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 surroum closets as lorig as they were s located. Realizing the importance o such conveniences, and being con vinced that some provision for then 4 *rust he made before the permanen t;urk on the State house was completed the commission sought to provide J different, more convenient and safe: locality in the building for thes< closets. These new closets were no contemplated when the Question o completing the State house came be fore the general assembly, nor wen there any plans, specifications or con tract relating thereto: but the comntis sion believing that out of the appro 1-nation enough had been saved to in stall these necessaries, made such con tract with reference to them as justi ties us in courting the most rigid in vestigation. At the time the fixture: -were installed there was no sewerag< system in the city of Columbia, ant^ n< municipal regulations covering detail: which though adopted for the sake o: uniformity and governmental regU' lation are but arbitrary. Since this installation there has been no complain: of the presence or suspicion of the existence of sewer gas, and the locatior of the closets is such that if the presence did actually exist there could be no detriment to the health or lives ol the occupants of the State house. This determination on the part of the committee to make this arrangement was most fortunate, as subsequent events proved, for the discovery was a tout that time made that the old water closet's had been silently and unsuspectingly venting their gases through secret and unknown flues in the brick walls of the building intc the offices upon the lower floor and spreading disease and death among the State's employes. The commission ol sanitary experts appointed by Gov. Heyward, while criticizing some deails of the new work, ordered the old closets peremptorily and immediately removed from the building, and in this demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary inspector of Columbia, joined. The grates or fire places in several of the offices were directly connected with these c losets and had to be hermetically sealed until the old work was removed from the building. 1 The condemned closets had been installed at great expense to.the State under the direction of the commission which erected the "splendid ten thousand dollar steel ceiling" in the main lobby, nearly 15 years ago, largely under the supervision of Senator Marfan. who was then secretary of state. We desire to impress upon you the fact that you have not been put in possession of any evidence or statement as to the apparent condition of the State house upon the day when the acceptance was made and the final install^ir.ent paid to the contractor. We, "therefore, inform you-that when the work was accepted and the money paid a personal inspection by special committee of the commission was made and?the roof with all of its accessories, appeared in perfect condition, and every stone laid under the contract was free from cracks or apparent defects, and this notwithstanding a test period of nearly or quite a month had elapsed from the date when the building was tendered, during which period we were satisfied that a sufficient test had been made. During said period there were several precipitations oi rain, notably on the 12th day of May, 1902. when the rain began to fall about 2 o'clock in the morning and continued until about 7 of the same morning, wliinh tlma noapll- O r, inoh ni water fell. Rain followed again or the 14th. falling during the night, an<3 on the,15th. when in 21 minutes 3-4 ol an inch of rainfall was registered Under this severe test the roof appeared to be perfect as far as protection from water is concerned. This statement is made on official information given us by the United States authorities. We confess with the utmost candoz that in some respects, particularly a& to the roof and*the floor lights, we havt not keen altogether pleased with th< result of the work. But these at tin worst are not as serious as would have been blunders involving the construction of the stone work, and other more permanent portions of the building which has come up to the full measure of the expectation of the commission It is well to remember, however, thai we are too prone to dwell upon thai which has not come fully up to oui expectations, while ignoring the fac1 that this man probably succeeded ir more important matters where anothei would have been subjected to jusl criticism. We have scrupulously avoided, eithei in this communication or in any of the steps leading up to the opportunity which has been accorded us by youi honorable body to set ourselves right in making our cause common with thai of either the architect or contractor, and have endeavored to divorce ourselves insofar as possible from them. First.of all, though out of office, W are in a measure servants of the people and of the general assembly, and il that tribunal deems the State to have suffered injury from either, our first duty is to the State. However, it is but justice to say that we have found the contractors in all their dealings with us honorable business men, whom we believe to be above suspicion of wrong doing, and who sought to live up to the true intent and meaning of their contract with the State. We desire it understood that we do not claim that it is impossible that impositions have been practiced upon this commission by the architect Oi contractor, for if any vital defects exist in the building or serious mistakes can be shown to have been made, these must* have been the outcome of the commission having been misled, but we do assert in the most positive manner that the findings and the conclusions contained in the report of the joint investigating committee are not sustained by the evidence therein contained, and if they are ever sustained it must be by evidence produced before another tribunal. Whether this commission or any of its members were ever designedly or unintentionally imposed upon or deceived by either architect or contractor, it can only be proved out of the mouth or mouths oi such member or members, unless it be conceded that the members would commit perjury in order to hide the factsi. We would rerftind your honorable body that this commission has not deemed it to be its duty to go into the newspapers to defend the course of the majority, and that as but one side has heretofore been presented to the public, we realize that it is but natural that the conclusion should be drawn that there has been but one side to the question. If. with all the facts before you. you should conclude that the one man has been always right and the nine men always wrong, we can but plead In extenuation that we have done the best we could for the State,V'unawed by influence, and unbribe^ by gain." In this report we have endeavored to state the facts fully, candidly and fairly, "nothing extenuate and naught set down in malice." All of which is respectfully submitted. . c-ijDSS M. B. Mo9Tv.