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.

dition which must necessarily surrour tiiese closets as long as they were located. Realizing the importance < such conveniences, and being cot voced that some provision for the: must be made before the permanei work on the State house was complete the commission sought to provide duterent. more convenient and saft locality in the building for the, closets. These new closets were m co ntemplated when the question completing the State house camte b fore the general assembly. nor we: there any plans, specifications or co: tract relating thereto: but the con:ni: sion believing that out of the apprc priation enough had been saved to ir stall these necessaries, made such cor tract with reference to them as just: fies us in courting the most rigid ir vestigation. At the time the fixtur were installed there was no sewerat system in the city of Columbia, and n 'zfnmici pa1 regulations covering detai: n hich though adopted for the sake < ut:iftornity and governmental regt lation are but arbitrary. Since this ir st:allation there has been no complair of the presence or suspicion of the e: istence of sewer gas, and the locatio of the closets is such that if the pre: enee did actually exist there could t no detriment to the health or lives < the occupants of the State house. This determination on the part of th committee to make this arrangemer was most fortunate, as subsequer events proved, for the discovery wa about that time made that the of water closets had been silently and ut suspectingly venting their gas( through secret and unknown flues i the brick walls of the building int the offices upon the lower floor an spreading disease and death among th State's employes. The commission c sanitary experts appointed by Go, Heyward. while criticizing some de ails of the new work, ordered the of closets peremptorily and immediate rentloved from the building, and In thi demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary in spector of Columbia. joined. The grate or fire places in several of the office were directly connected with thes closets and had to be hermeticall: s'aled until the old work was remove, from the building. The condemned closets had been in stalled at great expense to the Stat u:der the direction of the commissio: which erected the "splendid ten thous and dollar steel ceiling" in the mai: lobby, nearly 15 years ago, largely un der the supervision of Senator Mar sh:.lI, who was then secretary of stat We desire to impress upon you th fact that you have not been put in pos session of any evidence or statement a to the apparent condition of the Stat house upon the day when the accept ance was made and the final install ment paid to the contractor. Wi therefore, inform you that when th work was accepted and the money pai a personal inspection by special com mittee of the commission was made and the roof with all of its accessories appeared in perfect condition, " an every stone laid under the contrac was free from cracks or apparent ae feets, and this notwithstanding a tee period of nearly or quite a month ha elapsed from the date when the build ing was tendered, during which perio we were satisfied that a sufficient tee had been made. During said perio there were several precipitations < rain, notably on the 12th day of Ma; 1902. when the rain began to fall. abot 2 o'clock in the morning and continue until about 7 of the same morning during which time nearly an inch c water fell. Rain followed again o the 14th. falling during the night. an on the 15th. when .in 21 minutes 3-4 c an inch of rainfall was registere< Under this severe test the roof al peared to be perfect as far as protec tion from water is concerned. Thi statement is made on official informa tion given us by the United States au thorities. We confess with the utmost cande that in some respects, particularly a to the roof and the floor lights, we has not been altogether pleased with t result of the work. But these at ti worst are riot as serious as would has been blunders involving the construt tion of the stone work, and other mo: permanent portions of the buildin wvhich has come up to the full measuz of the expectation of the commissio It is well to remember, however. thi we are too prone to dwell upon the which has not come fully up to ou expectations, while ignoring the fax that this man probably succeededi more important matters where anothe would have been subjected to jusa criticism. We have scrupulously avoided, eithe in this communication or in any of th~ steps leading up to the opportunit which has been accorded us by you honorable body to set ourselves righ in making our cause common with tha of either the architect or contractol and have endeavored to divorce omt selves insofar as possible from thenr First of all, though out of office, u are In a measure servants of the peopl and of the general assembly, andi that tribunal deems the State to hav suffered injury from either, our fire duty is to the State. However, it is but justice to say the~ we have found "the contractors 'in a their dealings with us honorable, busi ness men, whom we believe to be abov suspicion of wrong doing, and wh sought to live up to the true intent an meaning of their contract with th State. We desire it understood that we d not claim that it is impossible that in: positions have been practiced upo this commission by the architect contractor, for if any vital defects ems ist in the building or serious 'mistake can be shown to have been made. thet must have been the outcome of tb commission having been