The Bamberg herald. (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, February 25, 1904, SUPPLEMENT THE BAMBERG HERALD, Image 9
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