-rfTo^>-. ; V TT."Pui:?-isis Bellinger. J7 ' u. 11. Jennings. -n ?-?~ .1. Harvey Wilson. * Robert J. Gantt. W W. J. Johnson. \ ('olumbia, S. C., Feruary 19. 1904. J Having taken up the official duties t- Vi.i at tbo <=>vr>irri tion of the term of the Hon. W. H. Timmerman. my predecessor. I hod nothing to do with th^ election of the architect or the awarding of the contract. but as to all the facts relating to the actions of the commission, ana the opinions expressed herein with reference to those facts, expressed in the above report I am iu hearty accord 3 Unreport of the commission. and 0 ! -with the' limitations above expressed I fj have signed myself as a responsible - member of the commission. a: -I "R. H. Jennings. 11 Under the resolution passed by the 1,; general assembly of South Carolina. 1 i allowing the members of the State r house commission to file such statee ments as they respectively desired to t make. I submit the following: f j That in the election of architect to - make plans and specifications for the e completion of the work on the ^tate - house I did not vote for Mr. Milburn - : for reasons satisfactory to myself. In - the acceptance for the completion Me-1 Uvain-Unkefer Co. was the only one -! that came within the limits of the ap-1 propriation. and it resolved itself into * j the acceptance of the same or a post 5 . poneuirui vi iiu- worn uiuii l i jjjv visions should be made by the State }: legislature. When 1 went out of office 5 j as State treasurer my connection with ? the commission ceased, and* I am in no way responsible for the completion or acceptance of the work of the cont tractor. I did not pretend to have any knowledge of architecture, and could 1: therefore have easily been imposed : upon as to the beauty and the finish of i the architecture. f Very respectfully submitted. W. H. Timmerman. ?j EXHIBIT A. I Personally appeared G. Duncan Bel" linger, tpho being duly sworn, says: I That in ! the late fall of the year IMS. upon casually meeting the Hon. J. O. ' j Pattersdn, a member of the joint in.' vestigatijng committee, and ascertain(: ing accidentally from him that he had I j just returned from Columbia where , he had been in attendance upon said II committee, -1 asked him if the commission [would be accorded a hearing before Ms committee. In reply to this Mr. Patterson stated that Mr. Aldrich : j was the chairman of the committee ; i and advised me that if such request , j was made of the chairman it would , j be granted. Deponent referred to rea; i sons mutually known to him and to . | Mr. Patterson why such request would i be unpleasant to deponent, upon which mn tVlQ t Air. UOOUICU liiC ? he wouid himself notify the chairman ofjthe desire of the members of . the commission to be heard. This cont versatJop occurred in the town of Barnwell on a Saturday night, within t 30 feet of the paling of Mr. Patterson's front y4r<3Subsequently and before the oecas' ion hext to'be referred to in the same ' j towti^jJlpci near the same locality, I j recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous 1 conversation and asked him if the ! right wthich we had demanded would be aodtrded to us, and he assured me that it?Would, and that he had spoken to th&flfeairman on the subject and the ( probability was that the illness from which* ??r. Aldrich was then suffering ' was the reason why I, and other members 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; slon, 4 [, These' are the occasions to which I , referred in the communications which [ I recently published concerning this request*-made upon Mr. Patterson, and I at tbd&time I had no reference to any ; other;jrbut' his published statement, said, w have been in defense of his | conduct, while explaining upon the [ floor .at. the house of representatives, , the injustice done by his committee ; to members of our commission recalled [ to mejuiother and third occasion when [ this dfemand for justice was repeated. I In tbj^city of Columbia, on the night . of tl?17th of December, just passed, . one of. ray partners, the Hon. L. W. who is a member of the house \ of rtpijesentatives, and myself went by . appolspxnent to the Columbia hotel to meefesfeome clients from the city of Augufa; with whom wc conferred un til aMSt 12 o'clock. After this confer. whan aHrmt to lenve the hotel i we sSjrMr. J. O. Patterson, who re QUMfSi us to go to his room, as he i wot^jMhave to sit up to catch a late - traffl?While in this gentleman's room the inject of the investigating com: mJtteearose and I learned accidentally > that Jjr meeting of this committee had i beep&gpsry -recently held. Becoming . tiyisjimvinced that the promised hear: ing& 'in a fair way never to be ac: cord^it to us, I most earnestly nttemp ted t? impress him with the determin' the part of some of us to 1 appen to the legislature were we so ' uaffcmy treated as not to be accorded ; an ?jjjjportunity to be heard. Again I recettffed empty promises and vain as' suitmes. ;A very recent conversation f wiHaskell warrants me in the asamlwi that he was present and re caiwjfcait the request was most earn' ' Bellinger. BWWIJ to before me this, 18th day of ' FtiHhr; 1904. J. T. Gantt, ; Notary Public, S. C. ; y EXHIBIT B. i Stafefof South Carolina?County of appeared W. J. Johnson, > duly sworn, says that duri present session of the leglsladeponent had an intimation t TPUgjane jWjumaaiuu iui uic wmi/n,State house were going to [ be/i|S6t^!y criticised by the committee ( ap&^ted to investigate the several of the commission. That the , dejHKItt immediately looked up Repre. serafeye Rawlinson, who was a mem[ investigating committee, and i&fHjrmed hinj of what deponent had hefiUT^J aDd further informed him that i i?3H?: reports of severe arraignment ; or -c^ticism were true that the ccm! miuln bad a right to be heard, and j opportunity should be given ' That Representative Rawlini s???3fesured deponent that there was d nothyjg in the rumor and that the comj mi^ea -would not be harshly criticis ed aftd that his committee had not ! ftiB/Jmade up its report: that they i wottli have another meeting and all ffc^members of the old commission ! coulcflbe "heard; further stated that it ' impression that all the mem bt^fefVthe commission had been invttes to attend their meetings; de: porieft informed him that none of the mef^ers of the commission had been invitfc. to any of the meetings so far as dOppJehlfc knew, certainly deponent { W. J. Johnson. J | ^iR^rh'tb before me this, 18th day of W TTnsVell I Notary Public for S. C. EXHIBIT C. ith Carolina?County of ppeared before me A. H. eing duly sworn, says: reporter for The Daily Ispaper published at Coin company of Lewis time reporter for The irier, he applied at the : immittee room ba the ^fcere he heard t]tie legis:i?si?