Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

Committee's I State ALL 'THE ISSUES I A Document of Interest t( Carolina?The Cha Chai To the Honorable Senate and the House of Representatives: On Monday, Feb. Sth, 1904, there was j presented to your honorable body a re port of the joint committee appointed under concurrent resolutions adopted at the session of 1893, "to consider the several reports of the commission on the completion of the State house and ft^ts relating thereto," of which com mittee Hon. Robert Aldrieh, of Barn well, was chairman, and Hons. R. I. Manning, of Sumter, J. O. Patterson of liarnwell, J. M. Rawlinson of Rich land and T. T. "Williams of Lancaster were members. This report contained the findings of said committee and the testimony up on which said findings were based. The sole testimony relating to the work included therein was that of "Captain" S. S. Hunt, who swore that he was a resident 01 Washington, D. C, and for four years had held the position of "Superintendent of con struction of the United States capltol, Washington. D. C." Said Capt. Hunt proceeded in unqualified language to condemn each and every portion of the work on the State capitol which had been done by the commission ap pointed for the completion of the build ing. No other or further testimony relat ing to the work of construction on the building was taken, except that of A. W. Edens, inspector of plumbing of the city of Columbia, who w?s ques tioned in regard to the newly erected water closets. The testimony of these two witness es was concealed from the public and the undersigned until the said report was presented to your honorable body. Upon this testimony the aforesaid committee concluded, among other things, that "the testimony taken re vealed a dark picture," (p. 13), "a mon strous swindle," (p. 13), and that "it would regard it remarkable indeed if there is not some remedy, civil or crim inal, or both, to bring these malefactors to justice and to some extent .to re dress the wrongs of the State." (p. 13.). A REQUEST FOR A FULL, FREE AND IMPARTIAL, INVESTIGA TION. Feeling that they had been unjustly reflected on therein, and if these con clusions had any foundation whatever? if there was even ground to suspect such a condition of affairs?that there should be made a full, thorough and searching investigation into this mat ter, certain members of the commis sion for the completion of the State house met in the city of Columbia and adopted the following memorial, which was presented to your honorable body along with and accompanying a resolu tion providing for such an investiga tion: "Gentlemen of the General Assembly: From an investigation of the report of the joint committee "to consider the several reports of the commission on the completion of the State house and facts relating thereto," we, the under signed members of the commission, authorized and directed "to complete the State house." feel that the report of the committee does us a manifest injustice, as it, wittingly or unwitting ly, unfairly condemns our acts and the work approved by us without giv ing us an opportunity to be heard and even refusing to allow us a hearing. Many of the allegations of error and incompetency are easily explained. Cer tain conclusions could not and would not have been drawn had available evidence been heard. Above all, we feel that an impression that must nec essarily result from the tenor and terms of the report would not exist if it were allowed the opportunity to be heard. "Therefore, believing that the gen eral assembly can have no intention of condemning us without a hearing, as members of the commission upon whom you imposed an involuntary pub lic duty, should be allowed to account for that trust and to give their an swer and explanation to any allegation or insinuation, do most respectfully memorali/.e your honorable body to make provision for giving us a hear ing in order that further and all evi dence may be produced that may give light upon the question before the committee, and that our evidence and reply to the report of the committee should become a public record of your honorable body of the same perma nency and dignity as the report itself. '"Respectfully. M. K. MeSweeney. G. Duncan Bellinger, .1. Harvey Wilson, R. H. Jennings, Robert J. Gantt, W. J. Johnson." When the said memorial was pre sented Hon. T. Y. Williams introduced in the house of representatives, and Hon. Robert Aldrieh in the senate, the following resolution: "Whereas, certain members of the former 'commission to complete the State house' have memorialized the general assembly to make provision to give them a hearing in reply to the report of the joint committee to con sider the' several reports of the com mission for the completion of the State house, and facts relating thereto. "Be It Resolved by the general as sembly of the Slate of South Carolina That any evidence, explanation, or oth [eport oo House. BE FULLY DISCUSSED ) AH the People of South rges and Counter rges. or statement in writing that the said memorialists may have to submit will be received and considered by the general assembly whenever presented." Whereupon your honorable body saw fit to refuse the request for the said full, free and fair investigation, but instead adopted a resolution permit tin*", the commission for "the comple tion of the building to represent to your honorable body such statement as they saw fit. WHY CONCEAL THE FACTS? When Louis the XVI was led upon the guillotine and began an adddress in his defense, Santeere, a