University of South Carolina Libraries
V SUPPLEMENT V; "-rrswrsp"" THE BAMBERG HERALD BAMBERG, S. C., FEBRUARY 25, 1904. FORMER STA1 COMMIS: Text of the Aosw< Committee's ' State 11 r Tnr v ircm>c x ALL Iflfi IddULO I A Document of Interest i Carolina?The Ch: Chi To the Honorable Senate and the House of Representatives: On Monday. Feb. 8th, 1904, there was presented to your honorable body a report of the joint committee appointed under concurrent resolutions adopted - at the session of 1898, "to consider the several reports of the commission or the completion of the Scate house and facts relating thereto," of which committee Hon. Robert Aldrich, of Barnwell, was chairman, and Hons. R. I, Manning, of Sumter, J. O. Patterson 01 Barnwell, J. M. Rawlinson of Richland and T. Y. WiHiams of Lancastei were members. This report contained the findings ol said committee and the testimony upon which said findings were based. The sole testimony relating to the work included therein was that oi "Captain" S. S. Hunt, who swore thai he was a resident of Washington, D C., and for four years had held the position of "Superintendent of construction of the United States capitol Washington, D. C." Said Capt. Hunl proceeded in. unqualified language tc condemn each and every portion o] the work on the State capitol whict irnu oeen uune uy mt; uuuumssiuu appointed for the completion of the building. No other or further testimony relating to the work of construction on the building was taken, except that of A. W. " Edens, inspector of plumbing oi \the city oif Columbia, who was questioned in regard to the newly erected water closets. The testimony of these two witnesses was concealed from the public and the undersigned until the said repori was presented to your honorable body Upon this testimony the aforesaid committee concluded, among other things, that "the testimony taken revealed a dark picture," (p. 13), "a monstrous swindle," (p. 13), and that "i1 would regard it remarkable indeed il ? there is not some remedy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring these malefactors to justice and to some extent to redress the wrongs of the State." (p. 13.). A REQUEST FOR A FULL, FREE AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION. Feeling that they had been unjustly reflected on therein, and if these con* elusions had any foundation whatever? if there was even ground to suspect such a condition of affairs?that there cKaiiM Ko *v-io/3o a full hnrntiffh and OUVUiU kJV. tlJ UVIV U. VAAV/A VMQ?k , searching: investigation into this matter. certain members of the commission for the completion of the State hov.se met in the city of Columbia and adopted the following memorial, which was presented to your honorable body along with and accompanying a resolution providing for such an investigation: "Gentlemen of the General Assembly: From an investigation of the report of the joint committee "to consider the N Several reports of the commission or the completion of the State house and facts relating thereto," we, the undersigned members of the commission, authorized and directed "to complete the State house," feel that the report of the committee does uss a manifest injustice, as it, wittingly or unwittingly, unfairly condemns our acts ard the work approved by us without giving us an opportunity, to be heard and even refusing to allow us a hearing. Many of the allegations of error and incompetency are easily explained. Certain conclusions could not and would not have been drawn had available evidence been heard. Above all, we feel that an impression that must necessarily result from the tenor and terras of the report would not exist if it were allowed the opportunity to be heard. "Therefore, believing that the general assembly can have no iutention of condemning us without a hearing, as members of the commission upon whom you imposed an invofluntary public duty, should be allowed to account for that trust and to gi\*e their answer and explanation to any allegation or insinuation, do most respectfully memoralize your honorable body to mane provision iui giwug ur? u. ;irming in order that further and all evidence may be produced thajt may give light upon the question before the committee, and that our evidence and reply to the report of the committee should become a public record of your honorable body of the same permanency and dignity as the report itself. "Respectfully, M. B. McSweeney, O. Duncan Bellinger, ' ~ J. Harvey "Wilson, R. H. Jenning^ ^ Robert J. Gantt, W. J. Johnson." When the said memorial was presented Hon. T. Y. Williams introduced in the house of representatives, and Hon. Robert Aldrich in the senate, the following resolution: "Whereas, certain members of the former commission to compete the State house' have memorialized the general assembly to make provision to give them a. hearing in reply to the report of tine joint committee to consider the several reports of the commission fcr the completion of the State house, and facts relating thereto, "Be It Resolved by the general assembly of the State of South Carolina ^ That any evidence, explanation, or othi [E HOUSE SION'S REPLY. er to the Legislative Report oo the House. / [RE FDILY DISCUSSED to All the People of South arges and Counter trges. er statement in writing that the said I memorialists may have to submit will be received and considered by the 1 general assembly whenever presented." Whereupon your honorable body saw 1 flt to refuse the request for the said i full, free and fair investigation, but instead adopted a resolution permit5 ting the commission for the complet; tion of the building to represent to [ | your honorable body such