University of South Carolina Libraries
SUPPLEMENT TIH E M4ANNING TIME MANNING, S. C., FEBRUARY 24, 1904. FORMER STAI COMMIS! Text of the Answ Committee's I State ALL THE ISSUES A A Document of Interest t Carolina-The ChE Cha To the Honorable Senate and the House of Representatives: On Monday. Feb. Sth. ISO4. there was 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 facts relating thereto." of which conm mittee Hon. Robert Aldrich. of Barn well, was chairman, and Hons. R. I. Manning. of Sumter. J. 0. Patterson of Barnwell. J. M. Rawlinsor. of Rich land and T. Y. 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 of Washington. D. C., and for four years had held the position of "Superintendent- of con struction of the United States capitol. 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 th commission ap pointed for the completion of the build ing. No other or further testimony relat ing to the work of donstruction on the building was taken, except that of A. W. Edens. inspector of plumbing of the city of Columbia. who was 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 FULt. 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 wou'ld 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 swver and- explanation to any allegation or insinuation, do most respectfully memoralize your honorable body to make provision for giving us a hear ing in order that further and all evi rience 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. 31. B. 31eSweeney. G. Duncan Bellinger, J. Harvey Wilson, R. H. Jennings. Robert 3. Cantt. W. J. Johnson." When the said memorial was pre sented Hon. T. Y. Williams introduced in the house of r'epresentatives, and I-on. Robert Aldrich 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 'omn mission for the completion of the State house, and facts relating thereto. "Be It Resolved by the genernl as somibly of the State of South Carolina 'Iht n e videnr-, evnlanation, or nth 'E HOUSE sI0N'S REPLY, r to the Legislativ leport on the House. RE FULLY DISCUSSE1 3 All the People of Soutl .rges and Counter rges. er statement in writing that the said memorialists may have to submit wil be received and considered by th general assembly whenever presented. Whereupon your honorable body sae fit to refuse the request for the sai full, free and fair investigation. bu instead adopted a resolution permit ting the commission for the comple tion of the building to represent t your honorable body such statemer as they saw fit. WHY CONCEAL THE FACTS? When Louis the XVI was led upo the guillotine and began an adddress i his defense. Santeere. a butcher wh had been given conmnand of the mT nicipal guard around the scaffold, or dered the drums to be beaten. Th words of the French king were thu silenced. Neither the lives nor the property < the members of this commission at threatened. but that which is as dea to us as life and property-our rept tat ion and good names-has been as sailed, and our respectful request th your body appoint a committee to het both sides of the matter, and lay a the facts before the people. has bee denied. You have, however, accorc ed us the privilege of making a. state ment in writing,. which we will no' proceed to do. and endeavor to mak this report in as parliamentary lan guage as our justly outraged feeling will permit. and the facts will justif: But. gentlemen. what we asked an demanded of your body which w feel we had a right to demand. wa that all the evidence in this matter I brought to light, that the committe be empowered to summon witnesse and have them examined under oat and not to confine the investigation 1 such evidence as could be secured fror voluntary testimony. Many witnesses to important -fac refuse to make affidavits. but the could be compelled to testify at suc hearing. THIS COMMISSION HAS BEE: REFLECTED UPON AND TH: PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF IT MEMBERS ATTACKED BY TH: REPORT. This contention is made notwitl standing the disclaimer of the member of the committee made upon the floc of the legislature to the contrary an without any assertion on our part tha such reflection was intentional. The the impression that such a refiectic was made is abundantly proven b reference to every daily paper put lished in the State. wherein the ac tion of the commission is characte1 ized as an "infamy." a "scandal." eti If the committee was innocent of an intention to attack the chai-acters< those constituting the commission: was most unfortunate in its use of tl English language. The members< tiinetgating committee now gis it to be understood that their viciot attack was directed against the arch tect and the contractors and charitabl suggest that this commission was dul: ed and bamboozled by these employe and that we were to be forgiven for ot weakness, and that the charge agains us of being fools must not be serioui ly taken as reflecting upon us. If the committee did not mean to rf fiect upon this commission. why doE ireetous in its report as follows toes reeecsbeing taken at rat domn from the report.) "The contractors broke one of ti columns into two pieces, and ratht than put the contractors to the expens of replacing the broken column the were generously excused (by the con mission) from putting them in at a] they paying the State .500, leavir1 them $3,400 profit on that transaction. (Report. p. 7.) Surely, the honorable gentlemen< the i nvestigating committee woul not dare to say that any one filling fiduciary position eculd be generoL with the State's money, or intentionall excuse any one from performing a dut delegated through an agent of tli State to another party. Again: "A fine slate roof. bought 13 the State at a heavy expense and whic afforded perfect protection for year was taker off and appropriated by tt contractors." (Rport p. S.) The inference necessarily drawn fro: this statement is that this "approprit tion" (wvhich. had the committee use the proper word to convey its meanin;' would have been "mis-appropriation was with the knowledge and consex of this commission, whose duty it we to protect the interests and the prol erty of the State. The investigatir committee called before them the ses retary of the commnission and had be fore them for inspection the minu' hook and all the records of' this con mission. That committee knew.