University of South Carolina Libraries
?UIoa which must necessarily surround these closets as long as they were so located. Realizing the importance of such conveniences, and being con vinced chat some ? provision for them must be made beforec the permanent -.vork on the State house was completed, the commission sbught to provide a different, more convenient and safer locality in the building for these closets. ;These new closets were not contemplated when the question of completing ? the State house came be fore . the general assembly, nor were there any plans," specifications or con tract re:atlng;.tbereto; but the commis sion believing that out of the appro priation enough had been saved to in stall these necessaries, made such con tract with reference to them as justi fies us in courting the most rigid In vestigation. At the time the fixtures were Installed there was no sewerage . system .in the city of Columbia, and no municipal regulations covering details which though adopted for the sake of uniformity and governmental regu lation are but arbitrary. Since this in stallation there has been no complaint of the presence or suspicion of the ex istence of sewer gas, and the location of the closets Is such that if the pres ence did actually exist there could be no detriment to'the health or lives of the occupants of the State house. This determination on the part of the committee to make this arrangement was most fortunate, as subsequent events. proved, for the discovery was about that time made that the old water closets had been silently and un suspectingly venting their gases through secret and unknown flues in the brick walls of the building into the offices upon the lower floor and spreading disease and death among the State's employes. The commission of sanitary experts appointed by Gov. v Heyward, while criticizing some de ails of the new work, ordered the old closets peremptorily and immediately removed from the building, and in this demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary in spector of Columbia, joined. The grates or fire places in several of the offices "were directly connected with these closets and had to be hermetically sealed until the old work was removed from the building. The condemned closets had been in stalled at great expense to the State under the direction of the commission which erected the "splendid ten thous and dollar steel ceiling" in the main lobby, nearly 15 years ago, largely un der the. supervision of Senator Mar shall, who was then secretary of state. We desire to impress upon you the fact that you have not been put in pos session of any evidence or statement as to the apparent condition of the State house upon the day when the accept ance was made and the final install ment paid to the contractor. We, therefore, inform you that when the work was accepted and the money paid a personal inspection by special com mittee of the commission was made and the roof with all of its accessories, appeared in i>ert?ect condition, and every stone laid under the contract was free from cracks or apparent de fects, and this notwithstanding a test period of nearly or quite a month had elapsed from the date when the build ing was tendered, during which period we were satisfied that a sufficient test had been made. During said period there were several precipitations of rain, .notably on the 32th day of May, 1902, when the rain began to fall about 2 o'clock in the morning and continued until about 7 of the same morning, during which time nearly an inch of ?water fell. Rain followed again on the 14th, falling during the night, and. on the 15th. when in 21 minutes 3-4 of an inch of rainfall was registered. Under this severe test the roof ap peared to be perfect as far as protec tion from water Is concerned. This statement is made on official informa tion given us by the United States au thorities. We confess; with the utmost candor that in some respects, particularly as to the roof and the floor lights, we have not been altogether pleased with the result of the work. But these at the worst are not as serious as would have been blunders involving the construc tion of the stone work, and other more permanent portions of the building, which has come up to the full measure of the expectation of the commission. It is well to remember, however, that we are too prone to dwell upon that which has not come fully up to our expectations, while ignoring the fact that this man probably succeeded in more important matters where another would have been subjected to just criticism. We have scrupulously avoided, either in this communication or in any of the steps leading up to the opportunity which has been accorded us by your honorable body to set ourselves right, in making our cause common with that of either the, architect or contractor, and have endeavored to divorce our selves insofar as possible from them. First of all, though out of office, we are in a measure servants of the people and of the general assembly, and If that tribunal deems the State to have suffered injury from either, our first duty is to the State. However, it is but justice to say that we have found the contractors in all their dealings with us honorable busi ness men, whom we believe to be above suspicion of wrong doing, and who sought to live up to the true intent and meaning of their contract with the State. We desire ,it understood that we do not claim that it is impossible that im positions have been practiced upon this commission by the architect or contractor, for if any vital defects ex ist in the building or serious mistakes can be shown to have been made, these must have been the outcome of the commission having r.?en misled, but we do assert in the most positive manner that the findings and the conclusions contained in the report of the joint in vestigating committee are not sus tained by the evidence therein con tained, and if they are ever sustained it must be by evidence produced before another tribunal. Whether this com mission or any of its members were ever designedly or unintentionally im posed upon or deceived by either arch-1 itect or contractor, it can only be proved out of the mouth or mouths of such member or members, unless it be conceded that the members would com mit perjury in order to hide the facts, j We would remind your honorable | body