misled, but w' do assert in the most positive manne that the findings and the conclusior: contained in the report of the joint ir vestigating committee are not su: tained by the evidence therein cor tamned, and if they are ever sustaine it must be by evidence produced befor another tribunal. Whether this conr mission or any of its members we: ever designedly or unintentionally inr posed upon or deceived by either arc] itect or contractor, it can only 1 proved out of the mouth or mouths< suc~h member or members, unless it 1 conceded that the members would conz mit perjury in order to hide the fact We would remind your honorabl body that this commission has n< deemed it to be its duty to go into tl newspapers to defend the course of ti: majority, and that as but one sic has heretofore been presented to ti: public, we realize that it is but natura that the conclusion should be draw that there has been but one side to t1 question. If. with all the facts befor you, you should conclude that the or man has been always right and tl: nine men always ";rong, we can b: plead in extenuation that we have dot the best we could1 for the State. "u: awed by influence, and unbribed 1 gain." In this report we have endea' ored to state the facts fully, candid] and fairly. "nothing extenuate ar naught set down in malice." All of which is respectfully sul mitted. M. E. McSweeney. G. Duncan Bellinger. R. H. Jennings. J. Harvey Wilson. Robert J. Gantt. W. J. Johnson. Columbia. S. C., Feruary 19. 1904. Hia'ing taken up the official dutic upon the commission at the expirn tion of the term of the Hon. W.I im'merman, my predecessor. I ha nothing to do with the election of tI architect or the a. arding of the co: tract, but as to all the facts relatin to the actions of the enmmnission, an the opinions expressed herein with re: erence to those facts. expressed in tI om- repor T am in hearty aoin id with the report of the commission, and 30 with the limitations above expressed I )f have signed myself as a responsible 1- member of the c ommflission. n R. H. Jennings. it Under the resolution passed by the d. general assembly of South Carolina, a allowiag the members of the State r house commission to file such state se ments as they respectively desired to umke. I submit the following: That in the election of architect to make plans and specifications for the completion of the work on the. State house I did not vote for Mr. Milburn for reasons satisfactory to myself. In the acceptance for the completion Me Ilvain-Unkefer Co. was the only one that came within the limits of the ap nropriation. and it resolved itself into the acceptance of the same or a post ponement of the work until the pro e visions should be made by the State o legislature. When I went out of ofiice as State treasurer my connection with O the commission ceased. and I am in no way responsible for the completion or acceptance of the work of the con it tractor. I did not pretend to have any knowledge of architecture. and could I therefore have easily been imposed upon as to the beauty and the finish of the architecture.. f Very respectfully submitted. W. H. Timmerman. t EXHIBIT A. tt Personally appeared G. Duncan Bel t linger. who being duly sworn. says: s That in the late fall of the year 1903, upon casually meeting the Hon. J. 0. Patterson. a member of the joint in n vestigating committee. and ascertain o ing accidentally from him that he had d just returned from Columbia where e he had been in attendance upon said f committee. I asked him if the com mission would be accorded a hearing before his committee. In reply to this d Mr. Patterson stated that Mr. Aldrich y wa the chairman of the committee s and advised me that if such request - was made of the chairman it would s be granted. Deponent referred to rea s sons mutually known to him and to e Mr. Patterson why such request would y be unpleasant to deponent. upon which c Mr. Patterson assured me that he would himself notify the chair - man of the desire of the members of e the commission to be heard. This con e versation occurred in the town of - Barnwell on a Saturday night, within a 30 feet of the paling of Mr. Patterson's front yard. Subsequently and before the occas ion next to be referred to in the same e town, and near the same locality. I recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous s conversation and asked him if the e 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 e probability was that the illness from d which Mr. Aldrich 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. d These are the occasions to which I referred in the communications which d I recently published concerning this t request made upon Mr. Patterson, and d at that time I had no reference to any f other: but his published statement. r, said to have been in defense of his it 1 conduct, while explaining upon the d floor of the house of representatives. ;. the injustice done by his committee if to members of our commission recalled n to me another and third occasion when d this demand for justice was repeated. of In the city of Columbia. on the night L of the 17th of December, just passed, one of my partners. the Hon. L. W. - Haskell, who is a member of the house s 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 r til about 12 o'clock. After this confer s ence and when about to leave the hotel e we met Mr. J. 0. Patterson. who re e quested us to go to his room, as he e would have to sit up to catch a late etrain. While in this gentleman's room - the subject of the investigating com emittee arose and I learned accidentally -thi~t a meeting of this committee had e been very recently held. Becoming 1thus convinc-ed that the promised hear ting was in a fair way never to be ac t corded to us, I most earnestly attemp r ted to impress him with the determin t ation on the part of some of .us to' appeal to the legislature were we so runfairly treated as not to be accorded San opportunity to be heard. Again I received empty promises and vain as surances. A very recent conversation ewith Mr. Haskell warrants me in the Sassertion that he was present and re r calls that the request was most earn estly made t G. Duncan Bellinger. ISworn to before me this, 18th day of February. 