< ought to have known, and we belie' did know.' that before the contract wt aw'arded it was agreed that the sul cessful bidder should become the own< of all the material torn out of. or c of. th Sta'te house, and that the takir possession of the material of this ro< was~ simply exercising the right ow nrship. both under the general la and under the special contract. Again: "We feel with wthat we hna rep or~ed, and the testimony taken. r reals a (dark picture, it is true, hi nothig short of an actual inspectic of 'he wtork can convey an adequa dea of that monstrous swindie< wthich the State is the victim. appri priately portrayed in'-the closing wor< of < alit. HuInts testimony." fTh Columbia to teach the officials and citizens of this State the aesthetic as weil as architeciur-. who testifiCM in refelrence, generailiy. to this work that it is "A parody upon th.- scielce of architecture and an insult to the tame 'f John l:.Niens-. and a disgrace to the State of South C:roli:a.") (tefport, 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 reliect upon the commission who was a party to such an "insult" to a distinguished ran, and to such a "disgrace" to our native State? lI this model of lin guistic ina.-curacy 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 t State." (Report. p. 12.) The members of this commission herein referred to by designation of t office deem it proper to state that their self-respect forces them to treat this language as if it does not express the ideas or opinions of the respective members of the investigating commit tee' yet we have reason to know that many intelligent people of this Stake _ believe "the malefactors" referred to are the then governor and the then at e 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 e" officers "attempted" and "undertook" r to destroy the only remedy that the State had against the -mployes who had committed a palpable and noto rious fraud and swindle upon the corn monwealth. Laying aside expressions of indigna - tion and using simply the language of eritlesm. we feel that the words of the v distinguished composer of the report, e - as he addresses the dome of the capitol, justly describes these two paragraphs s in connection with the report: "This is the crowning piece of this a work in more senses than one. Taken e all in all it is simply infamous. To start with, an uglier and a more un e sightly creation could not be devised e even had it been properly constructed s but our observation shows that it is h nothing short of a miserable fraud." o (Report. p ) We feel that we are unjustly reflected upon. We knew that we had discharged s 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 s people as well, that the greatest and r fullest flood of light should be thrown d upon the whole transaction. t HOW THE SO-CALLED INVESTI t: GATION WAS CONDUCTED. That against which we most stren uously protest is the manner in which - , the joint committee conducted the in vestigation. It was denied upor. the fioor of the house that a member of out commission had asked for a hearing. ;The attention of your honorable body s. therefore, especially asked to v. hat t we consider to be undeniable facts it econnection with the report of the joint committee hereinbefore referred to. eIt will be noted that said committee - was empowered to consider the several . reports of the commission for the comn pletion of the State house. to appoint a secretary, to employ an architect, and to summon witnesses. We contend rthat the report of the majority of the tcommission, 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 dsmissed with a quotation of less than four lines. whereas the dissenting and eaccusing report of Mr. Marshall. the rminor ity member, is set out at large ir e11 specifications, and all of the testi mony taken is directed against the 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 3. Q. Mar shall was fully sustained by the evi dence taken and by the visible facts for all to see for themselves who choose o go over the building and make everi a casual examination of it." It w"ill be remembered that both of e these reports went officially to the leg islature and both of them were re fered to the joint investigating com hmittee. We contend that each should hav'e received the same. consideration as the other. We submit evidence tc show- that Mr. Marsh:.i' attended the sittings of the comnui~tee during the taking of the testimony herein. w-here d as no member of this commission was present at any time. (See testimon3 -of D. H. Means, exhibit E. and of J. B. it Garfunkel, exhibit F.) sIt is an admitted fact that no sin gle member of the commission, with th~e exception of Mr. Marshall. was noti fed that he could be heard before the committee or given notice as to the time or place of meeting of said comn mittee. We tender testimony to show' Sthat 'at least two of the nor.-attending members of this commission notifiec t o of the live members of the commit r tee thait the commission desired to be ffhear d in theli' own behalf and that sucl requests were treated with silent con Stempt. (See affidavits of Messrs. John on amnd Beilinger. mta:-l i-rspectivell ExI hibit B and Exhibit A.) W\HY BIDE THE TRlUTH? -Does it not seem very singular. te - sa the least, that the members con t stitutng this inv-estigating commnitte< n ld the fight upon the floor of boti: e the house and the senate to prevent any f fuirther investigations of this matter -and that on the same night identicalb is the same ,rt-solution,. the rurpose 01 is which was to deny a full hearing. was i ,.nroduce y sna cnmmittte in the house anvd the senate? The true mis ion 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 mein bers of the press were excluded. EVEN THE VILEST CRIMINAL IS GIVEN A HEARING. In his message to your body our 