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.

t su >BUR > N B A FORMER STAii COMMISS Text of the Answe Committee's R State 1 ALL THE ISSUES AI A Document of Interest to Carolina?The Char onar Tu tlie Honorable Senate end the House of Representatives: On Monday, Feb. 8th, 1901, there was presented to your liouorable body a report of the joint committee uppointed under concurrent resolutions adopted at the session of 1893, "to consider the several reports of the commission on the completion of the State house and facts relating thereto," of which committee lion. Robert Aldrich, of Darnwell, was chairman, and Hons. it. I. Manning, of Sumter. J. O. Patterson of Harnwell, J. M. Kuwllnaon of lttchJand and T. Y. Williams of I.ancaster were members. This report contained the findings of said committee and the testimony upon Which nald findings were based. The sole testimony relating to the work Included therein was that of "Captain" S. S. Hunt, who swore that he was a resident of Washington, I). C., and for four years had held the position of "Superintendent of construction of the United States capitul, Washington. D. C." Said Oapt. Hunt proceeded in unqualified language to condemn each and every portion of the work on the State capitul which had been done by tho commission appointed for the completion of the building. No other or furt'.i-r testimony relat- i lug to the work of construction on the ! building was taken, except that of A. ?'r? ?- Wr~ Pttrns. trfbpVctnr ?nf-~rrtnfnH1ng* of the city of Columbia, who was ques- 1 tinned in regard to the newly erected > water closets. The testimony of these two witnesses was concealed from the public and tlu? l!llf?f?rKlffrbw1 iimHI n?o ?" ? ' ' _ ..0..v vi niv n.nu i fjui v was presented to your honorable body. t'pon this testimony the aforesaid committee concluded. among othet things, that "the testimony taken revealed a dark picture," (p. 13). "a monstrous swindle," (p. 13). and that "it would regard it remarkable Indeed it 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. i:U. A REQUEST FOR A I I I.!,. FRKK AND J M PA ft TIA L 1NVESTIOA-I 'HON. Peeling that they had been unjustly J reflected on therein, and if these con? !ufd'>ns had any foundation whatevet - j if there va.t even ground to suspect such a condition of affairs?that there; should be made a full, thorough and | searching investigation into this mat- j ter. certain members of the commis- j sion for the completion of the State i house met in the city of Columbia and j adopted the following memorial, which 1 was presented to your honorable body I .(long with and accompanying a resolution providing for such an investiga-j lion: "Oenilenti n of the General Assembly: j Prom an investigation of tin report.! of the joint committee "to consider th J ser-ral reports of the commission on 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 j of the committei tines us a manifest , injustice, us it, \\ ittitigiy or unwitting-! ly. unfairly cond- inns our acts audi t he work approved by us without g'A - ' ing us an npport u?it> to lie heard and}' even reftising to allow us a In arit g. ; Many oi the allegations of error and j1 incompetent > art; easily explained. <Vr-! tain conclusions could not and would! not ha\e been drawn luid available I evidence b* imi lit aril. Above all, we! feel that ait impression that must nor- j css.uily result from the t nor nialj trims of t.ho . M>'Vt would not ? \i-l if K were uIIowimI the Opportunity to bo j i hoard. "Therefore, believing that the gen-]' etui as ? mbty can have no intention cf 1 toin|finnii)K us without .1 hearing. as mom hots of tlto <om1ni^ sion upon ! v hoin you imposed an involuntary public duty, should be allowed to account ' for that trust and to give their nn- . K\ver and explanation to any allegation 1 or insinuation, do most respectfully j< momoialize your honorable body to 1 mal.e prov ision f->r giv ing us a lo r- j t ing in order thai further and all o.i-(1 ienco may be pwdu? mI that may give t light upon the question before tlto (oiuinittoo, and that our evidence and t ' ply to the report of t !te committee should beoonie a public record bf your t bonorahlc body of the same penna-1? nency and dignity as the report itself. 