1904. J. T. Gantt, Notary Public, S. C. eEXHIBIT B. SState of South Carolina-County of t Richiand. Personally appeared W. J. Johnson, twho being duly sworn, says that dur 1 ing the present session of the legisla -ture the deponent had an intimation e that the commission for the comple o tion of the State house were going to d be severely criticised by the committee e appointed to investigate the several reports of the commission. That the o deponent immediately looked up Repre -sentative Rawlinson, who was a mem n ber of- the investigating committee, and ir informed him of what deponent had -heard, and further informed him that s if the reports of severe arraignment eor criticism were true that the com e mission had a right to be heard, and e that an opportunity should be given rthem. That Representative Rawlin is son assured deponent that there was t nothing int the rumor and that the com mission would not be harshly criticis - ed and that his committee had not d fully made up its report: that they *e jwould have another meeting and all -the members of the old commission e could be heard: further stated that it twas his impression that all the mem - hers of the commission had been in e vited to attendthimeins d fponent informed hmta oeo h iel members of t hecomsinLdbe I- j invited to any of temeig ofra s deponent kne w. crany dpnn had not brn . >t W. J. Johnson. te Sworn to before mec this, 18th day of Le Lewis W. 3askell, Ie .Notary Public for S. C. n EXHIBIT C. .tt ofSuhCarolina-County of P.rs'-.ly appeared before me A. H. a--ts. who being duly sworn. says: Thut'" h" is a reporter for The Daily Rcr.anewspaper published at Co mbia:o that in company of Lewis Koa. at that time reporter for The Ne\.ws iand Courier, he 'applied at the da.grcultural committee rgoomn in the State h'ouse, where he heard the legis latve committee investigating the~ wuork 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 me. .this 14thi day of February. 1904. I A. C. DePass. Notary Public. EXHTB.IT 1'. e Lewis G. Wood. being -iuly swvora: i- says: That he went to the agricultu :al comm ittee room where the investi d gating committee "'as in session, and -irqu~ed if there was any news of the me investigation to be published at that ilmira nr1 that he wastolid h, a mem bet n of the roinittc' that tere w - 1101". i s '3. Wood. Jr.. The State. Sworn to before mle this 16th day o February. 1904. E. 0. DePass. (L. S.)1 Notary Public for South Crarolina. Exhibit E. State of Southt Carolina. Richlan'l county. Perscnally appeared before me D. H Means. who being duly sworn say that he was sumntmne'l to produce cer tain records of the commission for th completion of the State house and t< testify before the "joint committee t consider the several reports of th commission on r:: completion of thi State house and facts relating there to." which committee was meeting it the agricultural committee room o: the house. That he entered the roon and was about to be examined whet another witness was announced a: present whereupon deponent was in formed that he was excused until th said committee had finished with sail other witness. That deponent thet withdrew and waited in another offic in the State house until after the de parture of said other witness whet 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 wha1 he considered necessary or oroper qual ifications of "yes" and "no" answer. deponent was interrupted by the chair man with the statements "answer the question." and "you need not go in t< that at all." That just after the examination was completed the chairman of the com mittee requested deponent to say noth lag of what had transpired during hi: examination by said committee. That during deponent's examinatior 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. Duncar Bellinger. handed to deponent a let ter written by said G. Duncan Bellin ger to ex-Gov. M. B. McSweeney. date< Dec. 22, 1903, of which the followini is a copy: 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 recollec than on May 31, 1902, when you wer governor and I attorney general o South Carolina, 1 received from you letter of date May 31, .1902. a carbor copy of which is to be found at page, 140 and 141 of volume of "Public Lan< Letter Book, New Series. No. 1 to 200, of w~ich letter the following is a copy to wit: "Columbia. S. C.. May 31, 1902. "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 ii appears to the commission for the com pletion of the State house, that th work is satisfactory and that the con tract has been substantially perform ed.' The above resolution was upot the question as to whether Mcllvain 'Unkefer company has performed thei1 contracts for the completion of the State house. and subsequently the com mission ordered the balance due MclI: vain-Unkefer company on their sail contracts to be paid. Mcllvain-Unke fer company now desire that the suret bond for $50.000 given by them t< the commission for the faithful per formance of their said contract be b3 me surrendered to them the said con tractors. No action was by said com mission taken authorizing or directini the surrender of said surety bond. It such action necessary or am I author ized, upon the action already taken b3 the commission to endorse upon sait surety bond the resolution of commis ion as to contractors' complianc with. or performance of contract, anc surrender said surety bond to the salc contractors? "Kindly give me your official opin ion upon this matter and oblige, "Respectfully, "M1. B. McSweeney. "Governor and Chairman. "P S.