Gothic Pride: The Story of Building a Great Cathedral in Newark

The Great Foundation Controversy

In the winter of 1905–1906, workers made preparations to build the cathedral’s arcade. Waldron’s men constructed the bases for the columns and then started the diªcult task of raising the heavy granite columns upon them. O’Rourke suddenly asked Waldron to halt work, sending two letters in as many days about it. Here the record, though more sketchy than it had been or would be later, discloses trouble of a new kind. O’Rourke’s first letter is missing, but Waldron’s single response provides an understanding of O’Rourke’s concern.1 The architect saw that not all of the columns were perfectly vertical and questioned whether there were inconsistencies in the lengths of the shafts or in the amount of mortar used to join them. Waldron fired back that he measured the columns and found they varied by only one-half to one inch of each other. Such a variance was a permissible tolerance, a margin of error between the dimensions prescribed by the architect and actual construction, which fell in an acceptable zone of safety and appearance. In making his claim, Waldron was on good ground, but it was an early indication that the columns may not have been. Other problems vexed them. Waldron repeatedly had to reject portions of the stone delivered by the subcontractor, H. L. Brown, who served as a local distributor for the stone quarry in New Hampshire. O’Rourke pushed Waldron to fire Brown and recommended others to take his place. Pushing from the other side, Brown complained formally to the diocese about Waldron, who countered the grievances. Waldron chided Brown in a testy, revealing letter, stating that all his (Waldron’s) troubles with O’Rourke were 14 The Great Foundation Controversy 131 because of their—Waldron’s and Brown’s—friendship. It was, of course, the covertly made contract with Brown that first enraged O’Rourke. Attempting independent contact with the supplier, Waldron sent his foreman to their New Hampshire quarries. But he found neither satisfaction nor evidence of any work on the stone for Newark. Whatever his shortcomings may have been, Brown was handicapped by his supplier’s inaction. Eventually , it began to ship acceptable stone, and these problems abated. As the episode wound down, Bishop O’Connor, whose father, it should be remembered, was a Newark builder, did not side with Waldron, saying O’Rourke and the diocese had merely demanded from the firm what it had contracted to do. He aªrmed O’Rourke’s position in unequivocal language : “Waldron . . . should perform, as every contractor does, subject to the architect.”2 It was a pointed charge that O’Rourke took seriously long after forces eroded it. Builder’s Maneuvers The construction schedule lagged through the rest of 1906 and all of the next year. In late 1907, Waldron played at least twice under the table. Doing another end-run around O’Rourke, he demanded $12,000 directly from the bishop, saying he would take legal action if not paid promptly. The diocese, for whatever reason, quickly disbursed $12,000, widening the back-channel from builder to client. Waldron also again made a substitution of building materials for another important architectural feature. Details of this new diªculty are murky but convey the mounting intensity of the troubles between architect and builder. Two years before, O’Rourke had decided to change the type of stone initially specified for the capitals of the interior columns, preferring a white Alabama marble. He had concluded that this marble was both more handsome and could be more readily sculpted. Bishop O’Connor concurred with the change, and O’Rourke notified Waldron. (It is not unusual for architects to revise the type or source of construction materials, making financial adjustments as necessary with the builder.) Whether this change was formally made in the specifications is not clear, but as the time approached when the stone for the capitals would be needed, Waldron bought neither marble nor the type of granite originally called for.3 The diocese, or O’Rourke acting for it, had every right to reject it. In a later statement , the subcontractor asserted that O’Rourke had agreed to the substitution if it passed a specific engineering test. According to the subcontractor, 132 Sacred Heart Cathedral it met that test, and he had sent the results to O’Rourke, notifying him that...