1 " Respectfully. i M. H. Mr'Svvceney, I <Human Itellinger, ' .f. Harvey Wilson, 1 It. It. Jennings, 1 ltoh>M t J. Jantt, 1 \V. J. Johnson." When the said memorial was pre- c S'-nted Hon. T. Y. Williams int.rolu< ci ? in the house of tepvosrtntat'vcs, and'c lion. Itobeit Atdiich in tin- aeuMtc, I | the folloutng resolution: j\ "IVhM'.'HR, eertnin memhets of thej.i feimm ' opimissioii to complete the a State lo use' have no mm inii/.< d the [ g 'liei.ii a : ouihl.v to make piovc ioil t | 1 lilVf 1|ir?rn > <! Il l' liC Ill l"?' 1 ?1 to till' ' V icpovl "I Hi- joint i niiimiii 'i- to rnn-Ir si'li'l' Itlir w'm'l'ill I'f'pmls ol tin* i'OIII- n mit>HiMR f?>J tin* compl'-iIon of ill*- Stale -i lnniw mid iH-ts ! );*tine llioroii', u "He tl HmsoIvoiI t?v (In- u-lifi;il .it | .T'.rnblv of Hi- Stiilc of South Carolina o 'J lint anj itlejiiT, explanation, in otli i 9 lTES E HOUSE 1 iam'C nnni v nun J jxeitli , r to the Legislative eport on the House. | * IE FULLY DISCUSSED All the People of South ges and Counter gcs. or statement In writing thut tho said memorialists may huve to submit will be received mid considered by the general assembly whenever presented." Whereupon your honorable body saw fit to refuse the request for the said full, free and fair Investigation, but Instead adopted a resolution permitting the commission for the completion of the building to represent to your honorable body such statement .is they SAW fit. WHY CONCHAb TIIR FACTS? When Louis the XVI was led upon the guillotine and begun un udddress in bis defense, Santeere, a butcher who had been given command of the municipal guard around the scaffold, ordered the drums to be beaten. The words of the French king were thus silenced. Neither tho lives nor the property of the members of this commission are threatened, but that which is as dear to us as life and property?our reputation and good names?lias been assailed. and our respectful request thut your body appoint a committee to hear both sides of the matter, and lay all the facts before the people, has been denied. You have, however, accorded us the privilege of making a statement in writing, which we will now proceed 'to do, and endeavor to make this report in as parliamentary language as our Justly outraged feelings will permit, and the facts will justify. Rut, gentlemen, what we asked and demanded of your body which we feel we 'In J- n right to demand, was that nil the evidence in this matter be brought to lifcht, that the committee lie empowered to summon witnesses and have them examined under oath 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 they could be compelled to testify at such hearing. THIS COMMISSION HAS BEI2N IIKKI.ECTED ITON AND THE PERSONAL. INTEGRITY OF ITS MEMBERS ATTACKED LiV THE REPORT. This contention is made notwithstanding the disclaimer of the members of tin; committee made upon the tloor 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 inference to every daily paper published in the State, wherein the action of the commission is characterized as an "infamy." n "scandal,'" etc. If the committee was inn..cent of any intention to attack the liaracters of those constituting the commission it was most unfortunate in its use of the English language. The members of this investigating committee now it 'o be uudcrstoo i that th'-ir vicious ; Rack was directed against the architect and the contractors and charitably suggest that tills commission was duped and banil'oorh d by these employes, ntid that wo were to be forgiven Cor our weakness, and that the charge against us of being fools must not i>o seriously taken as reflecting upon mis. If the committee did not mean to relied upon this commission, why does it reft r to us in its report as follows: (These references being taken at random from tin* re; ort.) "The contractors brok? one of the columns into t wo pi -c. s. and rather i lian put the contractors to the.xpense if replacing the broken column they were generously excused thy il-i- commission) from puttInn Ihom in at all. they paying the Stab J.Vtrt. leaving them s::. 100 protit on that transaction." (Kcport. p. 7.) Surely, the honorable g'-ntl -men of llv investigating committee would [lot dare to say that ?n> or.-.: tilling a fiduciary position < mild 1> generous I' ith the State's money, or intentionally ?xcuse any one front performing a dut> Jelt gated through an agent of the slate to another party. Again: "A line slat*> roof, hough! 1 ?