statement | as they saw St. ' ! WHY CONCEAL THE FACTS? ! When Louis the XVI was led upon ? ! the guillotine and began an adddress in > i his defense, Santeere, a butcher who | had" been given command of the mu! i nicipal guard around the scaffold, orI * J - "? TWA ? aerea me arums iu ue ucaicji. .mc ?! words of the French king were thus ;: silenced. Neither the lives nor the property of ,; the members of this commission are ; i threatened, but that which is as dear ; to us as life and property?our repu'! tat ion and good names?has been as[ sailed, and our respectful request that ' i your body appoint a committee to hear both sides of the matter, and lay all ;; the facts before the people, has been [ 1 denied. You have, however, accord.! ed us the privilege of making a state' ment in writing, which we will now . j proceed to do, and endeavor to make | i this report in as parliamentary language as our justly outraged feelings ( | will permit, and the facts will justify. | j But. gentlemen, what we asked and ; demanded of your body which we j I feel we had a right to demand, was ; that all the evidence in this'matter be j brought to light, that the committee be empowered*to summon witnesses and have them examined under oath i and not to confine the investigation to such evidence as could be secured from voluntary testimony. Many witnesses to important facts refuse to make affidavits, but tKey could be compelled to testify at such hearing. THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN REFLECTED UPON AND THE PERSONAL INTEGRITY OP ITS i MEMBERS ATTACKED BY THE REPORT. This contention is made notwithstanding the disclaimer of the members ; of the committee made upon the floor . of the legislature to the contrary and without any assertion on our part that - such reflection was intentional. That . the impression that such a reflection . was made is abundantly proven by ; reference to every daily paper pub> lished in the State, wherein the ac[ tion of the commission is character. ized as an "infamy," a "scandal," etc. . If the committee was innocent of any . intention to attack the characters of I those constituting the commission it i was most unfortunate in its use of the - English language. The members of . this investigating committee now give . it to be understood that their vicious attack was directed against the architect and the contractors and charitably ; suggest that this commission was dup; ed and bamboozled by these employes, i and that we were to be forgiven for our : weakness, and that the charge against us of being fools must not be sexlously taken as reflecting upon us. If the committee did not mean to reflect upon this commission, why does it refer to us in its report as follows: (These references being taken at random from the report.) "ine contractors. oiose one ui uic columns into two pieces, and rather than put the contractors to the expense of replacing the broken column they were generously excused (by the commission) from putting them in at all, they paying the State $300, leaving them $3,400 profit on that transaction." (Report, p. T.) Surely, the honorable gentlemen of ' the i nvestigating committee would not dare to say that any one filling a fiduciary position could be generous with the State's money, or intentionally excuse any one from performing a duty delegated through an agent of the State to another party. Again: "A fine slate roof, bought by the State at a heavy expense and which afforded perfect protection for years, was taken off and appropriated by the contractors." (Report, p. S.) The inference necessarily drawn from this statement is that this "appropriation" (which, had the committee used the proper word to convey its meaning, would have been "mis-appropriation") was with the knowledge and consent of this commission, whose duty it was to protect the interests and the prop erty of the State. The investigating committee called before them the secretary of the commission and had before them for inspection the minute | book and all the records of this comj mission. That committee knew, or j ought to have known, and we believe j did know, that before the contract was I "I M-o a rrvofirl rh:lt <S11P cessful bidder should become the owner of all the material torn out of, or off of. the State house, and that the taking: possession of the material of this roof was simply exorcising: the right of ownership, both under the general law and under the special contract. Again: "We feel with what we have reported, and the testimony taken, reveals a dark picture, it is true, but nothing short of an actual inspection of the work can convey an adequate idea of that monstrous swindle of which the State is the victim, appropriately portrayed in the closing words of Capt. Hunt's testimony." (This worthy, imported from the District of^ Columbia to teach the officials and ; h citizens of this State the aesthetic asjsi well as architecture, who testifies in i it reference, generally, to this work that! b ; !t is "A parody- upon the science of o j architecture and an Insult to the fame T | of John H. Xiernsee, and a disgrace to o ; the State of South Carolina.") (Report, g ! P. 13.) p Does this committee discredit the in- j t? j telligence of the people of this State : h ! to such an extent, as to believe that j b j they will accept the statement that no ; t j intention is herein expressed to reflect j upon the commission who was a party ; to such an "insult" to a distinguished | c man, and to such a "disgrace" to our; 91 native State? If this model of lin- j ii guistic inaccuracy was honestly in- j y\ tended to .be simply a statement that; c mechanical employes had failed to f f< carry