House. 
 
 Messrs. Charles W. Fairbanks and Charles L. Jewett, appointed 
 by the Governor. 
 
 June 2, 1911, the Commission organized by selecting Charles 
 L. Jewett, president, and Demarchiis C. Brown, secretary, and has 
 since held eleven regular meetings at the State House. 
 
 Messrs. Kistler and Cravens are respectively members of the 
 Senate and House- and can fully explain any matter to either 
 branch or any committee of the General Assembly, while Commis- 
 sioner Brown will have at his office in the State House during 
 your session the minutes of the Commission and all papers, cor- 
 respondence and documents bearing on the matters mentioned in 
 this report. 
 
 Therefore, aside from the recommendations made, it is deemed 
 sufficient to simply recite the doings of the Commission and give 
 the reasons why it is unable to submit plans and specifications for 
 a Centennial building and options upon a selected site as directed 
 by Section 6 of the act. 
 
AS TO THE PROPOSED SITE 
 
 Section 8 of the act required the Commission to consult with 
 the Board of Park Commissioners of the City of Indianapolis and 
 the Board of Commissioners of Marion County as to the purchase 
 of real estate for the site for the proposed educational building, 
 the share to be paid by each and the ownership of the "-round 
 thereafter. The Board of Commissioners was invited to consult 
 with the Commission upon these matters and failed to do so, but 
 this is unimportant, because at no time has such progress been 
 made that any definite or binding negotiations could have been 
 concluded. 
 
 Several joint meetings of the Commission and the Board of 
 Park Commissioners of the city of Indianapolis were held in an 
 effort to settle upon a site for the proposed building, and earnest 
 efforts were made to evolve some plan whereby such building 
 would be given a site and a proper setting west of the State House 
 grounds and adjacent to Military Park, and make the same part of 
 the beautiful plaza system which the Park Commissioners are en- 
 deavoring to secure for Indianapolis. To make the site of the 
 building part of the proposed plaza and park system was evidently 
 in the mind of those who drew the act of March 1, 1911, other- 
 wise it would not have proposed that Indianapolis bear part of 
 the cost of the site. The Park Commissioners gave generous aid 
 to the work of the Commission in that respect, furnishing maps, 
 estimates of the cost of ground, list of property owners, etc., all of 
 which was so thoroughly and cheerfully done that the Commission 
 desires to thank this body of earnest, patriotic, unselfish men, and 
 to congratulate the city of Indianapolis on having the services of 
 such a board with Dr. Jameson as its head. 
 
 Yet this board, while eager to devote all the funds which it 
 properly could toward the scheme of having the Centennial build- 
 ing made part of the contemplated plaza of the city of Indian- 
 apolis, was not able to assure the Commission of sufficient aid to 
 justify it in recommending that the State pay the enormous addi- 
 tional sum necessary to secure the real estate. In addition, the 
 existence of a railroad track on the ground presented an almost 
 insurmountable objection to the selection of that locality as the site 
 for the building. 
 
 The Commission was therefore compelled to choose a site itself 
 and fixed upon Block No. 33, the square lying beyond Ohio street, 
 immediately north of the State House grounds, and sought to take 
 
options on the entire square. It is the belief of the Commission 
 that the south half of the square, nearest the State House grounds, 
 is all that is absolutely necessary, although the occupation of the 
 entire square would be far better. The firm of Hugg & Beeler was 
 employed to secure from the several owners offers to sell all the 
 ground in Block 38, the square above named, and did so except in 
 a few instances where the o^vners of the ground refused to name 
 any price. In every instance the prices asked were exorbitant. 
 For instance, the southeast corner of the block is occupied by a 
 lather old hotel building. This corner is assessed for taxation at 
 only $69,700, yet the owners demanded that the Commissioners 
 take an option on it at the price of $200,000. The entire cost of 
 the ground, estimating the price of the owners, who refused to name 
 (me, on the basis of the prices asked by those who did, would be 
 $926,500. 
 
 The Commission believed that it would not be faithful to the 
 trust reposed in it by Section 4 of the act if it bound the State to 
 pay options at this excessive valuation by the owners, and there- 
 fore declined to take any options, and now reports that if this site 
 is secured the propert}^ ought to be appropriated by condemnation 
 proceedings for that purpose. 
 