\ he State at a heavy expense and which t(Tonled perfect protection for years, .x as taken off and appropriated by the ontraetois." tUeport, p. k.) The inference necessarily drawn front liis statement t that this "appropriaion" (which, laid the committee used he proi >*r word to convey its meaning, .could have been "mis-appropriation") \as with the knowledge and consent f this commission, whose dut> It was o protect the interests and the prop trty of the State. The investigating oininitlee called before them the see ctary of the commission aid had be"ove them for inspection the minute ook and all the records of this comaission. That committee knew, or Might to have known, and we believe lid know, that before the contract was iw tided it was agreed that the suc evsi'ul bifid *r should become the owner f all tlte materia! torn out of. or off ?f. the State house, and that the taking > >.<o essioit of the material oi this roof, x as simply exorcising the right of iwnt-r -!iii>. both under the General law nd under tie special contract. Again: "We feel with what v have rporled, ami the testiiuonv taken re als .1 dark plot uro. tt i.-s Iruo. till! I'Mhlni; sliort of ;?n actual insiwcllnn f tho work o;iii roiivcy un ndoi|iiato i*i of that monstrous swindle of. rhl< h iho Si ito is Hi" vii lini, appro-'i iiiiot.N pnitrayed in the rloslns; words f 1'ipt. Hunt's lostimon? " iTIiin'1 . oitliy, unpolled fium the Dir.tiicl of | i BATES Columbia to tench the officials and h citizens of this State the aesthetic its s well as architecture, who testifies in ll reference, generally, to this work that b it is "A purody upon the science of o architecture and nn Insult to the fame 1 of John R. Nleinsee. and a disgrace to o the State of South Carolina.") (Report, g p. 13.) p Does this committee discredit the In- t telligence of the people of this State h to such an extent as to believe that b they will accept the statement that no 1 Intention is herein expressed to reflect upon the commission who was a party to such nn "insult" to a distinguished c man, and to such a "disgruce" to our | s native State? If this model of lin-11: guistic Inaccuracy was honestly ln-^v tended to be simply a statement that c mechanical employes had failed to f carry out their contract, why the bom- r hastic nnd grandiloquent language in t which the report Is dressed? When a f committee ascertains and reports that r an architect has failed to be efficient, t or a contractor has slighted his work, r docs It "reveal a dark picture?" n Again:" Jn referring to the satisfac- o tion entered by the governor on the r bond given by the contractors, the lucid c composer of the report uses the follow- ? Ing language: "This surrender and at- c : tempted discharge of this bond, the < State's only security for the vast losses t sustained, was not the act of the com- t mission, as the governor alone, advised, \ as It is said, by the attorney general, s 1 undertook to perforin this act, and it t may he that the State may yet be able r to realize upon this security. 3 "Your committee do nut consider that t it comes within the scope of their a duties to determine questions of law c . Involved in the matters embraced t herein, but would regard It remark- t I able indeed If there were not some rem- t edy. civil or criminal, or both, to bring 1 these malefactors to justice, and to I some extent redress the wrongs of the i State." (Keport, 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 I c language as if it does not express the , t ideas or opinions of the respective i ? members of the investigating commit- j t tee; yet we have reason to know that i t many intelligent people of this State t believe "the malefactors" referred to are the then governor and the then attorney general, inasmuch as the only 1 s ; inference to be drawn from such lan- : t ; guage (if intelligently used by a man ( ! of ordinary education) is^ that these J office 1*8 "attempted" and ' undertook" ; I to destroy the only remedy that the 1 State had against the employes who i had committed a palpable and noto- t rious fraud and swindle upon the com-, t monwculth. j 1 Laying aside expressions of Indigna- j J tion and using simply the language of 1 crltlcsm, we feel that the words of the ; 1 distinguished composer of the report, t1 as he addresses the dome of the capitol. v justly describes these two paragraphs * In connection with tiie report: 1 "This Is the crowning piece of this 1 work in more senses than one. Taken I all In all it Is simply infamous. To ; start with, an uglier and a I tore un- 1 sightly creation could not be devised 1 even had it been properly constructed)* but our observation shows that it is . ' nothing short of a miserable fraud." ( * Report, i>. 