butcher who had been given command of the mu nicipal guard around the scaffold, or dered the drums to be beaten. The words of the French king were thus silenced. Neither the lives nor the property of j the members of this commission are threatened, but that which is as dear to us as life and property?our repu tation and good names?has been as t sailed, and our respectful request that your body appoint a committee to hear both sides of the matter, and lay all the facts before the people, has been denied. You have, however, accord ed us the privilege of making a state } ment in writing, which we will now I proceed to do, and endeavor to make this report in as parliamentary lan guage as our justly outraged feelings Will permit, and the facts will justify. But, gentlemen, what we asked and demanded of your , body which we feel we had a right to demand, was that all the evidence in this matter be brought to light, that the committee I be empowered to summon witnesses and have them examined under oath and not to confine the investigation to such evidence as could be secured from voluntary testimony. Many witnesses to important facts refuse to make affidavits, but they could be compelled to testify at such hearing. THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN REFLECTED UPON AND THE PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF ITS MEMBERS ATTACKED BY THE REPORT. This contention is made notwith standing- the disclaimer of the members of the committee made upon the fioor of the legislature to the contrary and without any assertion on our part that such reflection was intentional. That the impression that such a reflection was made is abundantly proven by reference to every daiiy paper pub lished in the Stat*?, wherein the ac tion of the commission is character ized as an "infamy," a "scandal." etc. If the committee was innocent of any intention to attack the characters of those constituting the commission it was most unfortunate in its use of the English language. The members of j this investigating committee now give It to be understood that their vicious | attack was directed against\he archi- ! tect and the contractors and charitably suggest that this commission was dup ed and bamboozled by these employes, and that we were to be forgiven for our weakness, and that the charge against us of being fools must not be serious ly taken as reflecting upon us. If the committee did not mean to re flect upon this commission, why does it refer to us in its report as follows: i (These references being taken at ran- ! dorn from the report.) j "The contractors broke one of the | columns into two pieces, and rather 1 than put the contractors to the expense of replacing the broken column they were generously excused (by the com mission) from putting them in at all, they paying the Slate SHOO, leaving them 53,400 profit on that transaction." (Report, p. 7.) Surely, the honorable gentlemen of f the i nvestigadng committee would not dare to say that any one filling a fiduciary position could be generous I with the State's money, or intentionally excuse any one from performing a duty ! delegated through an agent of the '? State to another party. Again: "A fine slate roof, bought by ! the State at a heavy expense and which ( afforded perfect protection for years. ; was taken off and appropriated by the ' contractors." (Report, p. S.) The inference necessarily drawn from this statement is that this "appropria- } tion" (which, had the committee used the proper word to convey its meaning, would have been "mis-appropriation") was with the knowledge and consent of this commission, whose duty it was to protect the interests and the prop i city of the State. The investigating ! committee called before them the sec retary of the commission and had he fore them for inspection the minute book and all the records of this com mission. That committee knew, or ought to have known, and we believe j did know, that before the contract was awarded it was agreed that the suc cessful bidder should become the owner 1 of all the material torn out of, or off of. the State house, and that the taking possession of the material of this roof was simply exercising the right of ownership, both under the general law and under the special contract. Again: "We feel with wlvt we have j reported, and the testimony taken, re veals a dark picture, it Is true, but nothing short of an actual inspection i of the work can convey an adequate , idea of that monstrous swindle of ; which the State is the victim, appro- j priately portrayed in the closing words of Capt. Hunt's testimony." (This worthy, imported from the' District of the ORANGI Columbia to tench the officials and citizens of this State the aesthetic as well as architecture, who testifies in reference, generally, to this work that It is "A parody upon the science of architecture and an insult to the fame of John R. Nlernsee, and a disgrace to the State of South Carolina.") (Report, p. 13.) Does this committee discredit the in telligence of the people of this State to such an extent as to believe that they will accept the statement that no intention is herein expressed to reflect upon the commission who was a party to such an "insult*" to a distinguished man, and to such a "disgrace" to our native State? If this model of lin guistic inaccuracy was honestly in tended to be simply a statement that mechanical employes had failed to carry out their contract, why the bom bastic and grandiloquent language in which the report is dressed? When a committee ascertains