Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The Oregon state employee. (Salem, Oregon.) 1944-195? | View Entire Issue (May 1, 1950)
3 PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING Newest Capitol Group Addition New State Building Lives Up to Capitol Group History April,, 15, 1950, was an o th er m em orable day in th e hectic ^history of th e capitol group of buildings. W ith ap p ro p riate -ce^ ^ ^ ^ sW he new P u b lic Service Q m fling w as officially opened for b^ B n e ^ W illiam W arren, U nited P ress staff correspondent, sums up the capitol group history w ith these com m ents in a Salem C apital Jo u rn a l story: “I t ’s a fine, b rav e building, this new P ublic Service stru ctu re, from penthouse flaggple to têçhnicolor cafe teria in the basem ent. “A nd it kep t; the hecti.b'pæratory in tact. in the p laster m ade a re p air job necessary and held up official ac ceptance of th e stru ctu re for a couple of m onths. B ut capitol attaches point out th a t th e cracks w ere not the fa u lt Soûnd C o n s trffilfti C b ^ b u ild - ers of th e five-story, $2,000,000' edi- fice. The state itself? s p e c s ® pum ice blocks for th e p artitio n s and tn e s ^ blocks continued to ‘cu re’ afte r the p laster w as on, causing the cracks. “O ldest building in th e , B a f f iì S oup | | B j e suprem e court building, and it launched the trad itio n of tu rb u le n t tim es am ongst the state buildings in a big w ay . The suprem e cdjjrt build- ing w as b u ilt on th e in sta llm é ri^ p la n by legislative fiat. “In 1911 the legislature appropriated $150,000 to buy p ro p er t l l S d build the suprem e ^ p u r f ts j ^ ^ ^ ^ g i A n d i t ’.spec- ified, as if shaking a collective firigef' at th e of p u rchasing or acquiring such land hhd erection of a suitàble building thereon, fo r the purpose m entioned shall in ho case exceed the sum of niohey above ap p ro p riated .’ “The p ro p e rty at S ta te and 12th streets—n ex t to th e ra ilro a d tracks, incidentally, w here th e freights ru m ble pakt to postpone th e ponderings of the high court m e n ^ ^ a s bought and the building started. “T hen funds for th e job w ere ex- h a u s^ ^ w ai^w i the- building ab ru p tly halted. “W hen th e 1913 legislature convened the law m akers prom ptly said “pooh” to the 1911 legislative' injunction against m ore dough and appropriated an additional $136,000 to com plete the stru ^ B re , p ro cu re some fu rn itu re and l a n d s c S s th e grounds. The building was .first ^ e u b r e c^^^M F e b ru a ry of 1914. I “N ext olde a ^ t r - ^ ^ S e in th e group, the state K $ e building across the al- ley from the suprem e court building, was com pleted in 1930, b u t only afte r a^'se 'and bickering th ati echoed clear to th e - Unitecl; S tates su prem e court. “L itigation started?'!: in 1927 and reached the U. S. high court before it was settled. It ^ a s to d eterm ine w he fIciaTs could borrow th e m oney to build a state building from a state d ep artm en t—in this case, t h ^ t ru&tl funds of the S tate In d u stria l A ccident Commission. “This was a new d ep a rtu re in finan-r cing the cost of construction of state buildings, w ith a /plan of rep ay m en t from rentals plus 4% p e r cent interest. “£>uit W /sft.brought by th e E astern & W estern L um ber Co. against the state board of control in 1927, to en+