-Mr. Unkefer informs mn that until surrendered his surety bons is costing him $25.00 per month." Uphon receipt- of this letter from yoi I recollect that f gave you ora..ly m3 official opinion, as attorney general that as said action of said comminssioz was final and conclusive as to said con tractors having performed their con, tract (to secure the performance a1 which said surety bond had been giver to you as chairman of said cmmis sin), said contractors were entitled t< the return of the band; and furthel action by the commission being un necessary, I advised you to surrendel said bond to the contractors with ar endorsement thereon signed by yol which I dictated. Very respectfully. G. Durican Bellinger. That at the requist of said ex-Gover nor M. B. McSweeney deponent pastet the original of the foregoing letter written by ex-Attorniey General G Duncan Bellin'ger to ex-Governar M't B. McSweeney, in the back of the min ue book of the commission for -thb completion of the State house, so as- t< preserve in writing the evidence of thI reasons and circumstances undel which said M1. B. McSweeney while governor surrendered said bond to sald contractors, Mcllvan, U~nkefer Co. That subsequent to deponent's said examination the secretary or steno grapher of said committee requested de ponent to give him access to t:he rec ords of the commission, for the corn pletin of the State house, for the uur pose of said secretary's comparing and verifying with said original record: said secretary's copies of portionI thereof, to be used in said joint com mittee report. That at this time de pnent called the attention of said clern or stenographer to, said original lette1 from ex-Attorney-General Belliniger t< ex-Governor M1. B. McSweeney, pasted as before stated. in the back of said minute book, and requested said clenl of said committee to take a copy of sait letter and show it to the chairmar of said joint committee, thinking thal said chairman might desire to 1use salt letter. as it contained a statenment b: ex-Attorney General Bellinger of im portant facts in reference to the sur render of the said bonds to the salt contractors to M. B. McSweeney, up on which matter deponent had been ex amined. That said secretary or stenographe1 of said joint committee did make and take with him a copy; of said letter which letter did not appear in sait joint committee's repo'rt to the legis lature D. H. Means. Sworn to before me this 16th day o: February, 1904. Lewis W. Haskell, Notary Public for South Carolina. EXHIBIT F. Stao of South Carolina-County aj Richland. Persorasty appeared before me. Jof B. Garf'unkel1. who, being duty sworr says that he was summoned as & 't. ness by the commtittee investigatin; the work upon the State house, an< that when he appeared and gave his testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall was present in the room. Deponent fur thr swears that he was present in t State house when the contract for the work on the State house was let, an< knows that it was the general under, standing among the bidders that the ,junk removed from the building i: doing the work provided in the plant and specifications of Frank P. Milburt would go to the contractors; deponeni is peculiarly qualified to know thit fact because he wished to buy thi: junk, and talked about it to every one of the bidders whom he met. Deponent further swears that prio tn +he 1et+ingo n he conterct fo. ths work he had filed with the commission r anl al~plicatlon to buy the said junk. c but was informed that he must apply 1 to the contractors for the purchase of t same. That 31r. Lnkefer told the - t f deponent two or three days after the 1 contract was awarded that the com- t misio1n had referred to him the appli- iT cation deponent had made to buy the junk. Deponent further swears that he is a it dealer in, and familiar with the market value of old iron and other junk. and c s that he made an estimate of and of - fered the highest market price for the old iron it was necessary to remove in > placing the dome on the building; that : he regarded the said old iron worth less for any other purpose than junk I] and had he' secured same he would ! c - have immediately shipped it off as t z such: that the contractors secured a ! f higher price from other narties for a c 1 portion of this old iron than deponent z would have paid for it. !t s Deponent further swears that he ex- 1 - amined the ceiling removed from the t e main lobby of the State house, while I d it remained on the State house , a grounds; that said ceiling was galva e nized iron, and worthless, even as junk: - that the contractors gave it to the de a ponent, but he would not haul it of, - and in turn gave it to the asylum for I - the insane. - That he did not testify to the facts t above when being examined before the - investigating committee because the 3 questions were not asked him. J. B. Garfunkel. t Sworn to before me this 15th day of, February, 1904. D. W. McLaurin. i