and reports that an architect has failed to be efficient, or a contractor has slighted his work, does it "reveal a dark picture?" Again: In referring to the satisfac tion entered by the governor on the bond given by the contractors, the lucid composer of the report uses the follow ing language: "This surrender and at tempted discharge of this bond, the State's only security for the vast losses sustained, was not the act of the com mission, as the governor alone, advised, as it is said, by the attorney general, undertook to perform this act, and it may be that the State may yet be able to realize upon this security. "Your committee do not consider that it comes within the scope of their duties to determine questions of law involved in the matters embraced herein, but would regard it remark able indeed if there were not some rem edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring these malefactors to justice, and to some extent redress the wrongs of the State." (Report, p. 12.) The members of this commission herein referred to by designation of office deem it proper to state that their self-respect force? them to treat this language as if it does not express the ideas or opinions of the respective members of the Investigating commit- I tee; yet we have reason to know that many intelligent people of this State! believe "the malefactors" referred to are the then governor and the then at- j torney general, inasmuch as the only! inference to be drawn from such lan-! guage (if intelligently used by a man! of ordinary education) is that these J officers "attempted" and "undertook" to destroy the only remedy that the | State had against the employes who had committed a palpable and noto rious fraud and swindle upon the com monwealth. Laying aside expressions of indigna tion and using simply the language of, crlticsm, we feel that the words of the j distinguished composer of the report,] as he addresses the dome of the capitoi, justly describes these two paragraphs in connection with the report: "This is the crowning piece of this work In more senses than one. Taken all in all it is simply infamous. To start with, an uglier and a more un sightly creation could not be devised even had it been properly constructed but our observation shows that it is nothing short of a miserable fraud." (Report, p. 9.) We feel that we are unjustly reflected upon. We knew that we had discharged our duty faithfully and honestly. We knew that the State had received full value for every penny we had ex pended, and we only asked an oppor tunity to prove these facts. The members of the State house com mission have been honored by the peo ple of South Carolina, and they feel that; their good names have been assailed) and that they owe it, not only to them- ; selves and their families but to their I people as well, that the greatest and fullest flood of light should be thrown upon the whole transaction. HOW THE SO-CALLED INVESTI- j GATION WAS CONDUCTED. That against which we most stren- i uously protest is the manner in which the joint committee conducted the in vestigation. It was denied upon the floor of the house that a member of our commission had asked for a hearing. The attention of your honorable body is, therefore, especially asked to what we consider to be undeniable facts in connection with the report of the joint committee hereinbefore referred to. It will be noted that said committee was empowered to consider the several reports of the commission for the com pletion of the State house, to appoint a secretary, to employ an architect, and to summon witnesses. We contend that the report of the majority of the commission, as well as the report of the minority, should have received the same consideration, and that witnesses should have been impartially sum moned to sustain or attack both. The majority report is practically dismissed with a quotation of less than j four lines, whereas the dissenting and i accusing report of Mr. Marshall, the j minority member, is set out at large in 11 specifications, and all of the testi- 1 mony taken is directed against the j majority and in favor of the minority! report: and the committee thereupon, | to use their own language, "feel con- | strained to report generally that the; minority report of Senator J. Q. Mar shall was fully sustained by the evi dence taken and by the visible facts for all to see for themselves who choose to go over the building and make even j a casual examination of it." It will be remembered that both of these reports went officially to the leg islature and both of them were re ferred to the joint investigating com mittee. We contend that each should have received the same consideration as the other. We submit evidence to show that Mr. Marshall attended the sittings of the committee during the taking of the testimony herein, where as no member of this commission was ; present at any time. (See testimony ' of D. H. Means, exhibit E. and of J. ii Garfunkel, exhibit P.) It is an admitted fact that no sin gle member of the commission, with the exception of Mr. Marshall, was noti fied that he could be heard before the committee or given notice as to the' time or place of meeting of said com- ! mit tee. We tender testimony-to show that at least two of the non-attending members of this commission notified two of the five members of the commit tee that the commission desired to be j heard in their own behalf and that such requests were treated with silent con tempt. (See affidavits of Messrs. John-1 son and Bellinger, marked respectively ! Exhibit 1? and Exhibit A.) WHY HIDE THE TRUTH? Does it not seem very singular, to! say the least, that the members con- I stituting this investigating committee led the fight upon the floor of both | the house and the senate to prevent any further investigations of this matter, j and that on the same night identically! the same .resolution, the purpose of I which was :o deny a full hearing, was introduced by said committee in the PPL EM ? f DBUR.G, S. C, FEBRUARY 24 house and the senate? The true mis sion of an Investigating committee, as its name implies, is to investigate and bring to light every side and bearing of a question, and not to prosecute. This is the first time in the annals of South Carolina where an Investi gating committee only heard and re ported one side of an important mat ter, or which held secret meetings be hind closed doors, from which mem bers of the press were excluded. ? EVEN THE VILEST CRIMINAL IS GIVEN A HEARING. In his message to your body out chief executive asked you to devise some law to put an end to the lynching in our State. Now, what Gov. Hey ward demanded for the vilest class of criminals has been denied some of our fellow-citizens who have been recog nized and honored by their people? the right of making a defense, and a fair, impartial hearing. Before this report is ended we propose to prove to the satisfaction of every fair-minded person in South Carolina that our com mission was tried behind closed doors, only one witness at the time being ad mitted, and what is a most unheard of proceeding, the reporters of our State papers excluded. (See affidavit of A. H. Seats, Exhibit C, and Lewis G. Wood, Jr., Exhibit D.). Not only this, but apparently to keep the mem bers of our commission in ignorance of what was going on in that meeting some of the witness were bound not to divulge the questions that had been asked them. (See affidavit of D. H. Means, Exhibit E.). To show further what a one-sided affair this was, the son of one or this committee was made clerk, and the only outsider admitted to that room was Senator Marshall, the minority member and the prosecu tor. (See affidavits of J. B. Garfunkel, Exhibit F.) Is the life, liberty, property or good name of any citizen of South Carolina safe when he can be tried by any such secret, one-sided tribunal of socalled Justice? The palladium of liberty in every country is a free press, but we find in the proud old State of South Carolina a throttled press when an investiga tion was in progress in which every taxpayer of the State is personally in terested. HUNTING FOR HUNT. We are convinced, gentlemen, from such evidence as we are able to secure, that the sole witness against us was falsely represented to the people of South Carolina, as an "expert archi tect" in charge of the work of the United States government, when his name does not appear in the list of government employees and he is to tally unknown to the experts of the United States government who are charged with the construction of its buildings; that his name does not ap pear in the "blue book" which contains the names of all government employes wherever located; while the directory! of congress which contains the names of the attaches of the national capltol, does not show any such officer as "su perintendent of constructing." All we now have to auk of you is that this protest be spread upon your jour nals and be given the fullest publicity, as you have promised, and we further beg the press of South Carolina, and of every other State that has given publicity to that report, to reproduce j our defense. AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE. | Let us say that we have nothing more to ask of your body. We now ; appeal to the highest tribunal known to a sovereign State?an honorable, . just and fair-minded people. A PERFECT BUILDING HAS NOT ? BEEN ERECTED SINCE THE. DAYS OF SOLOMON. We assert that we have given to the completion of the capltol the same watchful care that we would have done had this building: been our personal property. The members of this com- ; mission are not architects, and the j legislature was aware of this fact when they appointed us to this duty. We do assert, however, that we gave careful thought and study to the de- ! tails and science of the work, and left no effort unturned to fully acquaint j ourselves with the minutiae of the j problem presented. We do not suppose that anyone ever constructed a build ing, however humble it mirrht be, but after completion he discovered that he might have made desirable changes and improvements. It is easy to criti cise the builder after his work is done. A building erected by human hands is never perfect, and this, of course, is true of the work on the State house, but we | do assert that the general result was to the satisfaction of the commission, and we further believe that it would sat isfy the taxpayers of the State who are paying for this work were they familiar with all the facts surround ing the task assigned us and appreci- i ated the difficulties which we encoun- i tered and the problems presented in I the construction of this building. Since the completion of our State house thousands have visited Columbia and inspected this work, and expressions as to the beauty and magnificence of this building have been heard on every j side. The State House commission alleges i that if there are some defects in the South Carolina capitol. that the respon- j sibilify rests not upon the commission, but is due to the fact that $175,000 was totally inadequate to com