*l to report the evi nbceedings; that d'-p^nent was.told ifey one of the members of the COOtfititte? that the meet in as not ppJjHc. f 11 . k A. H. Seats. ; Swor?to ani subscribed before me, ' this 16t% day <Jf February. 1904. Xotarv Public. it EJ i HIP.IT J\ Lewis b, iod. being *luly sworn. | says: That he went to the ae.ricuUu' ral committee room where the investil j gating- ccnuxnit was in session.- and .! inquired i? thdr <* was any news of the . | investigate Ao be published at that ^ time, and Jbatl he was told by memW \ i bfr of the committee that there xv j none. Lewis G. Wood, Jr.. The State. Sworn tu before me this 16th day February. 1904. E. O. DePass. (L. S.) V'v* DtiUlIy. wV.n1 h mlii iti i>ui arv jt uunc j.tu ?JVU i 4i v n * ?,. Exhibit E. Stale 01' South Carolina. Richland C-ountv. Personally appeared before me I>. J Means, who being duly sworn sa; ; that he was summoned to produce ce tain records of . oimnission l'or tl completion of the S'ate house and testify before tin- ' joint committee i consider the several reports of ti commission nr. he completion of tl ! State house and facts relating ther t<?." which committee was meeting the agricultural committee room the bouse. That he entered the roc and was about to be examined wh another witness was announced present whereupon deponent was i formed that he was excused until t said committee had finished with sa j other witness. That deponent thi i withdrew and waited in another off! j in the State house until after the d part are of said other witness win deponent was again summoned to a ! pear and testify. That during his e amination by said committee while d ponent was endeavoring to put in wh; ; he considered necessary or nroper qua j ifications of "yes" and "no" answe deponent was interrupted by the chai man with the statements "answer tl question," and "you need not go in 1 i that at all." j That just after the examination wi i completed the chairman of the con 1 mitlee requested deponent to say notl 1 ing of what had transpired during h 1 examination by said committee. That during deponent's examinatic i by said committee Senator .J. Q. Ma: j shall was present. I That some time subsequent to dep< j nent's examination by said joint con ; mittee ex-Attorney General G. Dunes | Bellinger, handed to deponent a le | ter written by said G. Duncan Bellii i ger to ex-Gov. M. B. McSweeney, dat j Dec. 22, 1903, of which the followir J is a copy: Columbia, S. C.. Dec. 22, 1903. 1 Hon. M. B. McSweeney, Hampton < i H.. S. C. I Dear Sir: In reply to your commun I cation I write to say that I recolle* i than on May 31, 1902, when you wei i governor and I attorney general < ' South Carolina, 1 received from you I letter of date May 31, 1902, a carbc j copy of which is to be found at pag< 140 and 141 of volume of "Public Lar Letter Book. New Series, No. 1 to 200 of which letter the following is a cop; to wit: "Columbia, S. C., May 31, 1902. "Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorne j General, Columbia, S. C. | "Dear Sir: Ycu are familiar with tl | action of the commission for the con I pletion of the State house at meetir ! May 23, 1902, to-wit: 'Resolved that appears to the commission for the con | pletion of the State house, that tl ; work is satisfactory and that the coi , tract has been substantially perforn ! ed.' The above resolution was upc 1 the question as to whether Mcllvaii I Unkefer company has performed the | contracts for the completion of tl i State house, and subsequently the con | mission ordered the balance due Mel i vain-Unkefer companv on their sai ? - * - 1? ^ '3 AT/>T1rain.TTnVl i contracts lo oe p<wu. ^ ? ! fer company naxv desire that the surel : bond for $50,tf00 given by them I ; the commission for the faithful pe I forma nee of ^heir said contract be 1: j me surrendered to them the said coi ! tractors. No action was by said con mission taken authorizing or directir ! the surrender of said surety bond. J such action necessary or am I autho i ized. upon the action already taken t ; the commission to endorse upon sa : surety bond the resolution of commii i sion as to contractors' oomplian< | with, or performance of contract, ar ' surrender said surety boqd to the sa: |contractors? j "Kindly give me your official opii I ion upon this matter and oblige, "Respectfully, "M. B. McSweenev, i "Governor and Chairman "P. S.?Mr. Unkefer informs n that until surrendered his surety bor is costing him 525.00 per month." Upon receipt of this letter from yc I recollect that i gave you orally it | official opinion, as attorney genera ! that as said action of said commissic I was final and conclusive as to said coi | tractors having performed their coi I tract (to secure the performance < | which said surety bond had been give 1 to you as chairman of said commi: I sion), said contractors were entitled 1 ! the return of the bond; and furth< i action by the commission being ui ! necessary, I advised you to surrendi ; said bond to the contractors with s endorsement thereon signed by yc which I dictated. Very respectfully, i G. Duncan Bellinger. roniMct r\f qnid PY-(rOVe j 1 Iim ai tut. x V4U .kjw V4. ? nor M. B. McSweeney deponent paste the original of the foregoing lette written by ex-Attorney General ( Duncan Bellinger to ex-Governor . 