Issue link: http://www.e-digitaleditions.com/i/726123
Bronze by/Jos. LasSalle/AD 1858." (fig. 10). 28 With the casting of the Indian Fountain and the bust of Be sheekee, 1858 was a productive year for Lassalle, but it also marked the beginning of troubles for the foreman and ultimately the shop itself. It was the first time—with oth- ers to follow—that his honesty and integrity were called into question by workmen in the shop. In a number of letters to Meigs, Lassalle supports the pay requests of newly hired workmen, and in some instances he requests pay increases for certain employees, which perhaps suggests that the foreman had good relations at one point with the men in the shop. In 1858, however, Lassalle had an encounter with an appren- tice in the shop who was behaving poorly and was terminated. This appren- tice, by the name of Joyce, reported that Lassalle was allowing work to be made in the shop for private use and therefore stealing from the government. Meigs investi- gated the claims, but found no evidence for action against the foreman. 29 Nevertheless, complaints against Lassalle continued into the next year, begin- ning with a letter signed by several dismissed workmen claiming that the foreman had unjustly removed them. Lassalle acknowledged that he dismissed the men, but defended his actions to Meigs as a matter of following the instructions to employ as few men as needed and to retain the best workmen who could perform a variety of jobs in the shop. The most sig- nificant complaints were voiced by the German chaser and mounter Francis Heunish, who at the time was working on the doors of the Senate Chamber gallery. In October 1859, Heunish sent letters to Meigs and Secretary of War John B. Floyd with claims that Lassalle struck him, and that the fore- man neglected or betrayed his duties by sleeping during the workday, petty theft of government property, bad treatment of others, etc. Apparently, Meigs had already been aware of Heunisch's dissatisfaction, for before the letters were writ- ten he had directed assistant engineer Charles G. Talcott to investigate the complaints, taking the statements of others as well as those of Heunish and Lassalle. Lassalle denied all accusations, including striking Heunisch, although he agreed that there had been an argument and stated that Heunisch threatened him. Meigs believed that there was "some truth, though much malice" in Heunisch's charges. 30 Meigs's infrequent jour- nal entries seem to sug- gest that he had a more distant and less collab- orative relationship with Lassalle than he had with Casali. When writing about the claims against Lassalle, Meigs said that he never felt the "proper confidence" in the fore- man but was not able to find a better man to take charge of the shop. He felt it was important, though, to finish the work already under way. 31 Regrettably, Meigs did not get to see the attain- ment of this goal: in the following two months he was replaced as engineer in charge and the Bronze Shop was closed. Meigs, who had been experi- encing his own conten- tious circumstances at the Capitol, was reassigned to Florida to oversee the construction of Fort Jefferson, and Captain William B. Franklin of the Corps of Topographical Engi- neers was placed in charge of the Extension and Dome. 32 On November 7, 1859, after less than a week on the job, Franklin wrote Lassalle requesting by December 1 a list of the materials, tools, etc. in the shop. On December 28 Franklin wrote Lassalle again, this time directing the closing of the shop. He instructed Lassalle to "discharge all of the men in the bronze shop, and turn over the public property in [his] charge to Mr. Denmead" and informed him that his services would no longer be required. 33 The foreman had no choice but to comply with the peremptory order. 23 THE CAPITOL DOME Fig. 11. Senate Chamber Gallery Doors