llete the j building in conformity with the origi- j nal work on this structure. The State House commission endeavored to com- : plete the building so that it would present an mposing appearance. It did not atter. ? to do the work accord- i ing to the methods of T>0 years ago, 1 but took advantage of improvements in methods of construction, and for this it has no apology to offer. This duty, gentlemen, was not so- ' licited, and there is not a member of this commission but sacrificed his per- i snnal interests and affairs in the dis charge of the duty Imposed upon him. j It was not ours to fix the sum neces- | sary to do the work. That was the province of the legislature. We did ; what we were directed to do, complet ed the work your predecessors contem- i plated within the appropriation they; made. w<? did not deem it your wish , or desire that we should apply to you , for additional appropriation when we found the funds provided insufficient i for the employment of foreign artists and for the purchase of $10,000 ceilings. j That Question was not ours, but yours. The commission does not feel "called j upon to defend the architect. In the : execution of his work they felt called 1 upon to sustain him only so long as in the combined wisdom of the commis sion he was right. As to purely tech- I ideal matters it necessarily relied on his judgment and deferred to his ad- j vice. THE COMMISSION" RECOGNIZES ITS Dl'TY TO THE STATIC. If any evidence is brought before our commission that either the archi- i tect or contractor have been guilty I of collusion or neglect nf duly, or in! any manner slighted their work, it j would not only become our duty, but j , 1904. our pleasure, to prosecute either or both to the extent of the law. Any facts in the possession of this commis sion, either matters of official record or matters of personal knowledge In connection with the work on the State bouse, will be fully and frankly given I under oath to any attorney or attorneys [ that the legislature, governor or any I other properly constituted authority j may appoint to prosecute suits in the i interest of the State. This commls- I sion, under the provisions of the law j constituting it, elected an architect and ' paid him the usual fees to design and I superintend the work of completion of I the capltol. The commission, under the provision of the law, let the work j to the lowest. bidder. If there has been any collusion between the archi tect and the contractor it is a fact ab-1 solutely unknown and unsuspected by I the State house commission, and there ; has not been published or produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that any such collusion existed. CAN WE AFFORD TO PAT FOR. MAGNIFICENCE? When the commission was appointed to complete the State house the scope j of its duty was clearly marked out in | the act creating it. It was required | by the law to complete the State house t within the appropriation of 5175,000. When the fact Is considered that the I State house as it stood in its incomplete [ condition had cost the State of South Carolina over $2,000,000, it would have j been the- height of folly for our com mission to attempt with the limited amount given us to carry out the de-: sign of the original architect, who de- j signed and contemplated a $5,000,000 building. The act further stipulated J that not one dollar of the money ap propiiated should be expended until j a contract for the completion of the j building Within the amount stipulated was made, and this contract we were directed to make and did make. It has been the purpose of the commis sion in the expending of the limited sum at our disposal to make all permanent work good and substantial, to,conform as near as possible to the original | building, and if there has been, as al leged, "cheap and shoddy work" put upon the building, an investigation will reveal that such work can be easily re moved at any time, without marring in any way the substantial portions of the Imilding, and that it can be re placed by as costly material as ? the State cares to pay for. Only $1,200 was spent for the roof. This roof it was believed, would be satisfactory; if it has not proven so it can be easily replaced by as expensive a structure as you wish and in the meantime it will have served the purpose. The com mission in this matter, as la many others involving questions of the re lative quality of materials and meth ods of construction, relied to a large extent upon the judgment of the archi tect. As business men they felt that the wide and varied experience of the men whom they had entrusted with the power and authority of an archi tect, which must of necessity be exten sive, justified them in deferring to his judgment and advice. This arch itect was necessarily governed by the amount appropriated for the work; and, of course, could use only such ma terial as the appropriation would pay for. The limited funds placed at our dis posal is the only reason that any part of this work is inferior in character to the best work on the old portions of this building. We do not wish, however, to be un derstood as apologizing for the present Condition of the State house. It is to day an imposing and stately structure and a credit and an honor to South Carolina, and the new work, as well as the old, will stand for centuries. While the interior of tue new work has not been embellished with Italian marble and with delicate carvings by Imported artists. It was not believed by the commission that the people of South Carolina either desired or pur