 Prices were also secured on part of the lots in Block 49 west 
 of the Capitol and these are also shown in the Exhibits "E" and 
 "P,"' hereto attached. They aggregate $738,750, and are highly 
 excessive. 
 
 The Commission never seriously considered Block 49 as a site 
 for the proposed building. 
 
 One sufficient reason for this is that it would enlarge the State 
 House grounds in the form of an "L" and the building would be 
 surrounded on at least two sides by manufacturing, business and 
 commercial structures. 
 
 This Commission therefore recommends as a site for the pro- 
 posed Centennial building the block of ground (or at least the 
 south half thereof) north of, and separated from the State House 
 grounds by Ohio street, which should be vacated and made part of 
 the State House grounds. 
 
II. 
 
 AS TO THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE PRO- 
 POSED BUILDING. 
 
 Section 5 of the law required the Commission to invite the 
 competition of architects in the formulation of plans for the build- 
 ing and to advertise the fact that the Commission was considerinii- 
 such plans, and this requirement was complied with. The sur- 
 prising fact was thereupon disclosed that there exists in the United 
 States a combination of practically all architects, amounting to 
 what is now commonly denominated ' ' a trust. ' ' This combine calls 
 itself The American Institute of Architects. 
 
 Your Commission was notified that no plans could be submitted 
 by any architect belonging to this combination unless the Commis- 
 sion first formulated a "program" setting forth many details, not 
 necessary here to recite, since they fully appear in the correspond- 
 ence marked Exhibit "C." 
 
 In a good faith attempt to meet this objection the Commission 
 procured a program to be drawn up by Bolilen & Sons, members 
 of the American Institute of Architects. This being submitted to 
 the authorities of the Institute was, after months' delay, rejected, 
 not because of any defect in the program but because Indiana had 
 not yet by law appropriated the funds for the educational build- 
 ing and for the further reason that this Commisvsion could not 
 guarantee that the architect whose plan might be approved by you 
 would be paid his fee and receive the contract to act as supervising 
 architect. In other words, this body of architects, having first put 
 the Commission to the expense and trouble of getting up a program, 
 then raised a question which, if it had been raised in the first place, 
 would have rendered the program unnecessary. Your Commission 
 was so anxious to obtain plans that it sought some way in which 
 it could give a legal guarantee and satisfy these particular gentle- 
 men, but no way could be found, altliough the Attorney-Genera] 
 v\-as appealed to for an opinion, which is hereto attached, marked 
 Exhibit "A-1." 
 
 At the suggestion of the National Committee on Competition 
 of this American Institute of Architects, this Commission prepared 
 a program calling for competition from which a half a dozen ar- 
 chitects might ])e chosen by the Commission to enter this competi- 
 tion, but this w^as also rejected by the committee. An appeal was 
 taken to the Executive Connnittee of the American Institute of 
 Architects, which also rejected the program for the same reasons 
 
that led to the rejection of the orio'inal program. (See correspond- 
 ence Exhibit "C") 
 
 Because of these rulings members of the American Institute 
 of Architects, comprising as already stated, substantially all the 
 architects in the country, would not compete. The law required 
 competition. Hence no plans could be procured to present to you, 
 and your Commission so reports. 
 
 The law required that the advertisement for plans should fix 
 the maxinuim cost of the building, and this was fixed at $800,000, 
 after careful investigation as to the cost of a building of proper 
 dignity, proportions and capacity. This amount we believe wall be 
 required for the building alone, exclusive of cost of a site. 
 
 The Commission recommends to the General Assembly that the 
 sum of $800,000 be appropriated for the construction of the build- 
 ing and a further sum sufficient to cover the cost of the site. 
 
 Such appropriations will at once create a deficit in the treas- 
 ury, and the Commission further recommends that the amount 
 above named be raised by the issue of bonds of the State, running 
 at least forty years, to the end that taxes shall not now be increased 
 but the burden borne by the coming generation of taxpayers. Those 
 who are now paying taxes have already sufficiently discharged 
 their duty in that regard by the erection of our splendid State 
 capitol and benevolent and penal institutions. 
 
 The act creating the Commission appropriated $1,000 for its 
 expenses. Of this there has been expeiided the sum of $295.35, 
 which amount has paid the expenses of the Commissioners, adver- 
 tising, clerical service, printing, postage, stationery, and indeed 
 every expense incurred by the Commission except the bill for draw- 
 ing the program, which has not yet been presented. 
 