3 B. McSweeney, in the back of the mil ute book of the commission for tt ! completion of the State house, so as 1 j preserve in writing the evidence of tl i reasons and circumstances und< i which said M. B. McSweeney whi j governor surrendered said bond to sa: i contractors, Mcllvain, Unkefer Co. That subsequent to deponent's sa: 'examination the secretary or stem ; grapher of said committee requested d< | ponent to give him access to the ret ; ords of the commission, for the con j pletiori of the State house, for the uu: pose of said secretary's comparing ar I verifying with said original recore ! said secretary's copies of portior i thereof, Jo be used in said joint con mittee report. That at this time di J ponent called the attention of'said cler i or stenographer to said original lett< j from ex-Attorney-General Bellinger i I ex-Governor M. B. McSweeney, paste ! as before stated, in the back of sa: ! minute book, and requested said clei j of said committee to take a copy of sa i letter and show it to the chairma ! of said joint committee, thinking th: | said chairman might desire to use sa j letter, as it contained a statement t : ex-Attorney General Bellinger of in ; portant facts in reference to the su render of the said bonds to the sa contractors to M. B. MoSweeney, u] I on which matter deponent had been e: j amined. That said secretary or stenograph* I of said joint committee did make ar i take with him a copy of said lette (which letter did, not appear in sa 1 joint committee's report to the legi lature D. H. Means. , Sworn to before me this 16th day February. 1904. Lewis W. Haskell, Notary Public for South Carolina. EXHIBIT F. \ State of South Carolina?County * . Richland. Personally appeared before me. .T i B. Garfunite!, who, being I says that he was summoned ^ t ; ness by the committee investigatii > the wcik upon the Si.it*- house, ai that \\ hen he appeared and gave h testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall w; 1 - * ? *Ka fit m u?r iwm. w^/um-nv xv. ther swears that he was present in tl State house when the contract for tl work on the State Itouse was let, a] : knows that it was the general unde standing among the bidders that t! junk removed from the building doing the wc-rk provided in the pla and specifications of Frank P. Milbu would go to the contractors: depone is peculiarly qualified to know tY j fact because he wished to buy th I junk, and talked about it to every o i of the bidders whom he met. Deponent further swears that pri jto the letting of the contract for f : - 1 ;v as* work he had riled with the commission']: 1 an application to buy the said junk, c but was informed that he must apply t to the contractors for the purchase of t i same. That Mr. L'nkefer told the \ of ; deponent ti\o or throe days after the i ; contract was awarded that the com- . t mission had referred to him the app'.i- | p cation deponent had made to buy the it .iunk. ! i. Deponent further swears that he is a! t dealer in, and familiar with the market; c Ei. value of old iron and other junk, and j o ys 1 that he made an estimate of and of- ' jr j fered the highest market price for the s tie 1 old iron it was necessary to remove in 1 s to j placing the dome on the building: that f to j he regarded the said old iron worth- j io j less for any other purpose than juiik 11 le and had he secured same he would U? e-j have immediately shipped it off as i u in j such: that the contractors secured a a of j higher price from other parties for a e an portion of this old iron than deponent j en would have paid for it. : t as Deponent further swears that he ex- f n- amined the ceiling removed from thet he main lobby of the State house, while's id it remained on the State ' house 11 i?n grounds; that said ceiling was galva- j ( ce nized iron, and worthless, even as junk; J e- that the contractors gave it to the de- 1 ? mi i ponent, but he would not haul it oif. f, p- : and in turn gave it to* the asylum for ; f >:- j the insane. ; v e- ! That he did not testify to the facts j it i above when being examined before the ; v 1- | investigating committee because the ; rs j questions were not asked him. : s r- 1 J. B. Garfunkel. ' t ie j 11 to Sworn to before me this 15th day of :g j February, 1904. D. W. McLaurin. ? c is Notary Public. | n 1- | EXHIBIT G. ! o i- j Richmond, Va., Feb. 4, 1904. I ^ is j Robert J. Garitt, Capitol Building: ! In my capitol bid I figured on all old . u ?n j material being my property, r- i W. A. Chesterman. ti ( ! Si i- Savannah, Ga., Feb. 19,1904. j j, i- i Robt. J. Gantt: ! t< in i In making up bid for contract on j t-j capitol there, contractor was to have c i- : all old stone, iron and other material11( :d j on the premises. ; j, ig i J. E. Burgess, 11 i (Of Stewart Contracting Company.) i 0 EXHIBIT H. ; a ! . REQUEST FOR OPINION. ; tl . j Newberry, S. C., Aug. 9, 1901. j a ; Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney ! s> c*i General, Columbia, S. C.: Jd [fj Dear Sir: Pursuant to the permis- \ t! l! sion of the commission charged with tl d j the completion of the State house, I : s | have the honor of asking your opinion : ti >!? I upon a question which has arisen about j o ? 1 the ownership of the old material. ' The facts appear in the p^P1"'*' here- d ' with submitted, and the contracts and ! a the specifications. ! d j The papers submitted consist of a j t] ,y; partial draft of a report of the com- i c mittee and a copy of the letter from j e j the architect. j "j The minutes referred to contains the j ?! statement of Mr. Unkefer, one of the j ? j1! contractors. 'I The committee desires your opinion i ? ie | tfnder the te rms of the contract and j i the circumstances of the case upon the !11 j question where the ownership of the j a ' : old material resits, whether in the con- I p j" ' tractors or the State. i " Awaiting your reply, I am, * Very truly yours, ' ? Geo. S. Mower, Chairman. t {T ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. [a, 2L a. Executive Department, Office of the :vi A ttorney General. -0 i Columbia, S. C? Aug. 26, 1901. |r_ ! Hon. Geo. S. Mower, Chairman, etc., i ,y Newberry, S. C. < 1. 1 Dear Sir: I have before me your let- j j( 1. i ter relating to the question of the own- i j ership of what is known as the "old I i [s , material" in connection with the con- | r_ j tract for the .completion of the State I )y I house. id j I note that you say that the commit- J 3_ i tee desires my "opinion under the ; I j terms of the contract and the circum- \ u [d stances of the case upon the; f< id ^ question where the ownership of the j v ; old material rests, whether in the con- j t! j. tractors or the State." c ' I have the honor to reply as follows: J f< j As I gather them the admitted facts j ii :are: ' o ??j The only pertinent reference in the ie. __ ' THE ANSWER OF ARCHITI iy; d, | _____ >n i Jljln Detail the Man Against sn | Replies to His Accuj ?! Assem l'T REPLY OF FRANK P. MILBURN, t L"n : ARCHITECT. TO REPORT OF IN- g )U VESTIGATING COMMITTEE, RELATING. TO THE WORK ON THE n | STATE HOUSE. h To the Public: J' | I will be glad for you to consider my }! ;a i reply to so much of the report of the v ! investigating committee, recently madei to the legislature, as seems necessary Jj ,l- at this time. j jg. In the first place, the committee, b |,0 j composed of chosen representatives of <> ie I the people, "all honorable gentlemen," d I in their desire to vindicate the author ]< [e of the minority report of one mem- d i(J j ber of the old capitol commission, have v j gone beyond the authority given by the w l concurrent resolution under which they e . 