posed to have them now. When they are willing and able to pay for these things they can be placed there. Rut this criticism can be made of the old portions of the building, as well as the new, and notwithstanding the so-called $10,000 galvanized ceiling liable, in the words of this "architect, Hunt," to "rust out in a few years," which was placed there by the commission, of which Senator Marshall was a mem ber, fifteen years ago, the main cor ridor of the building was unsightly and unadorned by the beautiful marble with which John R. Niernsee designed to cover its walls. AS TO THE SELECTION OF THE ARCHITECT. In selecting an architect for the work it was the sincere desire of the com mission to put aside personal consid erations and to secure for the State the services of the best and most experi- j enced man whom we could find. Two plans were presented to the commis sion, while numerous architects were suggested as thoroughly competent to do the work. Six of the ten members of the commission voted for Frank P. Milburn, whose plans seemed best adapted for the work contemplated. Mr. Milburn had not only enjoyed wide experience In the erection of public buildings throughout the south, but came with the prestige of employment by the Southern railway for the erec tion of all its stations and buildings. Besides, he had erected the Thompson j auditorium at Charleston, the court bouse at Anderson, and other build- | inps, which within the personal knowl- ] edge of members of the commission had proven satisfactory and he was as well highly recommended to us by all with whom we knew ho had had dealings. It may .tie added that since that time, Mr. Milburn has been se lected as the architect of both the Florida and North Carolina State cap itols. Consequently, the commission thought they were justified in the se lection they had made. If the report of the joint investigat ing committee, however, is followed to its logical conclusion, it is evident that it was the opinion of that committee \ that the commission made a mistake | in electing an architect at all, but that we should have sent to Washington for n hanger-on around the national eapi tol. to instruct us not only how to erect a building, but incidentally to show how to avoid insr" ng the memory of a distinguished arc i.eet and imposing a disgrace upon t State of South Carolina. s. AS TO THE . ?FICIENCY OF THE . ?ANS. When Senator Marshall made the ob jection that the plans for the work were insufficient, we referred the mat ter to the architect with directions to show to our satisfaction if he could that this objection was not well found ed. As the best evidence of the fact ttiat this complaint was not well founded Mr. Milburn submitted to the Commission statements from several | contractors who had filed bids for the, work, and who necessarily must have, familiarized themselves with every fea ture nnd detail of the plans in order to make an Intelligent bid upon the4 I \ IOCI work. In which they declared not only that the plans were sufficient but that if the true intent and spirit of thern was carried out the State would se cure a good job. Not being ourselves competent to pass upon a technical point of this nature, we knew no high er or better authority to whom we could refer the matter. That we had secured a most desirable contract un der sufficient specifications we felt con vinced and satisfied when the other bids submitted under them ranged up as high as $".'12,000, which seemed to be the price necessary to justify that contractor in engaging to erect the work according to the accepted re quirements. The difference in the low est bid and the one next to it of nearly $10,000, absolutely precluded any idea of collusion in awarding the contract. There is a general impression fos tered by tlits report, if not created thereby, that the act creating the com mission for the completion of the State house directed that said commission should require bond from the con tractor. It will, therefore, be a sur prise to most members of the general assembly and the public to be informed of the fact which is now stated, that no such bond was required or sug gested by the legislature when defining the duties of the commission. There being an utter absence of any mention of a bond in connection therewith, it is clear that the bond actually taken was one required by the commission solely upon its own motion and in or der the better to aid them in enforc ing the performance of the contract which they entered into with Mcllvain Unkefer company. We take the posi tion that this bond was not at any time under the control of the legisla ture, and that it became, according to its terms, utterly null and void as soon as this commission, acting through a majority of its members, expressed itself as satisfied with the performance of the contract which it secured. The commission having accepted the work] of the contractor, the bond given to secure the performance of the contract to the satisfaction of the commission became ipsc facto cancelled and an nulled, when the commission expressed itself satisfied with the job; and the endorsement upon the bond was merely a ministerial duty done by the gov ernor and which we arc convinced he could have been mandamused to do under the circumstances. We are in-! formed by the members who belong to the legal profession that if said bond were now in possession of the officers of the State unmarred by any endorse- | ment, the plaintiff in interest could not recover under the facts without I alleging and proving fraudulent