out their contract, why the bom- ; n bastic and grandiloquent language in ! tl .which the report is dressed? When ajfi : committee ascertains and reports that I r 1 an architect has failed to be efficient, j tl ior a contractor lias slighted his work, j p j does it "reveal a dark picture?" ! n Again: In referring to the satisfac-jo tion entered by the governor on the j n i bond given by the contractors, the lucid j c i composer of the report uses the follow- S j ing language: "This surrender and at- o tempted discharge of this bond, the G ! State's only security for the vast losses tl : sustained, was not the act of the com- b mission, as the governor alone, advised, v as it is said, by the attorney general, s ; undertook to perform this act, and it ti | may be that the State may yet be able a ! to realize upon this security. a "Your committee do not consider that v j it comes within the scope of their s .'duties to determine questions of law c , involved in the matters embraced t ! herein, but would regard it remark- t j able indeed if there were not some rem- t i edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring I j these malefactors to justice, and to some extent redress the wrongs of the r I State." (Report, p. 12.) s > The members of this commission s : herein referred to by designation of j office deem it proper to state that their ' self-respect forces them to treat this c Manguage as if it does not express the! t j ideas or opinions of the respective j a members of the investigating commit-! t ! tee; yet we have reason to know that j t i many intelligent people of this State! t { LKSHC: V C timiVAuvvv4u w. , are the then governor and the then at- j ! torney general, inasmuch as the only ! s j inference to be drawn from such lan-: t : guage (if intelligently used by a man | f; j of ordinary education) is that these i S i officers "attempted" and "undertook" | t i to destroy the only remedy that the : t i State had against the employes who j r ! had committed a palpable and noto-1 g rious fraud and swindle upon the com- j t ; monwealth. . t ! Laying aside expressions of indigna- j c : tion and using simply the language of E criticsm, .we feel that the words of the! F , distinguished composer of the report, j c as he addresses the dome of the capitol, v justly describes these two paragraphs 0 in connection with the report: ? "This is the crowning piece of this d . work in more senses than one. Taken ' F all in all it is simply infamous. To i . start with, an uglier and a more un- j * ; sightly creation could not be devised E | even had it been properly constructed a but our observation shows that it is j nothing short of a miserable fraud." 0 : (Report, p. 9.) F W.e feel that we are unjustly reflected 0 ' upon. We knew that we had discharged our duty faithfully and honestly. We iknew that the State had received full E ! value for every penny we had ex- a j pended, and we only asked an oppor- * j tunity to prove these facts. J J The members of the State house com- * : mission have been honored by the peoI pie of South Carolina, and they feel that their good names have been assailed j and that they owe it, not only to them- E ! selves and their families but to their j J i people as well, that the greatest and E j fullest flood of light should be thrown F j upon the whole transaction. i E i HOW THE SO-CALLED INVEST!- _ J . GATION WAS CONDUCTED. 3 That against which we most stren- i uously protest is the manner in which ? the joint committee conducted the in- * I vestigation. It was denied upon the . j floor of the house that a member of our ! .Ammjc.inn Vi o H n clror? f r\T 3 hPArin?. , i LUllllUtOOlUJi 11UU uo?4vu *v* ? ? 0. - . ! The attention of your honorable body { ; ; is, therefore, especially asked to what we consider to be undeniable facts in connection with the report of the joint | committee hereinbefore referred to. It will be noted that said committee s I was empowered to consider the several r ' reports of the commission for the com- ? j pletion of the State house, to appoint , ! a secretary, to employ an architect, t ; and to summon witnesses. \Ye contend ! that the report of the majority of the , : commission, as well as the report of j ' i the minority, should have received the ! ? same consideration, and that witnesses j ; ; should have been impartially sum- j * ; moned to sustain or attack both. The majority report is practically ? | dismissed with a quotation of less than . ; four lines, whereas the dissenting and . ' accusing report of Mr. Marshall, the . minority member, is set out at large in t 111 specifications, and all of the test!- , | mony# taken is directed against the ^ | majority and in favor of the minority j report; and the committee thereupon, . i to use their own language, "feel cori- I ^ strained to report generally that the j ^ j minority report of Senator J. Q. Mar- j F ; shall was fully sustained by the evi- i r | dence taken and by the visible facts ^ ; for all to see for themselves who choose ? J to go over the building and make even ? ; a casual examination of it." z. i It will be remembered that both of ^ i these reports went officially to the leg- j 5 : islature and both of them were re- | ? I ferred to the joint investigating com- j, mittee. We contend that each should ; J; j have received the same consideration - *' as the other. .We submit evidence to! ! show that Mr. Marshall attended the :,. I sittings of the committee during ! taking of the testimony herein, where- 1 i as no member of this commission was j i present at any time. (See testimony j ? i of D. H. Means, exhibit E. and of J. ,B. j Garfunkel, exhibit F.) j It is an admitted fact that no sin- j v j gle member of the commission, with the e, ; exception of Mr. Marshall, was noti- ! p fled that he could be heard before the ' n committee or given notice as to the ! 