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 of 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-sides 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 capitol, does not show any such officer as "su perintendent of constructing." All we now have to ask 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 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. I A PERFECT BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN- ERECTED SINCE THE " DAYS OF SOLOMON. We assert that we have given to the completion of the capitol the same watchful care that Rve would have done had this - building been our personal property. The members of this com mission . are - not architects, and the 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 ourselves with the minutiae of the problem presented. We do not suppose that anyone ever constructed a build ing. however humble it might 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 ated tihe difficulties which we encoun tered and the problems presented in 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 side. The State House commission alleges that if there are some defects in the South Carolina capitol, that the respon sibility rests not upon the commission, but is due to the fadt that $175,000 was totally inadequate to complete the building in conformity with the origt nal work on this structure. The State House commission endeavored to com plete the building so that it would present an imposing appearance. It did not attempt to dc' the work accord ing to the methods of 50 years ago, 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 ths commission but sacrificed his per sonal interests and affairs in the dis carge of the duty imposed upon him. It was5 not ours to fix the sum neces ary to do the work. That was the prov'.ince of the legislature. We did what w'e were directed to do, complet ed the work your predecessors contem plated within the appropriation they made. We did not deem it your wvish or desire that we should apply to you ,for additional appropriation when we found the funds provided insufficient for the employment of foreign artists and for the purchalse of $10,000 ceilings. That question was not ouirs, but yours. The commission does not feel called upon to defend the architect. In the executioni of his work they felt called upon to sustain him only so long as in the conmblined wisdom of the commis sion lhe was right. As to purely tech nical matter~s it necessarily relied on his jutdgmient and deferred to his ad TiE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES ITS DtTY TO THE STATE. If any evidence is brought before our commission that either the archi tect or contractor have been guilty of collusion or neglect of duty, or in ;any' manner slighted theiir work, it w.ld not onl- becme our duty_ but our peasure. tu pueCuLe CaIuC VA 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 house, will be fully and frankly given under oath to any attorney or attorneys that the legislature, governor or any other properly constituted authority may appoint to prosecute suits in the interest of the State. This commis sion, under the provisions of the law constituting it, elected an architect and paid him the usual fees to design and superintend the work of completion of the capitol. The commission, under the provision of the law, let the work to the lowest bidder. If there has been any collusion between the archi tect and the contractor it is a fact ab solutely unknown and unsuspected by 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 PAY FOR MAGNIFICENCE? When the commission was appointed to complete the State house the scope of its duty was clearly marked out in the act creating it. It was required by the law to complete the State house within the appropriation of $175,000. When the fact is considered that the State house as it stood in its incomplete condition had cost the State of South Carolina over $2,000,000, it would have 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 signed and contemplated a $5,000,000 building. The act further stipulated that not one dollar of the money ap propriated should be expended until a contract for the completion of the 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 building, 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 seryed the purpose. - The com mission in this matter, as ai 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. justilied them in deferriig 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 t~e 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 the 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. But 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. Inslcigan architect for the work selecsthincer desire of the com mission to put aside personal consid erations and to secure for the State the srvices of the best and most experi 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 :'.rank P. Milburn, whose plans seemed best adapted for the work contemplated. Mr. Milburn had not only enjoyed wide experience in the erectior. 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 auditorium at Charleston, 1.he court house at Anderson, and other build ings, which within the pesonal knowl edge of members of the commission had proven satisfactory and he was as well highly recoraimended to us by all with whom we knew he had had dealings. It may be added that since that time, Mr. Milburn has been se ected 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 logicail 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 a hanger-on around the national capi tol, to instruct us not only how to erect a building, but incidentally to showv howt to av oid insulting the memory of a distinguished architect and imposing a disgrace upon the State of South Carolina. AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLANS. 