col lusion as to acceptance of the work be tween the commission, the obligees and the contractors, the obligors, and the members of the investigating commit- j tee have given public assurance that no such collusion is even suspected. Furthermore, at a meeting held sub sequent to the endorsement made by the governor, the attorney general re ported informally to the commission that the governor had satisfied the bond upon his legal advice. THE OLD IRON AND OTHER JUNK. It was never the intention of the commission to reserve to the State the old iron and other junk removed from the biulding. Not only did they believe that the contractor would al ?low more for it in his bid than they could get for it otherwise, but ques tions would have been continually aris ing as to the expense, etc., of removing this old material, and of getting it out of the way. It cost several hundred dollars to get the old iron alone down from the roof. Besides, the appropria tion for the work was limited, and the commission desired to put in the build ing in value all that the funds at, their disposal permitted. Not only did the architect, as the agent of the com mission, inform the bidders personally! that the specifications would be so con-1 strued, (See opinion of the attorney general, exhibit H), but there Is abun dant evidence that all who filed a bid for the work did so on the basis ofi getting in partial payment the old ma terial that was removed. Mr. J. B. | Garfunkel, the man best qualified to know this fact, the man whom the; investigating committee itself sum moned to testify in regard to this old j material, swears that he knows of his own knowledge that the different bid ders for the work filed their bids upon the basis that the old material, all of it, would go to the contractor. (See affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel, exhibit J). If any further evidence of this fact was necessary the reply of W. A. Chester man, one of the bidders, and of J. E. Burgess, another to the same effect, in response to a telegraphic inquiry that ("In my capitol bid I figured on all old material being my property." See tel egrams, exhibit G.) should do so. No one doubted for an Instant that not only as a matter of right but under the strict letter of the law and thei contract this old material went to the | contractor, until over a year after thei contract was let, when Senator Mar-j Bhall filed his protest. An investiga tion resulted, when the fact developed that the co->'ractors had actually al-| lowed the Siate a credit for this old material in their estimate sheets, j Thereupon the attorney general gave! to the commission this opinion, which has been completely ignored by the in-! vestigating committee, notwithstand ing the fact that it was in their pos-! session; that not only of right, but of j taw, this material, under the contract, was not the State's. (See opinion at torney general, exhibit H.) Every member of the commission ex-! rept Senator Marshall believed had! they attempted to claim this old ma terial under all the circumstances, they; would have been acting not only un-i fairly, but dishonestly, with the con-1 tractor. The contractor had actually! given the State value for this material, I and the specifications had been so con-J strued and made absolutely plain be fore the bids were even tiled. The peo ple of the State do not ask their pub-j lie servants to do a dishonest deed. In! our opinion it would have been dis-' honest to have attempted to take from1 the contractor that for which he had | paid. It' demand is made that the Stale; shall ? attempt to dishonestly retake from the contractor the value of prop-' erty sold by the State for full consid eration, this end must be obtained through other official agencies than that of the members who compose this' commission. AS TO THE BROKEN' COLUMN'S, j Under the terms of the specifications for the work "all of the columns that are out and the five unfinished will j be completed and used by selecting thei perfect ones for the main front, and. using the ones with small defects inj the rear." (Report, p. 45). In the progress of the work, in attempting to raise one of the finished columns from its bed where it had remained for a number of years, the column broke of its own weight along the line of a hid den crack in the stone. At the meet ing ensuing the contractor appeared before the commission and stated that ......... ? . y ^ ; .,? *AT it would be necessary for the State to furnish a column to replace the one broken. The column was a portion of the material to be furnished by the State under the contract "and there was no doubt in the minds of a ma jority of the commission, after a care ful examination of the contract, plans and specifications, that the commission could have been compelled by the con tractor to furnish a new column. To quarry and carve a new column would have' cost the State at least $2,00?; it would have delayed the work of completion of the State house about six months. The contractor reported that the column could be patched by putting in a section of new stone at a cost of about $500, and a delay in the work of 30 days. According to the plans there were to be two columns placed within what. Is now the open floor space on the front portico. These columns supported none of the weight of the walls of the struc ture, and were located by the architect within this area because under the approved plans the State had on hand two columns that could be used for purely ornamental purposes. The con tractor proposed