e EHB Notary Public. EXHIBIT G. ! c - Richmond, Va., Feb. 4, 1904. !t Robert J. Gantt, Capitol Building: - In my capitol bid I figured on all old t t material being my property. - W. A. Chesterman. I s - Savannah. Ga., Feb. 19,1904. ji - Robt. J. Gantt: It 1 In making up bid for contract on It - capitol there, contractor was to have c - all old stone, iron and other material t i on the premises. J. E. Burgess, I (Of Stewart Contracting Company.) , EXHIBIT H REQUEST FOR OPINION. t " Newberry, S. C., Aug. 9, 1901. a Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney s General, Columbia, S. C.: - Dear Sir: Pursuant to the permis- t sion of the commission charged with t L the completion of the State house, I s have the honor of asking your opinion t upon a question which has arisen about c the ownership of the old material. The facts appear in the paper here- d with submitted, and the contracts and 1 the specifications. t The papers submited' consist of a t partial draft of a r ,>ort of the com- c mittee and a copy of the letter from the architect. The minutes referred to contains the t statement of Mr. Unkefer, one of the contractors. The committee desires your opinion under the terms of! the contract and I the circumstances of the case upon the question where the ownership of the old material rests, whether in the con tractors or the State. i t c: 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 complet'ion of the State ' house. I note that you say that the commit tee desires my "opinion under the I terms of the contract and the circum- . u stances of the case upon the i f question where the ownership of the V old material rests, whether in the con- { t tractors or the State." c I have the honor to) reply as follows: , As I gather them the admitted facts i are: ,The only pertinent reference in the :In Detail the Man Against '1 Replies to His Accu' >Assem REPLY OF FRANK P. MILBURN, I SARCHITECT. TO REPORT OP IN 1VESTIGATING COMMITTEE, RE LATING TO THE WORK ON THEr 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. t -In the first plaee, the committee, b composed of chosen representatives of c the people, "all honorable gentlemen," d in their desire to vindicate the author i of the minority report of one mem ber of the old "capitol comamission, have v gone beyond the authority given by the y concurrent resolution under which they c acted. By that resolution they were a directed to report to the next session r of the general assembly "such facts and n .recommendations in reference thereto I as they may deem advisable." And ti yet these "-honorable gentlemen" go out of their way to inject into their report wholly unwarranted and im proper conclusions, which are neither e "facts" nor -'recommendations," but cl libellous and indiscriminate reflections d 1on numerous State officers and repre sentatives, as well as the architect and contractors. "Miserable fraud," "mon strous swindle" and "malefactors!" o Such gratuitous expressions are as c false asthey are uncalled for by the s fcurent resolution. tl But, that this committee was more t bent on vindicating the one dissenting t rmember of the capitol commission than 1 carrying out the suggestions of the Itu legislature, is evidenced by the fact that they did not "-employ an archi tect," as was suggested by the authori-k -Ity given in the conc.urrent resolutiOn, p but paid $15.00 a day for a "contract- I or" who says he has been "superin tendent- of constructing of the United v States capitol for four years." a But further still, this committee wash directed to consider the "several re ports of the commission for the con pletion of the State house," with au thority to summon witnesses, etc. They seem to have considered only the one minority report of Senator 3. Q. Marshall, made .in February, 1903, and a examined witne'se~s only in support of a that minority report, without calling a single witness in support of the re port and action of seven honored citi-t zens and officers of the State. who dif- 1 fered with Col. Marshall, and who are t as wide awar' ' the interests of the I State as he or as tenbers of this in-c ; vestigating committee, and wtho have always depended more upon witnesses c -in this State, whose standing and cred ibility ar-e known to them personally, than' a foreign importation who is Irecommende'd by the superintendent of -Jthe feder-al capitol building, and was no Idoubt never before heard of in South 1 Carolina.I 3 But let us glance at the procedure of 1 this investigating committee, When t tteeet their expert he is brought sthe Colmbi and shown the general e B plans and specifications upon whicht Scontractors were invited to bid for the work: but not the plans showing the - modifications nor the detail drawvings r I m.r -acal work. M examnines the t lans, specificatiwns or written contract f the use or ownership of the "old ma crial" in question is to be found in he specifications, in the following cords: "The iuccessful contractor will: e permitted to use all old material hat is now on the ground, and such arts of the present roof that conform, o these plans and specifications: but it understood that the marble now on he grounds is not included. This only overs the granite columns. balusters, Id iron. bracring, granite. etc., in the oof that is suitable, and the proper ize that is called for. If in doubt con tilt the architect on this subject be ore making a bid." 2. Befere bidding on the work Mc Ivain-Lnkefer company, as well as ther competitive rontractors, called pon the nrchitect. F. P. Milburn, for n interpretation of the clause quoted. oncerning which they were in doubt. 