that this commission has not I deemed it to be its duty to go into the newspapers to defend the course of the i majority, and that as but one side has heretofore been presented to the public, we realize that it is but natural that the conclusion should be drawn' that there has been but one side to the question. If. with all the facts before j you, you should conclude that the one! man has been always right and the nine men always wrong, we can but I plead in exi.enuation that we have done the best W8 could for the State, "un-1 awed by influence, and unbribed by | gain." In this report we have endenv-1 ored to state the facts fully, candidly j and fairly, "nothing extenuate and naught set down In nalice." All of which :s respectfully sub mitted. M. B. McSweeney. G. Duncan Bellinger. R. H. Jennings. J. Harvey Wilson. Robert J. Gantt. W. J. Johnson. Columbia, S. C, Feruary in, 1M4. Having taken up the official duties v.pon the commission at the expira-) tion of the term of the Hon. W. H. j Timmerman. my predecessor, I had( nothing to do with the election of the j architect or the awarding of the con- j tract, but as to all the facts relating j to the actions of the commission, andj the opinions expressed herein with ref erence to those facts, expressed in the] above report I am in hearty accord with the report of the commission, and with the limitations above expressed I have signed myself ? as a responsible member of the commission. R. H. Jennings. Under the' resolution passed by the general assembly of South Carolina, allowing the members of the State house commission to file such State ments as they respectively desired to make, I submit the following: That in the election of architect to make plans and specifications for the I completion, of the work on the State I house I did not vote for Mr. Milburn pfor reasons satisfactory to myself. In the acceptance for the completion Mc Ilvain-Unkefer Co. was the only one that came within the limits of the ap propriation, and it resolved itself into the acceptance of the same or a post ponement of the work until the pro visions should be made by the State legislature. When I went out of office as State treasurer my connection with the commission ceased, and I am in no way responsible for the completion or acceptance of the work of the con tractor. I did not pretend to have any knowledge of architecture, and could therefore have easily been imposed upon as to the beauty and the finish of the architecture. Verv respectfully submitted, W. H. Timmerman. EXHIBIT A. Personally appeared G.' Duncan Bel linger, who being duly sworn, says: That in the late fall of the .year 1903, upon casually meeting the Hon. J. O. Patterson, a member of the joint in vestigating committee, and ascertain ing accidentally from him that he had just returned from Columbia where he had been in attendance upon said committee, I asked him if the com mission would be accorded a hearing before his committee. In reply to this Mr. Patterson stated that Mr. Aldrieh was the chairman of the committee and advised me that if such request was made of the chairman it would be granted. Deponent referred to rea sons mutually known to him and to Mr. Patterson why such request would be unpleasant to deponent, upon which Mr. Patterson assured me that he would himself notify the chair man of the desire of the members of the commission to be heard. Thte con versation occurred in the town of Barnwell on a Saturday night, within 30 feet of the paling of Mr. Patterson's front yard. Subsequently and befdre the occas ion next to be referred to in the same town, and near the same locality, I recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous conversation and asked him if the right which we had demanded would be accorded to us, and he assured me that it would, and that he had spoken to the chairman on the subject and the' probability was that the illness from which Mr. Aldrieh was then suffering was the reason why I, and other mem bers of the commission had not been notified. I again impressed upon him that this request was made on behalf of all of the members of the commis sion. These are the occasions to which I referred in the communications which I recently published concerning this request made upon Mr. Patterson, and at that time. I had no reference to any other: but his published statement, said to have been in defense of his conduct, while explaining upon "the floor of the house of representatives, the injustice done by his committee to members of our commission recalled to me another and third occasion when this demand for justice was repeated. In the city of Columbia, on the night of the 17th of December, just passed, one of my partners, the Hon. L. W. Haskell, who is a member of the house of representatives, and myself went by appointment to the Columbia hotel to meet some clients from the city of Augusta, with whom we conferred un til about 12 o'clock. After this confer ence and when about to leave the hotel we met Mr. J. O. Patterson, who re quested us to go to his room, as he would have to sit up to catch a late train. While in this gentleman's room the subject of the investigating com mittee arose and I learned accidentally that a meeting of this committee had been very recently held. Becoming thus convinced that the promised hear ing was in a fair way never to be ac corded to us, I most earnestly attemp ted to impress him with the determin ation on the part of some of us to appeal to the legislature were we so unfairly treated as not to be accorded an opportunity to be heard. Again I received empty promises and vain as surances. A very recent conversation with Mr. Haskell warrants me in the assertion that he was present and re calls that the request was most earn estly made G. Duncan Bellinger. Swom to before me this, 18th day of February, 1904. J. T. Gantt, Notary Public, S. C. i EXHIBIT B. State of South Carolina?County of Richland. Personally appeared W. J. Johnson, who being duly sworn, says that dur ing the present session of the legisla ture the deponent had an intimation that the commission for the comple tion of the State house were going to be severely criticised by the committee appointed to investigate the several reports of the commission. That the deponent immediately looked up Repre sentative Rawlinson, who was a mem ber of the Investigating committee, and informed him of what deponent had heard, and further informed him that If the reports of severe arraignment or criticism were true that the com mission had a right to be heard, and j that an opportunity should be given them. That Representative Rawlin son assured deponent that there was nothing in the rumor and that the com mission would not be harshly criticis ed and that his committee had not fully made up its report; that they would have another meeting and all the members of the old commission could be heard: further slated that it was his impression th?t all the mem bers of the commission had been in vited to attend their meetings; de ponent informed him that none of the members of the commission had been invited to any of the meetings so far as deponent knew, certainly deponent had not been. W. J. Johnson. Sworn to before me this, 18th day of. February. 