to the commission thai: he would deduct the cost of rais ing these two inner columns into posi tion and the cost of the unfinished carving of caps for same if they could be left out, and the work proceed. Upen the report of the architect that the strength of the structure of the completed building would be In no wis? impaired, this solution of the proolem was deemed the best and most expedient, inasmuch as the funds in the hands of the commission were limited, the work would not be de layed and no damage would be done the structure. At a subsequent meet ing of the legislature the broken col umns were appropriated and given by the State to Greenwood and Spartan- ? burg. The question of utility having been settled to the satisfaction of a ma jor ty of the commission it then be-' cane one purely of taste and ornament, and upon this issue we considered that the best interests of the State were sur. served by carrying to completion the front portico as It now stands. It may be added that in the final vote as to leaving out these two centre col umns that Messrs. Gantt and Johnson voted with Mr. Marshall in the nega | tiv*. the other members present con stituting a majority, voting in the affirmative. In addition to the $500 above men tioned as a part of the consideration for relieving the contractor of the work of placing the columns the commis ; sion reserved for the benefit of the State the remnants of the broken col umns. 0:HE CEILING IN THE MAIN LOBBY. One of the most serious charges brought by the investigating commit tee related to the removal of the ceil ing in the main lobby and this is a typical illustration of their methods an? of the value of their conclusions, i ' Captain" Hunt In his testimony j (p. 1") swore that the State had lost in his opinion 515,000 by the removal , of thi3 ceiling, which was represented i as "steel" ceiling and that "had cost j In the neighborhood of $10,000." (p. 7.) Now, what are the facts?. The offi ! cial records of the old State house ; commission show the awarding of the contract for this ceiling as follows: j "Columbia, S. C, May 2nd, 1SS9. The : commission met this. day. Present: j Hon. J. Q. Marshall, secretary of : State; Hon. J. S. Verner, comptroller general. The bids were presented, be : ing six in number, for putting in iron ( (galvanized) ceiling, beams, skylights, I etc.. in the main corridor on the second ; floor, together with the ceiling over I the senate lobby. ? * ? Mr. John Alcxande-r's bid upon plan No. 1, for i $7.898 was accepted." This record was accessible to the in ; vestigatlng committee and could have ; clearly shown them that this ceiling I did not cost "in the neighborhood of $10,000," but that the ceiling of the ' senate lobby, "which had not been re moved, and the cornice of the main lobby, which was still there, constl ! tttted three-fourths of the work for . which less than $8,000 had been paid, and that the ceiling that had been removed cost, 15 years ago, less than $2.000. It is a very plain piece of work with little ornamentation and cer tainly not beautiful. Architect Wilson in his report stated that it could now be put back for about $1',800. This ceiling, as the records show, was not only bought as galvanized iron, but an actual inspection of it will show that the ceiling taken out was nothing but galvanized iron. The committee found that "the contractors bodily took and carried away and converted to their own use this valuable and beauti ful part of the old building," (p. 7) when one of the five witnesses whom they themselves put upon the stand certified and could have told them that it was galvanized iron, and when re moved "worthless even as junk." (See affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel, Exhibit F). Dr. Babcock, superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane, certifies that the ceiling is now in his posses sion as an officer of the State. (See certificate of J. W. Babcock, Exhibit D. The commission put back exactly the same material they took out. simply requiring the contractor to replace worthless and damaged material with new material of the same kind. The wanton misrepresentation which it was necessary for this so-called "architect" to make f.o show that the removal of a d'?zen squares of gal vanized iron which was in bad shape, bent and rusted, and replacing it with other galvanized iron of a pattern which better suited the round opening of the dome entailed a loss of $15.000 upon the State, certainly entitle! him to the compensation of $15 a day. which he was paid and which he was evi dently industriously endeavoring to earn. If the ceiling removed could he properly designated as "steel ceiling" that put in its place could be so desig nated, as it is the same material. If one is pressed into form by a "stamp" and the other shaped by a soldering iron, that fact would add nothing to its beauty and would make it flimsier and easier to get out of shape. AS TO WATER CLOSETS. When we took charge of the com pletion of the State house under this Set there were as there had been for many years, two water closets of old and defective design placed consider ably beneath the level of the surround ing grounds, and absolutely without ventilation. The use of these by the occupants of the first or ground floor necessitated the descent of one flight of stairs, and were removed another long (light of stairs from the legisla tive halls. Those members of the com mission who were also State otficers fully realized and appreciated the in tolerable, Irremediable unsanitary con