0 time or place of meeting of said com- j f, j mittee. We tender testimony to show J f, that at least two of the non-attending J f, members of this commission notified !a two of the five members of the commit- i i i tee that the commission desired to be ; heard in their own behalf and that such w ; requests were treated with silent con- ; e ; tempt. (See affidavits of Messrs. John- j u , son and Beliinger. marked respectively ! ti Exhibit B and Exhibit A.) s sj WHY HIDE THE TRUTH? jn Does it cot seem very singular, to! h say the least, that the members con- : v ; stituting this investigating committee j T led the fight upon the lloor of both j the Vionso and the senate to prevent any ! further investigations of this matter, | o } and that on the same night identically ! t< i the same resolution, the purpose of o j which was to deny a full hearing, was a: introduced by said committee in the w ouse and the senate? The true mis-; ion of an investigating committee, as j s name implies, is to investigate and i ring to light every side and bearing) f a question, and not to prosecute, j his is the first time in the annals f South Carolina wfcere an Investiating committee only heard and i-eorted one side of an important mat?r. or which held secret meetings beind closed doors, from which merners of the press were excluded. IVES THE VILEST CRIMINAL IS GIVEN A HEARING. In his message to your body our, hief executive asked you to devise j ome iaw to put an enu to tne jynening | 1 our State. Now, what Gov. Hey- j ard demanded for the vilest clas9 of riminals has been denied some of our I sllow-citizens who have been recogized and honored by their peopletie right of making a defense, and a air, impartial hearing. Before this eport is ended we propose to prove to he satisfaction of every fair-minded erson in South Carolina that our.comlission was tried behind closed doors, nly one witness at the time being* adlitted, and what is a most unheard if proceeding, the reporters of our tate papers excluded. (See affidavit i f A. H. Seats, Exhibit C, and Lewis r. Wood, Jr., Exhibit D.). Not only his, but apparently to keep the memers of our commission in ignorance of rhat was going on In that meeting ome of the witness, were bound not o divulge the questions that had been sked them. (See affidavit of D. H. leans, Exhibit E.). To show further -hat a one-sided affair this was, the on of one of this committee was made lerkt and the only outsider admitted o that room was Senator Marshall, he minority member and the prosecuor. (See affidavits of J. B. Garfunkel, i Exhibit F.) Is the life, liberty, property or good lame of any citizen of South Carolina afe when he can be tried by any such ecret, one-sided tribunal of socalled ustice? The palladium of liberty in every ountry is a free press, but we find in Via rirAii/1 A M Stotc Krmth PnrnHn# : , throttled press when an investigalon was in progress in which every axpayer of the State is personally in* erested. HUNTING FOR HUNT. We are convinced, gentlemen, from ! uch evidence as we are able to secure, hat the sole witness against us was alsely represented to the people of louth Carolina, as an "expert archiect" in charge of the work of the Jnited States government, when his tame does not appear in the list of overnment employees and he is toally unknown to the experts of the; Jnited States government who are harged with the construction of its iuildings; that his name does not ap- j tear in the "blue book" which contains he names of all government employes wherever located; while, the directory f congress which contains the names f the attaches of the national capitol, ioes not show any such officer as "superintendent o? constructing." All we now have to ask of you is that his protest be spread upon your jourpals and be given the fullest publicity, .s you have promised, and we further >eg the press of South Carolina, and f every other State that has given publicity to that report, to reproduce >ur defense. AN APPEAL TO TPIE PEOPLE. Let us say that we have nothing nore to ask of your body. We now .ppeal to the highest tribunal known o a sovereign State?an honorable, ust and fair-minded people, t PERFECT BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN ERECTED SINCE THE DAYS OF SOLOMON. We assert that we have given to he completion of the capitol the same watchful care that we would have done tad this building been our personal >roperty. The members of this comnission are not architects, and the legislature was aware of this fact rhen they appointed us to this duty. Ve do assert, however, that we gave areful thought and study to the deails and science of the work, and left j :o effort unturned" to fully acquaint >urselves with the minutiae of the >roblem presented. We do not suppose hat anyone ever constructed a buildng, however humble it mieht be, but ifter completion he discovered that he night have made desirable changes nd improvements. It is easy to critiise the builder after his work is done, t building erected by human hands is tever perfect, and this, of course, is true f the work on the State house, but we lo assert that the general result was to j he satisfaction of the commission, and i re further believe that fit would sat- I 3fy the taxpayers of the State who re paying for this work were they amiliar with all the facts sur^oundng the task assigned us and apprecited the difficulties whicli we encounered and the problems presented in he construction of this building. Since