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 showv to our satisfaction if he could that this objection was not well found ed. As the best evidence of the fact that this complaint was not well founded Mr. Milburn submiittedl to the commission sta tenments from several contractors who had filed bids for the work. and who necessarily must have familarized themselves with every fea ture and detail of the plans in order [t makea n intelligrent bid upon the that the plans were sufficient but that if the true intent and spirit of them 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 refei 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 $212,000, 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 this 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 sag 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 McIlvain 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 ipso 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 are 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 men':, the plaintiff in interest could not recover under the facts without 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 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 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 of, 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 reg.ard to this old material, swears that he~ knows of his own knowledge that the diderent bid ders for the work filed their bids upon the basis that the old meterial, all of it, would go to the contractor. (See affidavit of 3. 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 matte-: of right but under the strict letter of the law and the contract this old material weat to the contractor, until over a yea-: after the contract was let, w hen Anator Mar shall filed his protc .t. An investiga tion resulted, when t::a fact developed 'that the contract'ors tad actually al lowed the State .a cre .it for this old material in their estimrate sheets. Thereupon the attorney general gave to the commission this opir !on, which has been completely ignored gy the in vestigating committee, notwistand ing the fact that it was in their pus session: that not only of right, but of law, this material, under the contract, was not the State's. (See epinion at torney general, exhibit H.) Every member of the commission ex cept Senator Marshall believed had they attempted to claim this old ma terial under all the circumstances, thaey would have been acting not only un fairly. but dishonestly, with the con 1tractor. The contractor had actually given the State value for this znaterial, and the specifications had been so con strued and made absolutely plain be fore the bids were even filed. The peo pe of the State do not ask their pub lic servants to do a dishonest deed. In our opinion it would have been dis 1honest to have attempted to take from the contractor that for which he had paid. If demand is made that the State 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 COLUMNS.| Under the terms nf The specifications| for the work "all of the columns that| ar out and the five unfinished will i be completed and used by selecting the perfect ones for the main front, and using the ones with small defects in the rear." (Rieport. p. 45). In the progress of the work, in attempting to raise cne 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 appearedi bf,.. the- commission and stated that1 .V ~ ILua .1 111C7 1 LUL aLL Na . 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 $2.000; 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 Boor 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 that 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. Upon the report of the architect that the strength of the structure of the completed building would be in no wise impaired, this solution of the problem 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 jority of the commission it then be came one purely of taste and ornament. and upon this issue we considered that the best' interests of the State were subserved 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 tive, the other members present con stituting- a majority, voting in the affirmative. - In addition to the $600 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. THE 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 and of the Value of their conclusions. "Captain" Hunt in his testimony (p. 17). swore that the State had lost in his opinion $15,000 by the removal of this ceiling, which was represented as "steel" ceiling and that "had cost 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: "Columbia, S. C., May 2nd, 1889. The commission met this day. Present: 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. etc., in the main corridor on the second floor, together with the ceiling over the senate lobby. - * * * Mr. John Alexander's* bid upon plan No. 1, for $7,898 was accepted." This record was accessible to the in vestigating committee and could have clearly shown them that this ceiling 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, consti tuted 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. Itlis 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 .ecords show, was - not only bought as ga vanized iron, but an actual inspection of it will show that the ceiling taken out was nothing but galvanized iron. The committee fonaid 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 3. 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 3. WV. Babcock, Exhibit. I). The commission put back exactly the same material they took out, simply -equiring 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 to show. that the removal of a dozen 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 entitled him to the compensation of $15 a day, which he was paid and which, he wa evi dently industriously endeavoring to earn. If the ceiling removed could be 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 fiimsier and easier to get out of shape. AS TO WATER CLOSETS. When we took charge of the comn pletion of the State house under this act thcre 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 flight of stairs from the legisla tive halls. Those members of the com mission who were also State -officers fully realized and appreciated the in tolerable, irremediable unsanitary con