3. The architect informed the con ractors "that the contractors bidding or the work would get such 'old ma erial,' and would be permitted to use uch old parts as would conform with he new plans and specifications." See Milburn's letter, July 31. 1901.) 4. Acting upon the interpretation riven by the architect, Mcllvain-Unke er company, after making allowances or what was conceived to be the 'alue of the "old material" to them, >ut in their bid for the contract, and vas duly accepted by the commission. 1 ;. One Mr. Garfunkel. a junk dealer, ,ubmitted to the commission a proposi ion to buy the copper and old iron hen in the old roof, and the commis ion, upon accepting Mcllvain-Unkefer ompany's bid, ordered that the con nunication of Mr. Garfunkel be turned ver to the successful bidding con ractor. upon the ground that the said old material" was at the disposal of he latter. The clause quoted for the specifica ions bears internal evidence of con ious ambiguity, and the conflicting nterest is susceptible of various in erpretations. It is easy to conceive hat the bidding contractors could laim with a show of reason, the title o the "old material" in question, and asmuch as the paper containing the lause was prepared for and in behalf f the commission, and the law would, s I understand it, construe the con ract strictly against the commission nd in favor of the bidder, for one rea on, among others, that in cases of .oubt, the construction by the con ractors must be given the benefit of he doubt. inasmuch as the commis ion. as the author of the specifica ions, must suffer. if either party must, n account of ambiguity. But I think that up to a very recent ate it had been the understanding on 11 sides that the contractors should be he owners of the old material, and he facts as found seem to me to pre lude any other conclusion. The statement of Milburn, the archi ect, speaking on behalf of the commis ion, the known conduct of the con ractors, based upon Milburn's inter retation, the acceptance of the bid ased upon the supposed ownership by he contractors of the "old material," ,nd the declination to treat with a pro osed purchaser for the sale of the old raterial, and the reference of his bid o McIlvaine-Unkefer company, all stop the commission from claiming he "old material," in question. Hoping that this will meet with your .pproval, I am. Very truly yours. (Signed) G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General. Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin on of the attorney general was ap roved by a vote taken viva voce, Mr. Marshall voting against it. EXHIBIT I. Columbia. S. C.. Feb. 15.1904. This certifies that in the fall of 1901 bought from J. B. Garfunkel, for the se of the State hospital for the insane, )r the amount of $6.00 a lot of gal anized iron railing and that he brew in as worthless. a lot of metal eiling, which-.he said we might have I or hauling off. The ceiling is now ly g in a rubbish heap in the back yard the hospital. Jt W. Babcock. CT FRANK P. ILlWRN. hom Charges 'w ere Made sers in the General bly. uilding in the light of these originalI :eneral plans and specifications.I And yet no one of the seven gentle ren of the capitol commission, who onestly differed with Col. Marshall. ras called, nor was I asked to show im the modified and complete specd ications -and detail drawings under hich the work was actually done. It appear's that on a Friday in May,I 303, before this investigating commit-I se was to take testimony, as remem ered by the chairman, the chairman; f the committee called at my office. uring my absence from the citv. and eft a verbal message with one of my raughtsmen about the meeting, at' hich the expert from WashingtonI ould give his testimony, and that I ould be present. or send any com mnication if I desired. But I never eceived the message, and, in fact,. ever heard of the incident until lastj 'riday, the 12th inst. In this connec-, .o I beg to submit the following tatements: To Whom it May Concern: 'This is to certify that I am in the mployment of Frank P. Milburni, ar itect, in the capacity of engineer and raughtsnani. and was during the last "That once when Mr. Milburn and dr. Heister were out of the mfce, Mr. Milburn being out of the ity. a gentleman called, and renire enting himself to be' a member of e State house investigating commit e, stated in effect that said commit ee would shortly (as I understood, the ext day) have a session, and asked iat I' let Mr. Milburn know, and also et word to Mcllvain. Unkefer com any. I promised to let Mr. Milburn now, and also Mcllvain. Unkefer com any if we could: that I thought we iad their address in the office. "That upon the return of Mr. Heister. ho is chief draughtsman and assist nt to Mr. Milburn. I told him of what ad taken place. ind supposed he would ommunicate with them. but I never: entioned the matter to Mr. Milburn mtil Feb. 12, 1904. "(Signed) "Geo. F. Kepler." 'To whom it May Concern: "I hereby certify that I am now,; nd was last year chicf draughntsmlan nd assistant to Mr'. Frank P. Milburn, .rchitect. "That I have ,read the foregoing cer ificate of Mr. George F. Kepler. but tave no recollection of ever hearing of he conversation therein referred to, >efore Feb. 12, 19fl4. If Mr. Kepler i orrect in his recollection of stating the 2atter to xr- I diA not take it in suffi iently to h..c&s ty mind, and I an re that I neve'r .nentio'ned the mat er to Mr. Milburn. (Signed) "Michael Heister." After this hearing, at which'is now ppears that several witnesses wvere ex mined. I lea rned of it from the news pers and common rumor: but never new anything of the purport of the estimony, although 1 heard that Col. larshall was present. and that the;: essions were behind closed doors. 