m-i ah r? Gfafn Timico I1C fUilipiCUUU Ui. Vt.l kjiutv MVUUV I housands have visited Columbia and nspected this work, and expressions as 0 the beauty and magnificence of this (Uildingr have been heard on every ide. The State House commission alleges hat if there are some defects in the outh Carolina capitol, that the responibility rests not upon the commission, ut is due to the fact that $175,000 was otally inadequate to complete the uilding in conformity with the origi- : lal work on this structu re. The State I louse commission endeavored to com- | lete the building so that it would i resent an imposing appearance. It id not attempt to do the work accordng to the methods of. 50 years ago, ut took advantage of improvements 1 methods of construction, and for | his it has no apology to offer. This duty, gentlemen, was not so-! cited, and there is not a member -of j his commission but sacrificed his per- j onal interests and affairs in the dis- : harge of the dut^' imposed upon him. j t was not ours to fix the sum nec^sary to do the work. That was The rovince of the legislature. We did hat we were directed to do, completd the work your predecessors contem- j lated within tire appropriation they i rade. we did not deem it your wish r desire that we should apply to you -?! oHHitinnal nnnrnnriatinn when we Dund the funds provided insufli^STj Dr the employment of foreign aJtlSts ; nd for the purchase of $10,000 ceilings, j 'hat question was not ours, but yours, j The commission does not feel called j pon to defend the architect. In the : xecution of his work they felt called | pon to sustain him only so long as in > >e combined wisdom, of the commision he was right. As to purely techical matters it necessarily relied on is judgment and deferred to his adioe. HE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES ITS DCTY TO THE STATE. If any evidence is brought before ur commission that either the archi;ct or contractor have been guilty f collusion or neglect of duty, or in ny manner slighted their worJt, it ould hot only become our duty, "but our pleasure, to prosecute either or both to the extent of the law. Any facts in the possession of this commission. either matters of official record or matters of personal knowledge in connection with the work on the State house, will be fully and frankly given under oath to anv attorney or attorneys that the legislature, governor or any other properly constituted authority may appoint to prosecute suits in the interest of the State. This commission, under the provisions of the law constituting it, elected an architect and paid him the usual fees to design and superintend the work of completion of the eapitol. The commission, under the provision of the law, let the work to the lowest bidder. If there has been any collusion between the architect and the contractor it is a fact absolutely unknown and unsuspected by the State house commission, and there has not been published or produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that any such collusion existed. CAN WE AFFORD TO PAY FOR MAGNIFICENCE? When the commission was appointed to complete the State house the scope of its duty was clearly marked out in the act creating it. It was required by the law to complete the State house within the appropriation of $175,000. When the fact is considered that the State house as it stood in its incomplete condition had cost the State of South Carolina over $2,000,000, it would have been the height of folly for our commission to attempt with the limited amount given us to carry out the design of the original architect, who designed and contemplated a $5,000,000 building. The act further stipulated that not one dollar of the money appropriated should be expended until a contract for the completion of the building within the amount stipulated was made, and this contract we were directed to make and did make. It hn<s hAAn thA nnrnnse of the commis sion in the expending of the limited sum at our disposal to make all permanent work good and substantial, to conform as near as possible to the original building, and if there has been, as alleged, "cheap and shoddy work" put upon the building, an investigation will reveal that such work can be easily removed at any time, without marring in any way the substantial portions of the building, and that it can be reI placed by as costly material as the | State cares to pay for. Only $1,200 I was spent for the roof. This roof it | was believed, would be satisfactory; j if/it has not proven so it can be easily replaced by as expensive a structure as you wish and in the meantime it will have served the purpose. The commiss.on in this matter, as in many othej*s involving questions of the relative quality of materials and methods of construction, relied to a large j extent upon the judgment of the archi. tect. As business men they felt that the wide and varied experience of the men whom they had entrusted with the power and authority of an architect, which must of necessity be extensive, justified them in deferring to his judgment and advice. This architect w as necessarily governed by the amount appropriated for the work, and, of course, could use only such material as the appropriation would pay for. The limited funds placed at our disposal is the only reason that any part ! of this work is inferior in character ito the beet work on the old portions | of this building. We do not wish, however, to be un| derstood as apologizing for the present I condition of the State house. It is to! day an imposing and stately structure ;and a credit and an honor to South j Carolina, and the new work, as well I as the old, will stand for centuries. 