1 acted. By that resolution they were n B~ ! directed to report to the next session r I of the general assembly "such facts and n "" I recommendations in reference thereto f " i as they may deem advisable." And ti j yet these "honorable gentlemen" go s ,g ; out of their way to-inject into their < i report wholly unwarranted and imI proper conclusions, which are neither e "! "facts" nor "recommendations," but c) I libellous and indiscriminate reflections d i numprrms State officers and repre- y ar I v" ? r I sentaaves, as well as the architect and I " j contractor;:. "Miserable fraud," "mon a jd strous swindle" and "malefactors!" 0 ,k Such gratuitous expressions are as c ,, { false as they are uncalled for ty the s Jj I concurrent resolution. tl a*t But, that this committee was more t< id bent on vindicating the one dissenting t )y member of the capitol commission than n i_ carrying out the suggestions of the tl r_ legislature, is evidenced by the fact g id that they <hd not "employ an archi- p p. tect." as was suggested by the authori- k ic- i ty given in the concurrent resolution, p j but paid 5515.00 a day for a "contract- li er , or," who says he has been "su permit | tendent of constructing of the "Jnited v ,r> i States capitol for four years." a id j But further still, this committee was h s- directed to' consider the "several re- c ! ports of the commission for the con- n I pletion of the State house," wi th au- l oflthority to summon witnesses, etc. ! They seem to have considered only the ' j one minority report of Senator J. Q. ! Marshall, made in February, 1903, and a ! examined witnesses only in support of a of! that minority report, without calling c ! a single witness in support of the rene ! port and action of seven honored citi- t 11, tjzftiiz: and officers of the State, who dif- jt for oil vit i <"ol. Marshall. and who are ^ igrarT^Mcie awak u> it><\ interests of the jid i State as he or n^.nbPrs of this in- c lis vestigating committee, and who have r as j always depended more upon witnesses 'c r- i in this State, whose standing and cred- s heiibility are known to them personally, t he than a foreign importation who is ad I recommended by the superintendent of ir- the federal capitol building, and was no he doubt never before heard of ir South in Carolina. r But let us glance at the procedure of j, rn; this investigating committee. When t "tjthey select their expert he is brought ^ l|sto Columbia and shown the general }c ds | plans and specifications upon which ? no contractors were invited to bid for the v j work: but not the plans showing the _ or I modifications nor the detail drawings] r he for actual work. He examines the 1t dans. specifications or written contract 1 >f the use or own?rship of the "old fna- t exia;'* in question is to be found in' t lie spcciftoations, in the following j i cords: "The successful contractor will; s >e permitted to use all old material | I hat is nor,* on the ground, and such i arts of the present roof that conform a u these plans and specifications; but it c : understood that the marble now en if he grounds is not included. This only , v overs thv arranite columns, balusters, : 1' >!d iron, -bracing. granite, tie., in the I' <>of that is suitable, and the proper ti ize that is called for. If in doubt eon- it alt the aivhi'ect on this subject be- 1 ore making a hid." , a 2. Before bidding 011 the work Mo-' 11 Ivain-Unicefer company, as well as1 c iher vompe'if ;ve con t rhetors. called ! t pop the arvhiuet. P. P. Milburn, for t* ? interprt 1. lion of the clause quoted,; e oncoming which they were in doubt. r 3. The arehit-et infornicd the con-; < raefCM's "that the contractors bidding. 1 or the work would get such 'old ma- t eria!.' and would bo permitted to use j c uch old pans as would conform with ; c he new plans and specifications."!v Ste Milburn's letter. July 31. 1901.) 'a 1. Acting upon the interpretation! t iven by the architect, Mcllvain-Unke-i s er company, after making allowances r or what was conceived to be the; c alue of the "old material" to them, j f iut in their bid for the contract, and j fas duly accepted by the commission, i s f>. One Mr. Garfunkel. a junk dealer,; P ubmitted to the commission a proposi- , a ion to buy the copper arid old iron j }' hen in the old roof, and the commis- j u ion. upon accepting Mcllvain-Unkefer j s ompany's bid, ordered that the com- j lunication of Mr. Garfunkel be turned j t ver to the successful bidding con-11 factor, upon the ground that the said f a old material" was at the disposal of | he latter. i n The clause quoted for the specifica- I t ions bears internal evidence of con- 1 s cious ambiguity, and the conflicting j c iterest is susceptible of various in- s srpretations. It is easy to conceive t hat the bidding contractors could j f laim with a show of reason, the title I 1 o the "bid material" in question, and j c lasmuch as the paper containing the 1 1 lause was prepared for and in behalf; t f /...mmiooinn 5TlH tVlO luxe WDlll f! ! n 1 CliC V. Vl]jllilOClVUf UltU V?*W .V. .. y , s I understand it, construe the con- i b ract strictly against the commission | ? nd in favor of the bidder, for one rea- ' n on, among others, that in cases of j s oubt, the construction by the con- j d raetors must be given the benefit of! e he doubt, inasmuch as the commis- j f ion. as thf author of the specitica- u ions, isr.is: suffer, if either party must, j v n account of ambiguity. j c But 1 think that up to a very recent ^ ate it had been the understanding on ; (11 sides that the contractors should be. n he owners of the old material, and ? le facts as found seem to me to pre- j ? lude any other conclusion. j 11 The statement of Milburn, the archi- j 0 ?ot, speaking on behalf of the commis- j ti ion. the known conduct of the con-! raetors, based upon Milburn's inter- j t relation, the acceptance of the bid! c ased upon the supposed ownership by t he contractors of the "old material." j g nd the declination to treat with a pro- j e osed purchaser for the sale of the old ; s laterlal, and the reference of his bid I tl o Mcllvaine-Unkefer company, all j s stop the commission from claiming t he "old material" in question. i ^ Hoping that this will meet with your j 0 pproval. I am. i p Very truly yours, (Signed! G. Duncan Bellinger. j ^ Attorney General. | c i s Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin- ; ^ m of the attorney general was ap-'t roved by a vote taken viva voce, Mr. j v larshall voting against it. : a KXHTBIT I. !p Columbia. S. C\, Feb. 15,1904. This certifies that in the fall of 1901 ' ci bought from J.