'Un il my return to this city last Friday. hcn I got hold of a copy of the report -t he comm:ittee having never honored e with a copy-I never knew authori-1 t-'el a the reflectins on the work. 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 matter. I wish to call attention to the fact, that when called to this work I found a partially completed building. much valuable stone and marble on Thand, and an appropriation wholly and admittedly insufficient to complete the 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, that many modifications and changes became necessary, and were made with the consent and approval of the corn mission, as a rule Col. Marshall being the only one dissenting. In hoisting these nssive columns into position, one of them broke by its own" weight when being removed 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 Iupon 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 perlins) 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. and 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 all 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 State 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 toI condemn the sufficiency of the "bracing and 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 was to get such a witness that the in vestigatirng 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 on 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 ai're 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 as -good as -could be afforded with the ap propriation, and answers every pur In reference to the glass floor which leaks in rainy weather, I beg to say It Idoes 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, whiich is suitable for the place. Unfortunately there Is but little. fall,' and yet I gave It all I, poissibly 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; it is one of the troubles en countered in remsodeling or adding to a building. The chief trouble, how ever, with the portico floor is that to accommodate the .legislature,' it was laid just before the meeting of that boyadwas walked on-and abused before the concrete and cement mate rial set sufficiently. The natural- con seqtgence was that it was damaged and still presents a bad adpoearance. 'An inspection of the rear portico- floor, Iwhich was not so-used and abused, will - substantiate this contention. As to the. ceiling of the portico, I do not know of any material more suit Iable for such ceilings. It is made from the same class of material that was removed by the contractors from the Imain lobby, although not the same de 'sign. I wonder 'if the gentlemen of the investigating committee know that t'he portico ceiling in the main entrance to the United States capitol at Wash ington wass common plastering, and that leaks from the roof caused some of it to fail. Seventh. That the roof is a "tar and gravel' roof, unsuitable, and leaks badly. It is' not a tar and gravel roof, but is of the very finest quality of asphalt and crushed quartz, and there is no doubt about its answering the purpose for at least ten years, as the roof con tr-actory gave a guarantee for ten years against leaks and rriaterial wear and tear. 'This same class of roofing is on Ithe following buildings in the city of Washington. D . AtatcCoast Line office building, ISouthern Railway office building, Iowa department house, Raleigh hotel, Bliss Idepartment house, United States Cen sus building, government printing house, and many others too numerous to eisamate of profound regret to me that teroof leaks. I have done every thing in my power from the first to remedy it. It is a well known fact that much moere 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 r-oof. leaked for years. In this connection I submit the fol lowing: Columbia, S. C., Jan. 18, 190'i. Mir. Frank P. MIilburn, Architect, Co iumbia. S. C.: Dear Sir: Referring to our conver sation in regard to the State house, w'ill say that a short time after the Sm,-te house work was finished the Chariotte Roof and Paving company te'legraphed me to go ther'e and exam itn: the roof and make the same satis factory if I could. I went on top of the 'building and was somewhat surprised to find that some one had torn the tlashing loose ni, several places between tbe main roof and the base of the dome for several feet, .aiiowing the water flo:wing off of the dome and the base i;o run downi into the rotunda below. Trhe work was well flashed around the 1'me and counter flashing was put itrto the joints not in the way it is usually done, viz.: by putting the flash ing into the joint and turning It up, but by cutting into the joint and ex tending the tin back into the joints and bolting it with rods, nuts and w'asher-s, and it was impossible for it After keeping the testimony, and their proceedings secret, as I believe. 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 n Columbia. 