1?04. Lewis W. Haskell, Notary Public for S. C. ! EXHIBIT C. State of South Carolina?Countv of Richland. Personally appeared before me A. H. Seats, who being duly sworn, says: j That he is a rpporter for The Daily Record, a newspaper published at Co*-1 lumbla: that in company of Lewis! KohQ, at that time reporter for The News and Courier, he applied at the agricultural committee rooir. ?B the I State house, whore ho hoard the legis lative committee investigating the ! work on the State house was in ses sion, for permission to report the evi dence and proceedings: that depon ent was told by one of the members of the committee that the meetings were : not public. A. H. Seats. Sworn to and subscribed before mo. this 16th day of February. 1904. A. ("'. DePass. Nolarv Public. EXHIBIT D. Lewis G. Wood, being luly sworn, says: That he went to the agricultu :al committee room where the investi gating committee was In session, and inquL-od if there was any news of the investigation to bo published at that time, and that he was told by. a mem V ber of the coinmittee that there was none. Lewis G. "Wood. Jr.,. ? The State. Sworn to before me this 16th day of February, 1904. E. O. DePass, (L. S.) Notary Public for South Carolina. Exhibit E. State of South Carolina, Riehland county. Personally appeared before me D. H. Means, who being duly sworn says that he was summoned to produce cer tain records of the commission for the completion of the Statt house and to testify before the "joint committee to consider the several reports of the commission on the completion of the State house and facts relating there to," which committee was meeting in the agricultural committee room of the house. That he entered the room and was about to be examined when another witness was announced as present whereupon deponent was in formed- that he was excused until the said committee had finished with said other witness. That deponent then withdrew and waited in another office in the State house until after the de parture of said ether witness when deponent was again summoned to ap pear and testify. That during his ex amination by said committee while de ponent was endeavoring to put in what he considered necessary or nroper qual ifications of "yes" and "no!' answers deponent was interrupted by the chair man with the statements "answer the question," and "you need not go in to that at all." That just after the examination was completed the chairman of the com mittee requested deponent to say noth ing of what had transpired during his examination by said committee. That during deponent's examination by said committee Senator J. Q. Mar shall was present. ' That some time subsequent to depo nent's examination by said joint com mittee ex-Attorney General G. Duncan Bellinger, handed to deponent a let ter written by said G. Duncan Bellln- j gor to ex-Gov. M. B. McSweeney, dated Dec. 22. 1903, of which the following is a copy: I Columbia, S. C, Dec. 22, 1903. Hon. M. B. McSweeney, Hampton C. H., S. C. Dear Sir: In reply to your communi cation I write to say that I recollect than on May 81; 190?, when you were governor and I attorney general of South Carolina, I received from you. a letter of date May 31, 1902, a carbon copy of which is to be found at pages 140 and 141 of volume of "Public Land Letter Book, New Series, No. 1 to ?00," of which letter the following is a ropy, to wit: "Columbia, S. C. May 31, 1901 "Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. "Dear Sir: You are familiar with the action of the commission for the com pletion of the State house at meeting May 23. 1902. to-wit: 'Resolved that it appears to the commission for the com pletion of the State house, that the work is satisfactory and that the con tract has been substantially perform ed.' The above resolution was upon the question as to whether Mcllvain Unkefer company has performed their contracts for the completion of the State house, and subsequently the com mission ordered the balance due Mcll vnin-Unkefer companv on their said contracts to be paid. Mcllvain-Unke fer company now desire that the surety bond for 350,000 given by them to the commission for the faithful per formance of their said contract be by me surrendered to them the safd con tractors. No action was by said com mission taken authorizing or directing the surrender of said surety bond. Is such action necessary or am I author ized, upon the action already taken by the commission to endorse upon said surety bond the resolution of commis sion as to contractors' compliance with, or performance of contract, and surrender said surety bond to the said contractors? ?"Kindly give me your official opin ion upon this matter and oblige, "Respectfully, "M. B. McSweeney, ? "Governor and Chairman." "P. S.?Mr. Unkefer informs me that until surrendered his surety bond is costing him $25.00 per month." Upon receipt of this letter from you I recollect that i gave you orally my I official opinion, as attorney general, that as said action of said commission was final and conclusive as to said con tractors having performed their con tract (to secure the performance of which said surety bond had been given to you as chairman of said commis sion), said contractors were entitled to the return of the bond: and further action by the commission being un necessary, I advised you to surrender said bond to the contractors with an endorsement thereorr signed by you which 1 dictated. Very respectfully, G. Duncan