# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1884_S34
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

34   Proceedings of the 19th General [Synod], or

"Since the building committee itself does not absolve itself of all
blame regarding the significant excess expenditure, but does explain
this excess expenditure and in part justify it; and since, further, the
seminary building is certainly a well-executed, fit-for-purpose, and
solid building: the reporting committee therefore believes that the
congregations concerned" (which had in particular complained about
the significant cost overrun of the building) "will be well satisfied by
this fact, as well as by the publication of the building committee's
report, and that the whole Reverend Synod should not let its joy over
the wonderfully beautiful seminary building be clouded by this matter
of an excess expenditure — especially since, through our dear
congregations' great willingness to sacrifice, the cost debt has already
been covered down to a small remainder." (Report of the committee for
reporting on the report of the building committee, etc.)

After the Synod had heard the foregoing reports of the named
committees, a lively debate arose concerning the content of the latter
two reports. On one side, the fact stated in the building committee's
report — namely, that the first architect bore the main blame for the
cost overrun of the building through setting the building sum too low —
was called into doubt, and the question was raised whether the main
blame did not rather lie in the fact that a young, inexperienced man had
been chosen as architect, one who had never before carried out such a
building and had therefore made mistakes in some of his calculations.
It was further pointed out that two members of the building committee
had not signed the report along with the others. When the question was
put to them why this had not been done, Dr. Dümling, one of these
members, answered that he had not signed the report because he did
not agree with all the reasons given in it for the cost overrun. He could
not, in particular, absolve the architect of all blame, as the building
committee's report did indirectly, but had to say that the main blame
for the overrun of the building lay with the architect himself. He, Dr.
Dümling, had twice asked the architect, in the presence of the other
members of the building committee, how high the building sum would
come to, according to his calculation, under the plan he had drawn up,
and both times the members of the committee had received the answer:
no higher than $85,000. That architect was, to be sure, otherwise a
thoroughly capable man in his profession, as the building now standing
before us proves; but he had made a number of calculation errors, as a
result of which the building sum had been estimated far too low. After
the individual contracts had already been concluded — among which,
for instance, the one for the joiner's work came to double the sum first
estimated — he, Dr. Dümling, once he heard of this, could only raise a
protest, since it was too late by then to make any change to the
contracts themselves.