11th December, giving me an opportunity to appear before the :ommittee. if I desired. Having heard )f the proceedings in May. at which. I was told. and believed, Col. Marshall had been present. i decided, without having counsel, that I had best not appear unless the committee desired my presence, I had been guilty of absolute ly. no wrong, or conscious neglect of my duty to the State, but had given my best efforts to assist the capitol ommission 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, [ offered to place my office records at the disposal of the committee. In this onnection I see that my note to the :ommittee 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 by the capitol :ommission 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 ;entlemen were personally known to members of the commission, and their statements were to the effect that the rawings 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 yontractors and builders as Gude & Walker, J. W. Bishop & Co., W. A. Thesterman and Nicholas Ittner, com -nonly known as "Honest Nick," must )utwelgh the opinion of Mr. Marshall nd the Washington "expert" with any mpartial judge. Second. That the contract. fixed the ld work on the completed portion of the building as the standard. This is not true. There is nothing in he plans and specifications which ,ould be so construed except, perhaps, the word "prototype," on one of the ;eneral drawings, and this was intend ed to apply only to style, outline, form, shape; and. was not intended to apply to the classification of the workman ship. Under each of the headings of the various classes of work the same as fully outlined, giving the number )f cuts to the inch for the different parts of the work. In this connection, I may say that .t was not intended to make the stone :ornice in one piece, for instance. The small appropriation for the whole work necessitated great economy, and :he scale detail drawings show that it vas to tie built up of several members, as it was done, instead of the more ex ;ensive one-piece cornice. Referring to sheet 6 of the general irawings where the note before re erred to is found, it will be seen that the work is to be the same only when t has its prototype in the old building. That it does not mean that the cornice, Eor instance, is to be identical with the )ld work, you have only to see sheet 7 af those same drawings, where the ornice 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, biad a splendid steel ceiling in the main lobby, which the contractors took end converted to their own use, where by the State lost in the neighborhood f $10,000. The plans and specifications required the contractors to cut a circular open ing into the celing for the inner dome. When the ceiling was cut, and It was thoroughly examined, it was fdund to be galvanized iron, in a bad condition and difficult to work into shape, es pecially as it contained ceiling lights o longer of usd. The contractors said .t would require special workmen,.and considerable loss of time to patch it up, and would not then be as sais Cactory as a new ceiling, which could be gotten In less time, and enable them to be ready for the meeting of the Legislature, although the new ceiling would cost them more. After full in estigation of all the facts and con litions, I decided that it .was to the nterest of the State to accept the proposed change, and I approved ,the :eiling they used, which harmonizes perfectly with the design of the' ceil ng under the balcony around the main obby, which was placed there under MJr. Niernsee's supervision. As both :eilings are in the same lobby and are seen at the same time, harmony is es sential. Neither the cornice pior cove mouldings in this lobby were interfered with, but the new ceiling was used only in the neld or body of the ceiling :hrough which the dome Is cut. The :entractors thought they ought to have extra for this new ceiling, but I would sot allow it, and the State got the sew ceilings without cost. This item shows the fearful mistake the nvestigating committee made in not examining farther into the real 'acts instead of giving so much weight to that minority report. They would lave the public .believe that it was a steel ceiling," costing in the neighbor bood of $10,000. when the records in the secretary .of state's office show that all the ceilings and cornices, steel beams, and skylights in the rotunda, or main Lobby, and the ceiling over the senate obby together, cost only $7,898, on the d of May, 1389. Any well informed man will know that the cornice actual y cost much more than the ceiling. Ihe public must in charity put this blunder of the committee down ?to neglect and ignorance, or convict them f deliberate misrepresentation in making the statement that "on this temn the State lost in the neighbor iod of $10,000." Let the public guess why Mr. Hunt advanced the idea that the contractors emoved this ceiling that they might boist into position the large steel box irders that support the dome! The Cact is, these heavy steel beams and rirders were raised from the outside Evall, and not through the main lobby. But not content with trying to arouse ublic indignation over the alleged loss :o the State, they attempt- to injure haracter by charging that "the con ractors bodily took and carried away nd converted to their own use this ;aluabe and beautiful part of the old uilding." The cold fact is. and they ither knewv it, o' could have learned it y reasonable. f'air and impartial in luiry, that this old ceiling that was emoved from the rotunJg lobby was lever sold or used by th. CX* tars. aut was given to Mr. Garvnan if he ould remove it from the grounds, end he in turn gave it to Dr. Babcock m the same condition, and this "val lable and beautiful." this "splendid steel ceiling."' now lies in a rubbish eap in the back yard of the State lu itic asylum, a silent but unimpeach ble witness of the outrageous libel vhich this investigating committee has spread upon the records~ of the legisla tw'ourrho hatby the omission ne two