Bellinger. That at the request of said ex-Gover nor M. B. McSweeney deponent pasted j the original of the foregoing letter, j written by ex-Attorney" General G. i Duncan Bellinger to ex-Governor M. i B. McSweeney, in the back of the min Ute book of the commission for the i completion of the State house, so as to j preserve in writing the evidence of the reasons and circumstances under which said M. B. McSweeney while governor surrendered said bond to said contractors, Mcllvain, Unkefer Co. That subsequent to deponent's said examination the secretary or steno grapher of said committee requested de ponent to give him access to the rec ords of the commission, for the com pletion of the State house, for the uur pose of said secretary's comparing and verifying with said original records said secretary's copies of portions thereof, to be used in said joint com mittee report. That at this time de ponent called the attention of said clerk or stenographer to said original letter from ex-Attorney-General Bellinger to ex-Governor M. -B. McSweeney, pasted as before stated, in the back of said minute book, and requested said clerk of said committee to take a copy of said letter and show it to the chairman of said joint committee, thinking that said chairman might desire to use said letter, as it contained a statement by ex-Attorney General Bellinger of im portant facts in reference to the sur render of the said bonds to the said contractors to M. B. McSweeney, up on which matter deponent had been ex- j amined. That said secretary or stenographer \ of said joint committee did make and] take with him a copy of said letter, j which letter did not appear in said! joint committee's report to the legis lature D. H. Means. I Sworn to before me this 18th day of' February. 1901. Lewis W. Haskell. Notary Public for South Carolina. EXHIBIT F. State of South Carolina?County of Riehland. Personally appeared before me. Joe j B. Garfunkol, who. being dv'y sworn, says that he was summoned ?ia ? wit ness hy the committee investigating J the worl; upon the Slate house, and that when he appeared and gave his; testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall was present in the room. Deponent fur ther swears that he was presellt in the State house when the contract for the work on the State house was let, and knows that it was the general under standing among the bidders that the junk removed from the building in doing the work provided in the- plans and specifications of Frank P. Milburn would go to the contractors: deponent j is peculiarly qualified to know this fact because he wished to buy this junk, and talked about it to every one of the bidders whom he met. Deponent further swears that prior t to tlie letting of the contract for the work lie had filed with the commission j an application to buy the said junk, i but was informed that>he must apply; to the contractors for the purchase of' same. That .Mr. Unkefer told the deponent two or three days after the contract was awarded that the com mission had referred to him the appli- | cation deponent had made to buy the j junk. Deponent further swears that he is a I dealer in, and familiar with the market I value of old iron and other junk, and j that he made an estimate of and of fered the highest market price for the I old iron it was necessary to remove in j placing the dome on the building; that he regarded the said old iron worth-l less for any other purpose than junk | and had he secured same he would ! have ^mediately shipped it off as such: it the contractors secured a highei . Ace from other parties for a portion of this old iron than deponent would have paid for it. Deponent further swears that he ex amined the ceiling removed from the main lobby of the State house, while I it remained on the State house | grounds: that said ceiling was galva- j nized iron, and worthless, even as junk: | that the contractors gave it to the de ponent, but he would not haul it off, and in turn gave it to the asylum for | the insane. That he did not testify to the facts above when being examined before the | investigating committee because the I questions were not asked him. J. B. Garfunkel. I Sworn to before me this 15th day of! February, 1904. D. W. McLaurin, ! Notary Public. EXHIBIT G. Richmond, Va., Feb. 4, 1904. Robert J. Gantt, Capitol Building: In my capltol bid I figured on all old material being my property. W. A. Chesterman. Savannah, Ga.. Feb. 19.1904. Robt. J. Gantt: In making up bid for contract on capltol there, contractor was to have all old stone, iron and other material on the premises. J. E. Burgess, (Of Stewart Contracting Company.) EXHIBIT H. REQUEST FOR OPINION. Newberry, S. C, Aug. 9, 1901. Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C: Dear Sir: Pursuant to the permis- I slon of the commission charged with the completion of the State house, I have the honor of asking your opinion upon a question which has arisen about the ownership V)f the old material. The facts appear In the paper here with submitted, and the contracts and I the specifications. The papers submitted consist, of a) partial draft of a report of the com- I mlttee and a copy of the letter from the architect. The minutes referred to contains the I statement of Mr. Unkefer, one of the contractors. The committee desires your opinion I under the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case upon the question where the ownership of the old material rests, whether In the con tractors or the State. Awaiting your reply, I am, Very truly yours, Geo. S. Mower, Chairman. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. Executive Department, Office of the Attorney General. Columbia, S. C, Aug. 26, 1901. Hon. Geo. S. Mower, Chairman, etc., Newberry, S. C. Dear Sir; I have before me your let ter relating to the question of the own ership of what is known as the "old material'' in connection with the con tract for the completion of the State house. I note that you say that the commit tee desires my "opinion under the terms of the contract and the circum stances of the case upon the question where the ownership of the old material rests, whether in the con tractors or the State." I have the honor to reply as follows: As I gather them the admitted facts are: The only pertinent reference in the THE ANSWER OF ?RCHII In Detail the Man Against 1 Replies* to His Acci Assen REPLY OF FRANK P. MILBURN, ARCHITECT, TO REPORT OF IN VESTIGATING COMMITTEE, RE LATING TO THE WORK ON THE STATE HOUSE. To the Public: I will be glad for you to consider my reply to so much of the report of the investigating committee, recently made to the legislature, as seems necessary at this time. In the first place, the committee, composed of chosen representatives of the people, "all honorable gentlemen," In their desire to vindicate the author of the minority report of one mem ber of the old capltol commission, have gone beyond the authority given by the concurrent resolution under which they acted. By that resolution they were directed to report to the next session of the general assembly "such facts and recommendations in reference thereto as they may deem advisable." And yet these "honorable gentlemen" go out of their way to inject into their report wholly unwarranted and im proper conclusions, which are neither "facts" nor "recommendations," but libellous and indiscriminate reflections on numerous State officers and repre sentatives, as well as the architect and contractors. "Miserable fraud," "mon strous swindle" and "malefactors!" Such gratuitous expressions are as false as they are uncalled for by the concurrent resolution. But, that this committee was more bent on vindicating the one dissenting member of the capitol commission than carrying out the suggestions of the legislature, is evidenced by the fact that they did not "employ an archi tect," as was suggested by the authori ty given in the concurrent resolution, but paid $15.00 a day for a "contract or." who says he has been "superin tendent of constructing of the United States capitol for four years." But further still, this committee was directed to consider the "several re ports of the commission for the cou pletion of the State house," with au thority to summon witnesses, etc. They seem to have considered only the one minority report of Senator J. Q. Marshall, made in February, 190". and examined witnesses only in support of that minority report, without calling a single witness In support of the re port and action of seven honored citi zens and officers of the State, who dif fered with Col. Marshall, and who arc as wide awak ko ti*** interests of the State as ho or vne lfc_nbers of this in vestigating committee, and who have always depended more upon witnesses ill this State, whose standing and cred ibility are known to thorn personally, than a foreign importation who is recommended by the superintendent of the federal capitol building, and was no doubt never before heard of in South Carolina. But let us glanre at the procedure of this investigating committee. When they select their expert he is brought to Columbia and shown the general plans and specifications upon which contractors were invited to bid for the work: but not the plans showing the modifications nor the detail drawings, for actual work, lie examines the. Pinns, specifications or written contract of the use or ownership of the '"old ma terial" in question is to be found in the specifications, in' the following' words: "The successful contractor will be permitted to use all old material that is now on the ground, and such parts of the present roof that conform to these plans and specifications; but it is understood that the marble now on the grounds is not included. This only covers the granite columns, balusters, old iron, bracing, granite, etc., in the roof that is suitable, and the proper size that is called for. If In doubt con sult the architect on this subject be fore making a bid." 2. Before bidding on the work Mc Ilvain-Unkefer company, as well as other competitive contractors, called upon the architect, F. P. Milburn, for a:rt interpretation of the clause quoted, concerning which they were in doubt. 3. The architect informed the con tractors "that the contractors bidding for the work would get such 'old ma terial.' and would be permitted to use such old parts as would conform with the new plans and specifications." (See Milburn's letter. July 31, 1901.) 4. Acting upon the interpretation given by the architect, Mcllvain-Unke fer company, after making allowances for what was conceived to be the value of the "old material" to them, put in their bid for the contract, and was duly accepted by the commission. 5. One Mr. Garfunkel, a junk dealer, submitted to the commission a proposi tion to buy the copper 'and old iron then in the old roof, and the commis sion, upon accepting Mcllvain-Unkefer company's bid, ordered that the com munication of Mr. Garfunkel be turned over to the successful bidding con tractor, upon the ground that the said "old material" was at the disposal of the latter. The clause quoted for the specifica tions bears internal evidence of con scious ambiguity, and the conflicting interest is susceptible of various in terpretations. It is easy to conceive that the bidding* contractors could claim with a show of reason, the title to the "old material" in question, and inasmuch as the paper containing the clause was prepared for and in behalf I of the commission, and the law would, as I understand It, construe the con tract strictly against the commission and in favor of the bidder, for one rea son, among others, that in cases of doubt, the construction by the con tractors must be given the benefit of the doubt, inasmuch as the commis sion, as the author of the specifica tions, must suffer, if either party must, on account of ambiguity. But I think that up to a very recent date it had been the understanding on all sides that the contractors should be the owners of the old material, and the facts as found seem to me to pre clude any other conclusion. The statement of Milburn. the archi tect, speaking on behalf of the commis sion, the known conduct of the con tractors, based upon Milburn's inter pretation, the acceptance of the bid based upon the supposed ownership by the contractors of the "old material." and the declination to treat with a pro posed purchaser fcr the sale of the old material, and the reference of his bid to Mcllvalne-Unkefer company, all estop the commission from claiming the "old material" in question. Hoping that this will meet with your approval, I am. Very truly yours, (Signed) G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General. Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin ion of the attorney general was ap proved by a vote takcii viva voce, Mr. Marshall voting against it. EXHIBIT I. Columbia. S. C Feb. 15,1904. This certifies that in the fall of 1901 I bought from J. B. Garfunkel, for the use of the State hospital for the insane, I for the amount of $<t.00 a lot of gal vanized iron railing and that he threw in as worthless, a lot of metal ceiling, which he said we might have for hauling off. The ceiling is now ly ing in a rubbish heap in the back yard of the hospital. J. W. Babcock. ECT FRANK F. MILBURN. Whom Charges Were Made jsers in the General nbly. building in the light of these original, general plans and specifications. And yet no one of the seven gentle men of the capitol commission, who honestly differed with Col. Marshall, was called, nor was I asked to show him the modified and complete speci fications and detail drawings under which the work was actually done. It appears that on a Friday In May, 1903, before this investigating commit tee was to take testimony, as remem bered by the chairman, the chairman of the committee called at my office, during my absence from the cltv. and left a verbal message with one of my draughtsmen about the meeting, at which the expert from Washington would give his testimony, and that 1 could be present, or send any com munication if I desired. But I never received the message, and, in fact, never heard of the incident until last Friday, the 12th Inst. In this connec tion I beg to submit the following statements: "To Whom it May Concern: 'This is to certify that I am in the employmenf of Frank P. Milburn, ar chitect, in the capacity of engineer and draughtsman, and was during the last year. "That once when Mr. Milburn and Mr. Heister were out ' of the office, Mr. Milburn being out of the city, a gentleman called, and repre senting himself to be a member of the State house investigating commit tee, staled in effect that said commit tee would shortly fas I understood, the next day) have a session, and asked that I let Mr. Milburn know, and also get word to Mellvaln, 1'nkefer com pany. I promised to let Mr. Milburn know, and also Mellvaln, Unkefer com pany if we could; that I thought we had their address in the office. "That upon the return of Mr. Heister, who is chief draughtsman and assist ant to Mr. Milburn, I told him of what had taken place, and supposed he would communicate with thern. but I never mentioned the matter to Mr. Milburn until Feb. 12, 1904. "(Signed) "Goo. F. Kepler." "To whom it May Concern: "I hereby certify that I am now, and was last year chief draughtsman and assistant to Mr. Frank P. Milburn, architect. "That I have read the foregoing cer tificate of Mr. George F. Kepler, but have no recollection of ever hearing of ihi- conversation therein referred to. before Feb. 12. 1901. If Mr. Kepler is correct in his recollection of stating the matter to ir** l rli*i not take it in suffi ciently to li?.ir?a; iy mind, and I am sure that I never mentioned the mat ter to .Mr. Milburn. "(Signed) "Michael Heister." After this hearing, at which is now appears thai several witnesses were ex amined. I learned of it from the news papers and common rumor: but never knew anything of the purport of the testimony, although I heard thai Col. Marshall was present, and that the sessions were behind closed doors. Un til my return to this city last Friday, when T got hold of a copy of the report ?the committee having never honored me with a copy?I never knew authori tatively ol the reflections ou the work. After keeping the testimony, and their proceedings secret, as I believe, I from May to December, more than six months, I received a note from the secretary of the committee, dated Barnwell. S. C Dec. 7. 1903, but mailed in Columbia, 11th December, giving me an opportunity to appear before the committee, if I desired. Having heard of the proceedings in May, at which 1 was told, and believed. Col. Marshall had been present, I decided, without having counsel, that I had best not appear unless the committee :esired my presence, I had been guilty of absolute ly no wrong, or conscious neglect of any duty to the State, but had given my best efforts to assist the capitol commission in the discharge of its du ties and the proper expenditure of the State's money, hence I had nothing to explain away. But knowing that I had modified and detailed drawings in my office not on file in the State house, I offered to place my office records at the disposal of the committee. In this connection I see that my note to the committee has been termed "curt." I wish to disclaim any such intention; and if it is, I regret it, and plead in ex tenuation the fact that I began the struggle for bread early in life, and had not the opportunities of collegiate edu cation enjoyed by some members of the investigating committee. But in justice to the capitol commis sion, which with one exception ap proved my work, as well as to myself and family. I wish to say something in regard to the specific findings of the Investigating committee. In the order stated. First. As to the charge that the plans and specifications filed with the secretary of state were not suitable and complete. I believe this was the first objection made by Col. Marshall after my elec tion as architect, and was fully con sidered and passed upon bv the capitol commission in the year 1900, Mr. Mar shall alone dissenting. At that time the commission had before it letters from four of the most prominent con tractors and builders of this section of the country, who, after studying those plans carefully to base upon, them bids for a very large sum of money, secured by a heavy bond, had bid upon this work. Some of these gentlemen were personally known to members of the commission, and their statements were to the effect that the drawings and specifications were plain enough to make an-intelligent bid. that the plans and specifications were fully understood, and were proper for good work. The opinion of such well known contractors and builders as Gude & Walker, J. W. Bishop & Co.. W. A. Chesterman and Nicholas Ittner. com monly known as "Honest Nick." must outweigh the opinion of Mr. Marshall and the Washington "expert" with any impartial Judge. Second. That the contract fixed the old work on the completed portion of tho building as the