1 While the interior of the new work j has not been embellished with Italian j marble and with delicate carvings by ; imported artists, it was not believed by the commission that the people of ! South Carolina either desired or pur; posed to have them now. When they jare willing and able to pay for these | things they can be placed there. But this criticism can be made of the old portions of the building, as well as the new, and notwithstanding the so-called $10,000 galvanized ceiling liable, in the words of this "architect, Hunt," to "rust out in a few years," which was placed there by the commission, of which Senator Marxian "was a member, fifteen years ago, the main corridor of the building was unsightly and unadorned by the beautiful marble with which John R. Niernsee designed I to cover its walls. i AS TO THE SELECTION OF THE ARCHITECT. In selecting an architect for the work it was the sincere desire of the commission to put aside personal considerations and to secure for the State the services of the best and most experienced man whom we could find. Two plans were presented to the commission, while numerous architects were suggested as thoroughly competent to do the work. Six of the ten members of the commission voted for Frank P. Milburn, " whose plans seemed best 'adapted for the work contemplated. Mr. Milburn had not only enjoyed wide experience in the erection of public buildings throughout the south, but came with the prestige of employment by the Southern railway for the erection of all its stations and buildings. Besides, he had erected the Thompson auditorium at Charleston, the court house at Anderson, and other buildings, which within the personal knowledge of members of the commission had proven satisfactory and he was as well highly recommended to us by all with whom we knew he had had dealings. It may be added that since that time, Mr. Milburn has been selected as the architect of both the Florida arid North Carolina State capitols. Consequently, the commission thought they were justified in the selection they had made. If the report of the joint investigating committee, however, is followed to its logical conclusion, it is evident that it was the opinion of that committee that the commission made a mistake in electing an architect at all, but that we should have sent to Washington for a hanger-on around the national capitol, to instruct us not only how to erect a building, but incidentally to show how TvT""avoid insulting the memory of a distinguished architect and imposing a disgrace upon the State of South Carolina. AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLANS. Whon Sonitnr ATnrQhall made the oh jection that the plans for the work were insufficient, twe referred the matter to the architect with directions to show to our satisfaction if he could that this objection was not well founded. As the best evidence of the fact that this complaint was not well j founded Mr. Milburn submitted to the commission statements from several contractors who had filed bids for the i work, and who necessarily must have j familiarized themselves with every feature and detail of the pians in order to make an intelligent bid upon the I V. , work, in which they declared not only i that the plans were sufficient but that ! If the true hitent and spirit of them 1 j was carried out the State would se- i 1 cure a good job. Not being ourselves ; | competent to pass upon a technical ) poiht of this nature, we knew no highi er or better authority to whom we ' ! could refer the matter. That we had . i secured a most desirable contract un- , ; der sufficient specifications we felt conI vineed and satisfied when the other j bids submitted under them ranged up as high as $212,000, which seemed to be the price necessary to justify that j contractor in engaging to erect' the , ; work according to the accepted re! quirements. The difference in the low- , est bid and the one next to It ofj nearly : $10,000, absolutely precluded aijy idea i of collusion in awarding the contract. . , There is a general impression fostered by this report, if nc? created : thereby, that the act creating the comI mission for the completion of th e State : house directed that said com mission i should require bond from the con tractor. It will, therefore, be la sur| prise to most members of the general 1 assembly and the public to be informed j of the fact which is now state 3, that I no such bond was required a t sug! gested by the legislature when defining j the duties of the commission. There ; being an utter absence of any.mention i of a bond in connection therewith, it j is clear that the bond actually taken ! was one required by the com nlssion i solely upon its own motion and -to orj der the better to aid them In ienforcj Ing the performance of the contract 1 which they entered into with Jildllvain, Unkefer company. We take the poeii tion that this bond was not? fcmy ; IJ me unaer rne coiuroi ut uus-iesioia* i ture, and that it became, according to j its terras, utterly null and vokifds soon ! as this commission, acting through .a i majority of its members, expressed ! itself as satisfied with the performance of the contract which it securest/ The i commission having accepted the work j of the contractor, the bond.gtrtii to i secure the performance of tbec&itract j to the satisfaction of the commission : became ipso facto cancelled and an! nulled, when the commission expressed i itself satisfied with the job; and the ' endorsement upon the bond wairxnerely a ministerial duty done by ~tbe goyernor and which we are convinced he could have been mandamused aio do under the circumstances. W&idre iuj formed by the members