 Bound by the limitations of the law and baffled by the unreason- 
 able demands of the American Institute of Architects and the greed 
 of the owners of the real estate, the Commission has accomplished 
 little aside from disclosing difficulties which were imdreamed of 
 and which must be removed by legislation if the idea of a Centen- 
 nial building is to be carried out. 
 
 It recommends that efficient statutes be enacted by the General 
 Assembly to condemn a site, the proper appropriations made to pay 
 for the site and for the construction of a building w^orthy of the 
 greatness of Indiana and dignity of the event the building is to 
 commemorate. 
 
 Ample time will remain after your adjournment to obtain a 
 site and complete the building before the 100th anniversary'- of the 
 State. Unless you do this the opportunity will be lost forever. 
 
In this connection we beg to state that with the approval and 
 assistance of your Commission a voluntary organization has been 
 formed to take charge of and carry out the details of a proper 
 celebration in connection with the dedication of the proposed Cen- 
 tennial building. It is composed of patriotic citizens of the State 
 from each Congressional District, headed by Dr. Frank B. Wynn 
 of Indianapolis, and is commended to your confidence and co- 
 operation. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 CHARLES L. JEWETT, 
 
 President. 
 DEMARCHUS C. BROWN, Secretary. 
 
 December 31, 1912. 
 
A SEPARATE SUGGESTION BY ONE OF THE 
 COMMISSIONERS 
 
 What follows binds no one but myself. It is contrary to the 
 views of CoDimissioners Fairbanks and Brown. I believe Commis- 
 sioners Kistler and Cravens are inclined to favor it. 
 
 Nor must it be regarded as a dissent from the unanimous rec- 
 ommendation of the Commission contained in the foregoing report, 
 for in that I heartily concur. The wealth and greatness of Indiana 
 demand that its 100th anniversary be commemorated in a noble 
 and dignified way and this cannot be adequately done except by 
 acquiring Block 33 and the intervening street and erecting thereon 
 a building worthy of .the occasion it would thereafter forever recall. 
 [ earnestly hope that the patriotism and courage of the General 
 Assembly will be equal to such a course. 
 
 Nevertheless, as a practical man I know that this hope may not 
 be realized, and in that event submit the following alternative rec- 
 ommendation. 
 
 The State House is now overcrowded and the State must soon 
 either build or rent an additional building for the transaction of 
 its business. By removing the State Library and the educational 
 and scientific institutions from their present quarters the State 
 House would aifford room for the needs of the State for many years 
 to come. A Centennial building of imposing character and ap- 
 pearance, sufficient to furnish this acconunodation can be erected 
 upon the State House grounds between the north end of the State 
 House and the middle line of Ohio street. The State owns the 
 south half of Ohio street, and if tliat be vacated (which can be 
 done by special act without the consent of anybody), Ohio street 
 will still be wide enough for all practical purposes, indeed, wider 
 than many of the business streets of Philadelphia, Baltimore and 
 Boston. The site thus made available will be more extensive than 
 the sites of many of the finest buildings of Europe. In the unfor- 
 tunate event that the present General Assembly fails to carry out 
 the recommendations of our foregoing report, I recommend the 
 vacation of Ohio street to the middle line, making the vacated por- 
 tion part of the State House grounds, that the Centennial building 
 he erected north of the State House and that the sum of $800,000 
 be appropriated for the erection of such building. 
 
 Respectfully submitted, 
 
 CHARLES L. JEWETT. 
 
ANOTHER SUGGESTION BY ONE OF THE 
 COMMISSIONERS. 
 
 The undersigned commissioner l:)elieves that Square 49 is the 
 most suitable site for the Indiana Educational Building, provided 
 that the Park Commissioners of Indianapolis will purchase the 
 square west of 49 and also develop a plaza and boulevard scheme 
 connecting with White River. The reasons are as follows : 
 
 1. It makes a system of public buildings and grounds connect- 
 ing with Militaiy Park, which is the property of the State. 
 
 2. It opens the possibility of further development for State 
 buildings which will be needed in the future, when other squares 
 can be added. 
 
 3. It will cost lest than square 33. 
 
 4. It will remove undesirable structures from the neighbor- 
 hood of the capitol. 
 
 If this combination with the Park Commissioners cannot be 
 made, then Square 33 should be purchased. 
 
 DEMARCHUS C. BROWN. 
 
LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 014 751 840 7 
 
 n