standard. This is not true. There is nothing in the plans and specifications which could be so construed except, perhaps, the word "prototype," on one of the general drawings, and this was intend ed to apply only to style, outline, form, j shape; and was not Intended to apply j to the classification of the workman ship. Under each of the headings of j the various classes of work the same was fully outlined, giving the number of cuts to the inch for the different parts of the work. In this connection, I may say that it was not intended to make the stone cornice in one piece, for instance. The small appropriation for the whole work I necessitated great economy, and j the scale detail drawings show that it I was to be built up of several members, i as it was done, instead of the more ex pensive one-piece cornice. Referring to sheet 6 of the general drawings where the note before re ferred to is found, it will be seen that the work is to be the same only when it has Its prototype in the old building. I That it does not mean that the cornice, for instance. Is to be Identical with the old work, you have only to see sheet 7 of those same drawings, where the cornice is distinctly shown to be built up of several pieces. Third. That the State at a great ex pense, in the neighborhood of $10,000, . had a splendid steel ceiling in the main ! lobby, which the contractors took and converted to their own use, where by the State lost in the neighborhood of $10.000. The plans and specifications required the contractors to cut a circular open j ing into the ceiling for the inner dome. When the celling was cut, and it was ' thoroughly examined, it was found to j be galvanized iron, in a bad condition and difficult to work into shape, es pecially as it contained ceiling lights no longer of use. The contractors said it would require special workmen and considerable loss of time to patch it e.p. and would not then be as satis factory as a new ceiling, which could be gotten in less time, and enable them ! to be ready for the meeting of the I legislature, although'the new ceiling would cost them more. After full ln I vestigation of all the facts and con ditions, 1 decided that it was t<? I the interest of the State to accept the i proposed change, and I approved the 1 ceiling they used, which harmonizes 1 perfectly with the design of the ceil I ing under the balcony around the main [lobby, which was placed there under ? Mr. Niernsee's supervision. As both ceilings are in the same lobby and are ] seen at the same time, harmony is es sential. Neither the cornice nor cove j mouldings in this lobby were interfered with, but the new celling was used only in the field or body of the ceiling 'through which the dome is cut. The i contractors thought they ought to have 1 extra for this new celling, but I would i not allow it, and the State got the new ceilings without cost. This item shows the fearful mistake I the investigating committee made in not examining farther into the real I facts instead of giving so much weight i to that minority report. They would ? have the public believe that it was a I "steel ceiling," costing in the neighbor hood of $10,000, when the records in the secretary of state's office show that all i the ceilings and cornices, steel beams, 'an<l skylights in the rotunda, or main lobby, and the ceiling over the senate lobby together, cost only $7,898, on the i 2d of May. 18S9. Any well Informed 1 man will know that the cornice actual ; Iy cost much more than the ceiling, j The public must in charity put this ; blunder of the committee down to l neglect and ignorance, or convict them j of deliberate misrepresentation in making the statement that "on this : Item the state lost in the neighbor ; hood of $10.000." Let the public guess why Mr. Hunt advanced the idea that the contractors removed this ceiling that they might. I hoist into position the large steel box i girders that support the dome! The fact is. these heavy ste.-i beams and girders were raised from the outside ? wall* and not through the main lobby. But not content with trying to arouse : public indignation over the allege.1 loss to the Stale, they attempt to injure I character by charging thai "the con : tractors bodily look and carried away and converted to their own use this valuable and beautiful part of the old i building." Tie- cold fact is, and they 1 either knew it. or co.ild have learned it ?by reasonable, fair and impartial in quiry, thai this old ceiling that was removed from the rotund" lobby was ! never sold or used by tin >? ,' tors, ; but was given to Mr. G?rtanke? if he I would remove it from the grounds, land he in turn gave it to Dr. Babcock on the same condition, and this "val ; uable and beautiful," this "splendid 'steel ceiling," now lies In a rubbish heap in the back yard of the state lu natic asylum, a silent but unimpeach ! able witness of the outrageous libel 'which this investigating committee has ! spread upon the records of the legisia j ture. Fourth, Thai by the omission of two inner columns from the front portico the contractors made a profit of $3,400, and the estimated loss to the State is $4,500. That the public may fully understand this mutter, I wish to call attention to the fact, that when called to this work jl found a partially completed building, .much valuable stone and marble on ihaud, and an appropriation wholly and j admittedly insufficient to complete the j building as originally designed. When I made the plans, it was to utilize all the very expensive columns then lying on the ground, and considered fit for use, that largely Induced me to pro vide for two inner columns on the front portico. It turned out with this work, as is generally the case in remodeling old. or partially completed buildings, j that many modifications and changes j became necessary, and were made with I the consent and approval of the com | mission, as a rule Col. Marshall being the only one dissenting. In hoisting I these massive columns into position, [one of therA broke by Its own weight when beinglremoved from its position on the ground. An examination set tled beyond question that there was a defect in the stone, which then showed an old crack about two thirds of the way through. It was generally be lieved and conceded that the loss fell upon the State. The matter was promptly reported. I was of