who-btion^.to } the legal profession that if sgfti bond ; were now Vin possession of the/officers of the Statfe unmarred by any endorsement, the ] plaintiff in inters#- could j not recover under the facts Without ; alleging and proving fraudulent col' lusion as to acceptance of the ygtyrk beI tween the commission, the obligeed and ! the contractors, the obhgors, lind -the ! members of the investigating committee have given public assnrinj? that i no such collusion is even suspected. ; Furthermore, at a meeting held aubj sequent to the endorsement made by I the governor, the attorney- general re: ported informally to the coiQttlssion : that the governor had sa&flgfcd .the bond upon his legal advice. j THE OLE IRON AND OTHn^fltfHrK. It was fieVer the IntentiOB^bC^tbe ! commission to reserve to the ?tate i the old iron and other junk n&Dved : from the biulding. Not oniy. dMrthey j believe that the contractor allow more for it in his bid.they j could get for it otherwise,-tw ;Q.ueetions would have been contihuffly- arising as to the expense, etc., of fejpoving I this old material, and of gettfigjt-out i of the way. It cost several jyndred i dollars to get the old iron al?Bg;.down J from the roof. Besides, the, tiMfcCOpria tion for the work was limited, %ldthe ! commission desired to put In thi$ btilldi ing in value all that the frpfia At i their disposal permitted. Nt^nqrdid the architect, as the agent qflgBfpbammission, inform the bidders pefponally that the specifications would.bMPe-qfeastrued, (See opinion of the^BHwiiey general, exhibit H), but thege^?%bt?dant evidence that.all who,did d:? bid for the work did so on in nanfiat nn vrnwit til^Wk m. 1 j 5LH.HI5 Hi J/W* WU? ? . ^JJJ M I ^ I terial that was removed. Garfunkel, the man best frigjgfed" to : know this fact, the man ! investigating: committee it&lfi&niin| moned to testify in regard tp^tts old material, swears that he loMmniffif his I own knowledge that the diflBemK'bra: ders for the work filed their blwrupon ; the basis that the old mate^Hnjftll of it, would go to the contractedV <See | affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel, J), i If any further evidence of this fact was i necessary the reply of W. A, Ctoester1 man, one of the bidders, and~ <*>J. E. ' Burgess, another to the same mtftr in response to a telegraphic inquwr, that j ("In my capitol bid I figured old material being my propa^.^aM't?l! egrams, exhibit G.) should de.3p^v:'' No one doubted for an inawM^tbat not only as a matter of right hipWider the strict letter of the law aftd' the contract this old material wenCfto the contractor, until over a vear afteythe : contract was let, when Sed$$jti|?||frshall filed his protest. An jajwSsWfc** " tion resulted, when the fact <fenfl|p0d. that the contractors had actwB^fAl! lowed the State a credit forJttv iqtd ! material in their cstimatt^^HMM^ s Thereupon the attorney genea^Mave i to the commission this opinlflOEBwCh | has been completely ignored bg^a^in; vestigating committee, notwJthmansi^ ing the fact that it was in the/foftssession; that not only of righfcrEjtt of i law, this material, under the Qgpt&ct, J ! was not the State's. (See opiiicf|n atj torney general, exhibit H.) ; Every member of the commlwjWn c?i cept Senator Marshall beiievra had they attempted to claim thfcrfdfiyna| terial under all the circumst^HHtbey j would have been acting n^Kgjf ton- ; ! fairly, but dishonestly, t^lcon- ] tractor. The contractor ^feaily - given the State value forM^ m2priai, ' ; and the specifications ha?been j?caKi: strued and made absoli?eiy pla? be- ' : fore the bids were even ified. TOTi#*?j pie of the State do hot fis^ theh?P&b- , lie servants to do a dishonest deep* our opinion it would lfcve been dto- 1 honest to have attempte y to taKei^Pom < the contractor that for which- b? had | paid. j If demand is made that thfe>8tate ' : shall attempt to disaonestly^'^etake j from the contractor th4 value cf.prop- < erty sold by the StateTfor full COnsid- : ' trillion ? th is and? through other official that of the members whf> cOXBpi>f^tlUS commission. ; ' ffiv _ AS TO THE BROKER Under the terms of thP specif|$p?ipn8 for the work "all of thfk colunjiBr that j are out nnd the five > unflxdj^iBd will I be completed nnd used by selecting the , perfect ones for the r nain front, alid ; using the ones with s mall defects in | the rear." (Report, ?. 45K?f#n the j progress of the work, i n attempting to < i raise one of the finishe d columns from its bed where it had remained for a < mimhpr of vears. the doluihia broke of i its own weight along tike line of a hid- i den crack in the stonel At the meet- : ing ensuing the contractor appeared : before the commission land.stated that i \ I "* ^ it would bo necessary for the State to furnish a column to replace the one broken. The column was a portion of the material to be furnished by the State under the contract and therewas no doubt in the minds of a majority of the commission, after a careful examination of the contract, plans and specifications, that the commission could have been compelled by the contractor to furnish a new column. To quarry and carve a new column would have cost the State at least $2,000; it would have delayed the work of completion of the State house about/" six months. ' The contractor reported that the , n > column could be patched by putting in a section of new stone at a cost of about $500, and a delay in the work of OA iW According to the plans there were to be two columns placed within what is now the open floor space on the front portico. These columns supported none of the weight of the walls of the structure, and were located by the architect within this area