* B. Garfunkel, for the j f se of the State hospital for the insane, 11 >r the amount of $6.00 a lot of gal- i it anized Iron railing and that he ! 1 rarew in as worthless, a lot of metal : f filing, whiejf he said we might have o or hauling off. The ceiling is now ly- o "ig in a rubbish heap in the back yard [ c f the hospital. ; u J. W. Babcock. if CT FRANK P. MILB0BN.j? ! c I , /hom Charges Were Made \l >ers in the General \ bly. \l if uilding in the light of these original, ;1 eneral plans and specifications. j c And yet no one of the seven gentle- ! t aen of the capltol commission, who f lonestly differed with Col. Marshall, t .-as called, nor was I asked to show t iim the modified and complete speci- 1' ications and detail drawings under Y rhich the work was actually done. ^ It appears that on a Friday in May, <3 903, before this investigating commit- t ee was to take testimony, as remem- i J ered by the chairman, the chairman ! c f thfc committee called at my office, ' f uring my absence from the citv. and j i sft a verbal. message with one of my 11 [raughtsmen about the meeting, at 11 ,'hich the expert from "Washington ! c rould give his testimony, and that I j s 1 1? onv cnm- IS OUid DC picacm, kj* , lunication if I desired. But I never j r eceived the message, and, in fact, i J ever heard of the incident until last ' i 'riday, the 12th inst. In this connec- ,'t ion I beg to submit the following j c tatements: ' To Whom it May Concern: r "This is to certify that I am in the ! ? mployment of Frank P. Milburn, ar- ! fiitect, in the capacity of engineer and t raughtsman, and was during the last t r ear. ' |f "That once when Mr. Milbum and 11 It. Heister were out of the j I ffice, Mr. Milburn being out of the j' ity, a gentleman called, and renre- j * enting himself to be a member of : s he State house investigating commit- {t ?e, stated in effect that said commit- : o ee would shortly (as I understood, the j 1 ext day) have a session, and asked 11 hat I let Mr. Milburn know, and also {2 et word to Mcllvain. Unkefer com- ' r any. I promised to let Mr. Milburn j i now, and also Mcllvain. Unkefer com- \ 1 any if we could: that I thought we 't tad their address in the office. | r "That upon the return of Mr. Heister, j c ,'ho is chief draughtsman and assist- {r nt to Mr. Milburn, I told him of what ; i ad taken place, and supposed he would 1 ommunicate with them, but I never J lentioned the matter to Mr. Milburn ? intil Feb. 12, 1904. jr "(Signed) "Geo. F. Kepler." 1 'To whom it May Concern: "I hereby certify that I am now, j1 .nd was last year chief draughtsman ? ind assistant ro Mr. Frank P. Milburn, v irchitect. "That I have read the foregoing cer- [ ificate of Mr. George F. Kepler, butic lave no recollection of ever hearing of ! t he .conversation therein referred to. _ >efore Feb. 12. 1904. If Mr. Kepler is j orrect in his recollection of stating the ! l natter to ir~ I did not take it in suffi- 'e iently to jy mind, and I am U ure that I never mentioned the ^nat- j r er to Mr. Milburn. ^ "(Signed) "Michael Heister." r this hoarinc. at which is now j t .ppears that severaf witnesses were ex- j \ mined, I learned of it from the news-;a >apers and common rumor: but never ;o mew anything of the purport of the j i estimonv, although I heard that Col. J s Marshall was present, and that the; h essions were behind closed doors. Un- j r il my return to this city last Friday,, a chen I got hold of a copy of the report j v -Ihe committee having never honored s ne with a copy?I never knew authori-j t atively pi the reflections ou the work. After keeping the testimony, am heir proceedings secret, as I believf rom May to December, more than si: nonths, i received a note from th secretary of tin.* committee, date< 3arn\veil. ht. C.. Dee. 7. lt-Oo. but mailei n Columbia, 11 th December, giving mi in opportunity to appear before thi oinmittee, it I desired. Having bean if the proceedings in May, at which vas toid, and believed. Col. Marshal lad been present, I decided, withou laving counsel, that I had best no ppear unless tne commmee uesirco ng iresence, I had been guilty of absolute y no wrong, or conscious neglect o ny duty to the State, but had giver r.y best efforts to assist tlie eapito ommission in the discharge of its du ies and the proper expenditure of th< date's money, hence I had nothing l< xplain away. Kut knowing that I hat nodified and detailed drawings in mj ifFice not on file in the State house offered to place my office records a he disposal of the committee. In thi: onneetion I see that my note to th< ommitt^e has been termed "curt." . -ish to disclaim any such intention nd if it is. I regret it. and plead in exenuation the fact that I began th< truggie for bread early in life, and hac lot the opportunities of collegiate edu ation enjoyed by some members of th< nvest 5gating committee. But in Justice to the capitol commision, which with one exception approved my work, as well as to myseli nd family, I wish to,say something ir egard to the specific findings of th< nvestigating committee, in the ordei tated. First. As to the charge thai he plans and specifications filed witl he secretary of state were not suitable nd complete. I believe this was the first objectior nade by Col. Marshall after my elecion as architect, and was fully conidered and passed upon bv the capito ^ * <oaa m ommission in me year uw, im. jiai' hall alone dissenting. that tim< he commission had before it letter/ rem four of the most prominent com ractors and builders of this sectioi if the country, who, after studying hose plans carefully to base upor hem bids for a very large sum o: noney, secured by a heavy bond, hac id upon this work. Some of thes* entlemen were personally known tc members of the commission, and thei) tatements were to the effect that th< rawings and