the opin ion, and am still, that it was then best to omit the two inner columns, because there would be more floor space, be cause the architectural features would be just as good, because with slight changes (omitting a wood truss and substituting steel trussed per?ns) the strength of the structure would not be impaired in the least; because it would save much time in completing the work, and because it would save rather than cost the State anything. The contractors offered to furnish a new column for $2,000, necessitating several months' delay: -or, piece the broken column for $500, causing a de lay of. one month, or change the plans ard omit the two columns,, causing no delay, and deduct from the contract price $600, which it was shown by an Itemized statement would be saved to the contractors by the change. With ali this Information before the com mission, after full consideration, it de cided, by a vote of 5 to 3. to change the original plan and omit the two columns, thus saving to the State $600. without detriment to. the work, and giving these columns to the Stute for monumental purposes. Mr. Hunt talks about "the stone lin- ' tel and brick work on top of these col umns." The specifications never called for any such thing. And yet this will ing witness, unable to condemn the sufficiency of the "bracing und anchor ing," goes out of his way to suggest carelessness In "a great portion of the construction throughout this building." Again, this "government" witness says the two massive square pillars, under the portico, "now perform no duty at all." Any sane person can see for himself that these piers, originally constructed principally to support the two inner columns, since the change support much of the portico. And it wis to get such a witness that the in vestigating committee passed over so many southern architects and con tractions of known ability and Integ rity. Fifth. That the new leaf work on the capitals is not as fine as the old. It being impracticable to get the stone for this new work from the old quarry; a stone was selected which matched it exactly, and the same ac cepted with the bid of the contractors, the only slight difference, and which is not appreciable, in the work oh the capitals', is due to the fact that the Pacolet granite Is a trifle softer and therefore not suceptible to quite so high a finish. Sixth. That lintel stones should ex tend from columns at the rear of the portico to corresponding front columns. Where there are sheet Iron boxes paint ed to resemble granite. That is just according to the plans and specifications, first-class galvan ized iron being used, which was us gori as could be afforded with the ap propriation, and answers every pur i pose. In reference to the glass floor which, leaks In rainy weather, I beg to say It does leak, and I regret it.. In my ef fort to give all the light possible to the offices and passageways below, I selected this style of floor light, which is suitable for the place. Unfortunately there is but little fall, and yet I gave if all I possibly could to connect with the granite work and the height of the second floor doorway entering the lob by. This is no fault of mine; I? is one of the "roubles en countered in remodeling or adding to j 8.' building. The chief trouble, how ever, with the portico floor is that I to accommodate the legislature, it was i laid just before the meeting of that I body and was walked on and abused , [before I he concrete and cement mate i rial set sufficiently. The natural con I sequence was that it was damaged and I ?Hill presents, a bad apoearance. An i inspection of the rear portico floor, I which was not so used and abused, will I substantiate this contention. As to the ceiling of the portico. I do not know of any material more suit I able for such ceilings. It is made from the same class of material that was removed by the contractors from the i main lobby, although not the same de j sign. I wonder if the gentlemen of the Investigating committee know that the I portico ceiling in the main entrance ! :o the United States capltol at Wash , ington was common plastering, and ; [hat leaks from the roof caused some I of it to fall. Seventh. That the roof is a "tar and : gravel" roof, unsuitable, and leaks : badly. It is not a far anil gravel roof, but. I :'s of the very finest quality of asphalt I and crushed quartz, and there is no j doubt about its answering the purpose for at least ten years, as the roof con i tractors gave a guarantee for ten years I against leaks and material wear and I tear. This" same class of roofing is on the following buildings in the city of Washington, D. C: Atlantic Const Line office building, ! Southern Railway office building, Iowa , department house. Raleigh hotel. Bliss department house. United States Cen sus building, government printing house, and many others too numerous I to mention. It is a matter of profound regret to me that the roof leaks. I have done everything in my power from the first to 'remedy it. It is a well known fact j that much more expensive roofs than : this have proved unsatisfactory. The : government postoffice at Savannah, which has a tile and copper roof leaked badly. The United States postoffice at Augusta, which also has an expensive ! roof, leaked for yearn. in this connection I submit the fol lowing: Columbia, S. C, Jan. 18, 1904. Mr. Frank I'. Milburn, Architect, Co lumbia. S. ''.: Dear Sir: Referring to our conver sation in regard to the State house, v. ill say that a short time after the State house work was finished the charlotte Roof and Paving company lelegraphed me to go there and exam 11,.- the roof and make the same satis factory if 1 could. I went on top of the building anil was somewhat surprised In lind that some one had torn the I Hashing loose' at several places between ! iiie main roof and the base of the dome for several f' -' allowing the water flowing off of dome and the base , to run down ii . the rotunda below. The work was well flashed around the dome and counter flashing was put into the joints not. in the way it \:t usually don.-, viz.: by putting the flash ? <ng into the joint and turning ft up. but by cutting into the Joint and ex tending the tin bark into the joints and bolting it with rods, nuts and 'washers, and it was impossible for it j to get out uuless tsome one had lon^