because under the approved plans the State had on hand two columns that could be used for purely ornamental purposes. The contractor proposed to the commission that he would deduct the cost of raising these two inner columns into position and the cost of the unfinished . # carving of caps for same if they could be left out, and the work proceed. Upon the report of the architect that > . the strength of the structure of the . completed building would be in no wise impaired, this solution of the problem was deemed the best and most ' .. / expedient, inasmuch as the fynds 10 the hands of the commission were limited, the work would not be delayed and no damage would be done the structure. At a subsequent meet- ^ - v * lng of the legislature the broken colurans were appropriated and given by the State to Greenwood and Spartan-^*burg. The question of utility having been settled to the satisfaction of a majority of the commission it then became one purely of taste and ornament, and upon this issue we considered that the best interests of the State were subserved by carrying to completion the front portico as it now stands. It may be added that in the' final vote as to leaving out these two centre columns that Messrs. Gantt and Johnson . voted with Mr. Marshall in the negative, the other members present constituting a majority, voting in the affirmative. " In addition to the $$00 above mentioned as a part of the consideration fnr roHevlnp the Anntraetm* rrf tha utnrlr of placing the columns the commission reserved for the benefit of the v. State the remnants of the broken columns. % THE CEILING IN THE MAIN LOBBY. One of the most serious Charges brought by the investigating committee related .to the removal of the ceiling in the main lobby and this is a typical illustration of their methods and of the value of their conclusions. "Captain" Hunt in |iis testimony (p. 17) swore that the State had ldet in his opinion 116,009 by the' removal of this ceiling, which was represented' as "steel" ceiling and that ^had cost in the neighborhood of 910,000" (p. 7.) Now, what are the facts ?,\ The official records of the old State house fcommission show the awarding of the contract for this ceiling as follows: "Columbia, S. C., May 2nd, 1889. The , commissionmet this day. Present: Hon. J. Q. Marshall, secretary of State; Hon. J. S. Verner, comptroller general. The bids were presented, being six.in number, for putting in iron (galvanized) ceiling, beams, skylights, etc., in the main corridor on the second floor, together with the ceiling over the senate lobby. * * Mr. John Alexander's bid upon plan No. 1, for 17^898 was accepted." This record was accessible to the investigating committee and could have clearly shown them that this ceiling did not cost "in the neighborhood of 910,000." but that the /ceiling of the senate lobby, wnicn naa not been removed, and the cornice of the main lobby, which was still, there, constituted three-fourths of the work for which less than $8,000 had been paid, and that the ceiling that had been removed cost, 15 years ago, less than $2,000. It is a very plain piece of work with little ornamentation and certainly not beautiful. Architect Wilson In his report stated that it could now be put back for about $1,800. This, ceiling, as the records show, was not only bought as galvanized iron, but an actual inspection of it will show that the celling taken out was nothing but galvanized iron. The committee found that "the contractors bodily took and carried away and converted to their own use this valuable and beautiful part of the old building," (p. 7) when one of the five witnesses whom they themselves put upon the stand certified and could have told them that it was galvanized iron, and when removed "worthless even as junk." (See affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel.' Exhibit F). Dr. Babcock, superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane, certifies that the ceiling is now in his possession as an officer of the State. (See certificate of J. W. Babcock, Exhibit I). The commission put back exactly the same material they took out, simply requiring the contractor to replace worthless and. damaged material with new material of the same kind. The wanton misrepresentation which It was' necessary for this so-called "architect" to make to show that the removal of a dozen squares of galvanized iron which was in bad shape, bent and rusted, and replacing <t with other galvanized iron of a pattern which better suited the round opening of the dome entailed a loss of $15,000 upon the State, certainly entitled him to the compensation of $15 a day, which ^ he was paid and which he was evidently industriously endeavoring to earn. ' H the ceiling removed could be pngierly designated as "steel ceiling" that put in its place could be so designated, as it is the same material. If one is pressed into form by a "stamp" and the other shaped by a soldering Iron, that fact would add nothing to p57 beauty and would make it flimsier afld easier to get ?ut of shape. ^ AS TO WATER "CLOSETS. fVhen we took charge of the com"?? hnnaa unHar ECU1V/1I Vi. bUV. kJ LU WV UVUOV t there were as there had been for my years, two water closets -ef old and defective design placed considerably beneath the level of the surrounding grounds, and absolutely without ventilation. The use of these by the occupants of the first or ground floor necessitated the descent of one flight of stairs, and were removed another long flight of stairs from the legialative halls. Those members of the com- 4m mission who were also State officers .J| fully realized and appreciated the intolerable, irremediable unsanitary eon- M