specifications were plair nough to make an intelligent bid. thai he plans and specifications were full3 nderstood, and were proper for gooc cork. The opinion of such well knowr ontractors and builders as Guue & Valker, J. W. Bishop & Co., W. A ,'hesterman and Nicholas Ittner, com^ rnnly known as "Honest Nick," musi utweigh the opinion of Mr. Marshal ud the Washington "expert" with anj nnpartial judge. Second. That the contract fixed th< Id work on the completed portion 01 he building as the standard. This is not true. There is nothing ir he plans and specifications whicl ould be so construed except, perhaps he word "prototype," on one of th< eneral drawings, and this was intendd to apply only to style, outline, form hape; and was not intended to applj 0 the classification of the workmanhip. Under each of the headings oi he various classes of work the sam< cas fully outlined, giving the numbe: f cuts to the inch for the differen: arts of the work. In this connection, I may say thai : was not intended to make the ston< ornice in one piece, for instance. Th< mall appropriation for the v/hole worl lecessitated great economy, anc he scale detail drawings show that i cas to be built up of several members s it was done, instead of the more ex ensive one-piece cornice. Referring to sheet 6 of the genera irawings where the note before re erred to is found, it will be seen tha he work is to be the same only wher 1 has its prototype in the old building "hat it does not mean that the cornice n-r fnetanw is to he identical with th< Id work, you have only to see sheet ' f those same drawings, where th< ornice is distinctly shown to be buil ip of several pieces. Third. That the State at a great ex >ense, in the neighborhood of $10,000 lad a splendid steel ceiling in the mail obbv, which the contractors tool .iM converted to their own use, where ?y the State lost in the neighborhoo< ?f $10,000. , The plans and specifications require* he contractors to cut a circular open rig into the ceiling for the inner dome Vhen the ceiling was cut, and it wa horoughly examined, it was found t< >e galvanized iron, in a bad conditio) md difficult to work into shape, es >ecially as it contained ceiling light: 10 longer of use. The contractors sai< t would require special workmen an* :onsiderable loss of time to patch i ip. and would not then be as satis actory as a new ceiling, which coul* >e gotten in less time, and enable then o be ready for the meeting of th< egislature, although the new celHnj vould cost them more. After full in estigation of all the facts and con litions, I decided that it was t< he interest of the State to accept thi iroposed change, and I approver! th< eiling they used, which harmonize: lerfectly with the design of the ceil ng under the balcony around the mail obby, which was placed there uude dr. Niernsee's supervision. As botl eilings are in the same lobby and ar een at the same time, harmony is es ential. Neither the cornice nor cov< nouldings in this lobby were interfere< vith, but the new ceiling was used onl; n the field or body of the ceil in* hrough which the dome is cut. Th< ontractors thought they ought to hav< xtra for this new ceiling, but I woul* ollmv if\ and the State got thi lew ceilings without cost. This item shows the fearful mistak< he investigating committee made ii tot examining farther into the rea acts instead of giving so much weigh o that minority report. They woul< lave the public believe that it was j 'steel ceiling," costing in the neighbor iood of $10,000, when the records in th? lecretary of state's office show that al he ceilings and cornices, steel beams md skylights in the rotunda, or mail obby, and the ceiling over the senat obby together, cost only $7,898, on th< d of May, 1889. Any well informet nan will know that the cornice actual y' cost much more than the ceiling The public must in charity put thi )lunder of the committee down itc leglect and ignorance, or convict then >f deliberate misrepresentation ii naking the statement that "on thi tern the State lost in the neighbor iood of $10,000." Let the public guess why Mr. Hun Ldvanced the idea that the contractor emoved this ceiling that they migh loist into position the large steel bo: rirders that support the dome! Th act is, these heavy steel beams ani jirders were raised from the outsid* vail, and not through the main lobby But not content with trying to arous. >ubl:c indignation over the alleged los o the State, they attempt to injur haraotor by charging that "the con motors bodily took and carried awa: nd converted to tb?*ir own use thi. 'aluable and beautiful part of the oh milding." The cold fact is, and the: ither knew it, or could have learned i ?y reasonable, fair and impartial in [uiry, that this old ceiling that wa: emoved from the rotund- lobby wai lever sold or used by thv of v" tors ?ut was given to Mr. Garrunket if h< could remove it from the grounds md he in turn gave it to Dr. Babcocf n the same condition, and this "vah lable and beautiful." this "splendv teel ceiling." now lies in a rubbisl leap in the back yard of the State lu latic asylum, a silent but unimpeach .ble witness of the outrageous libe rhich this investigating committee ha; pread upon the records of the legislr.' ure. Fourth, That by the omission of tw< d j inner column." from the front portico ?, ithe contractors made a profit of $3,400, s I and fh? estimated loss to the State is e ' Vi.uOO. 3 That the public may fully understand i "this matter, I wish to call attention to, , e the fact, that when called to this work e 1 found a partially completed building, I ' much valuable stone ami marble on I hand, and an appropriation wholly and I admittedly insufficient to complete the t building us originally designed. When t I made the plans, it was to utilize all / i the very expensive columns then lying - 1 on the ground, and considered fit for f use. that largely induced rne to prot vide for two inner columns on the front i portico. It turned out with this work, - j as is generally the ease in remodeling Hold, or partially completed buildings, 3 ! that many modifications and changes 1 i became necessary, and were made with f the consent and approval of the comi mission, as a rule Col. Marshall being t j the only onr dissenting. In hoisting s | these massive columns into position, - ; one of them broke by its own weight' I ' when being removed from its position ; on the ground. An examination set- } - tied beyond question that there was a - defect in the stone, which then showed :'c 1 j an old crack about two thirds of the -1 way through. It was generally be2 iieved and conceded that the ^ loss fell ; upon the State. The matter was - | promptly reported. I was of the opin" | ion, arid am still, that it was then best f j to omit the two inner columns, because I 1 there would be more floor space, be* j cause the architectural features would : | be just as good, because with slight ! changes (omitting a wood truss and t j substituting steel trussed perlins) the yJM 1' strength of the structure would not 3 j be impaired in the least; because it | would save much time in completing II the work, and because it would save " j rather than cost the State anything. . v, '..U ' | The contractors offered to furnish a j 1 ' new column for $2,000, necessitating fl " j several months' delay; or, piece the " IJ broken column for $500, causing a de* 3 i lay of one month, or change the plans _ " | and omit the two columns,, causing no "* I j delay, and deduct from the contract ? ! price $600, which it was shown by an p j itemized statement would be saved to [ j the contractors by the change. With | j 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 ' I rohimns sn.viner tn thp Stnto IfiAO ? I 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 r for any such thing. And yet this will" j ing witness, unable to condemn the , ! sufficiency of the "bracing and anchorr I ing," goes out of his way to suggest ! carelessness in "a great portion of the L I construction throughout this building." I ; 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 I 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! vestigating committee passed over so i; , , i many southern architects and con[ j tractions of known ability and integF i Fifth. That the new leaf work on j the capitals is not as fine as the old. , - It being impracticable to get the ">'* sj*S ; ! stone for this new work from the old * { * | quarry, a stone was selected which -! matched it. exactly, and the same acJ j cepted with the bid of the contractors, .? *; the only slight difference, and which II is not appreciable, In the work on the -jfM ' ! capitals, is due to the fact that the " j Pacolet granite is a trifle softer ami . i therefore not suceptible to quite so 1! high a finish. "! Sixth. That lintel stones should exc J tend from columns at the rear of the ^ 1' portico to corresponding front columns, * i where there are sheet iron boxes paint': ed to resemble granite. :' That is just according to the plans ^ and specifications, first-class galvan- s 4^ - i ized iron being used, which was as 1 j good as could be afforded with the appropriation, and answers every pur i pose. L I T.. ?lAnn 1 All i cici ciicc iu me mo?3?s iiuui mnwii 1 j leaks In rainy weather, I beg to say it (; does leak, and I regret it.. In my ef" i fort to give all the light possible to 1 i the offices and passageways below, I selected this style of floor light, which 1 is suitable for the place. Unfortunately f there is but little fall, and yet I gave ' * it all I possibly could to connect with 3 the granite work and the height of the 0 second floor doorway entering the lob1 by. This is no fault of mine; " it is one of the troubles en3 countered in remodeling or adding to * a building. The chief trouble, how* I ever, with the portico floor is that * to accommodate the legislature, it was " laid just before the meeting of that 1 body an,d was walked on and abused* 1 before the concrete and cement xhate rial set sufficiently. The natural con- ' f sequence was that it was damaged* and " still presents a bad apoearance. An " inspection of the rear portico floor, J which was not so used and abused, will ? substantiate this contention. , -1 As to the ceiling of the portico, I do sj not know of any material more suit'! able for such ceilings. It is made from 1 the same class of material that was r i removed by the contractors from the 1 j main lobby, although not the same dee sign. I wonder if the gentlemen of the " investigating committee know that the e portico ceiling' in the main entrance * to the United States capitol at WashV ington was common plastering, and- . s ! that leaks, from the roof caused some e j of it to fall. e ; Seventh. That the roof is a "tar and * i gravel" roof, unsuitable, and leaks e j badly. It is not a tar and gravel roof, but 5 ! is of the'very finest quality of asphalt 11 and crushed quartz, and there is no 1; doubt about its answering the purpose 11 for at least ten years, as the roof con11 tractors gave a guarantee for ten years I i against leaks and material wear and - ; tear. This same class of roofing Is on s i the following buildings in the city of II Washington, D. C.: Atlantic Coast Line office building, 1: Southern Railway office building, Iowa e department house, Raleigh hotel. Bliss a ! department house, United States CenI j sus building, government printing - house, and many others too numerous ' ; to mention. j s It is a matter of profound regret to V > me that the roof leaks. I have done , t everything in my power from the first ' - 1 - - 1- - 11 1... 1 ' to remeuy n. it is a. wen &uvmi ian s that much more expensive roofs than - this have proved unsatisfactory. The government postoffice at Savannah, t which has a tile and copper roof leaked s badly. The United States postoffice at t. Augusta, which also has an expensive x roof, leaked for years, e In this connection I submit the fo?3 lowing: 0 Columbia, S. C.t Jan. 18, 190*. ' Mr. Frank P. Milburn, Architect, Co2 lumbia. S. C.: * s Dear Sir: Referring to our convere sat ion in regard to the State house, j - will say that a short time after the i" Srate hoyse work was finished the M = '"Imrlotte Root and Paving company 1 :j:-.iphrd mo to go there and exam- ^ > ine tjlie roof and make the same satis-, t factory if I could. I went on top of thf: - building and was somewhat surprised s to find that some one had torn ^he s dashing loose at several places bet/.-een / . the main roof and the base of th^ dome 2 for several feet, allowing th^ water . , . flowing off of the dome and Zhe base A c '.o run down into the rotuq^a below. M - The work was well flashed hrcund the I 1 Tome and counter flashing was puf ) into the joints not in the. way it is - usually done, viz.: by puttj/ig the flash ;ng into the joint and Vurning it up, lj but by cutting into the joint and ex 31 tending the tin Dacu into tne joints j and bolting it witl\ rods, nuts and washers, and it was Impossible for it ' 31 to set out unless some one had ton*