9.) i We feel that we are unjustly reflected 1 upon. We knew that we had discharged .our duty faithfully and honestly. We knew that the State had received full 1 value for every penny we had ex- * ponded, and we only asked an opi>or- ' ; tunity to prove these facts. J The members of the State house com- ' mission have been honored by the poo- ' pic of South Carolina, and they feel that their good names have been ussailod and that they owe it. not only to them- 1 selves and their families but to their J people as well, that the greatest and ' nnon 01 ugni nnouin be mrown * upon the whole transaction. r HOW THK SO-OAL.L.ED INVESTI- , OATION WAS CONDUCTED. , That against which we moat stren- , uously protest is the manner in which the joint committee conducted the in- :, vestigation. It was denied ui?on the floor of the house tlint a member of our commission had asked for a hearing. : The attention of your honorable body . is. therefore, especially asked to what ve consider to be undeniable facts in ' connection with the report, of the joint committee hereinbefore referred to. It will be noted that said committee was emj>owered to consider the several * reports of the Commission for the com- ( plction <ff tlte State house, to appoint _ a secretary, to employ tin architect. 1, itid to summon witnesses. We contend % that the report of the majority of the . commission, a., well as the report of a the minority. should have received the , same consideration, and that witnesses . should have been impartially sumntoned to sustain or attack both. . The majority report is practically', dismissed with a quotation of less than . four lines, whereas the dissenting and i , accusing report of Mr. Marshall, the , . minority member, is set out at largo in t fl specifications. and all of the testi- , tnony taken is directed against the ' majority and in favor of the minority!" report: and tlte committee thereupon.!, to ut- their own language, "feel con- j ^ strained to report generally that the "1 minority report of Senator J. Q. Mar- *, si-.aii was fully sustained by the evi- ' ience taken an! hy the visible factsrS (or .11 to see for themselves who choose to po over the building and make even j t casual examination of it." It u ill !>< remembered that both of ' the>,> r? ports went officially to the leg- ' ijdature and both of tlicm were referted to (lie joint investigating coin-!.; mittce. Wo contend that each should I jj have received the same consideration!: as the other. WaNtubmit evidence to | show that Mr. Marshall attended the sittings of the committee during the taking of the testimony herein, where- ' as no member of this commission was 1 present at any time. (See testimony of P. if. Means, exhibit E. and of J. It. . (Jarfunkol, exhibit K.> It is an admitted fact that no sin- v gle mcnilii'r of the commission, w itli the 0 exception of Mr. Marshall, was noti-I p tied that he could he heard before the n committee or given notice as to the 0 mnt* or jiinro ni meeting of said mm- f< niittee. We tender testimony to show f, ?hi.it at least twi? of the non-attending memlifts of this commission untitled |)( iwo of (ho five members of tho oonunit- 7 too that tho commission desired to l>o ; hoaril in their own behalf and that such u requests nrre treat Oil with silent con- 0 tomtit. (Soo affidavits of Messrs. John- u son and Jteilingor, marked respectively tl Exhibit B and Exhibit A.) sj WHY HlDls THE THUTH? n I toes it not sootn very singular. to h say the least, that the members eon- v -diluting this investigating committee T led the liKht upon the tloor of both the house and the senate to prevent any further Investigations of this matter, 01 and that on the same night identically I* the same resolution, the purpose of o which was to deny ? full hearing, was ai lull educed said cjiniuil t?? iu the j w v' ; .v.' ' PPLEMEI G A BURG, S. C., FEBRUARY 2! ouse and the senate? The true mis- ! ion of an investigating committee. at>' :s name implies, is to imo.atigate and ' irlng to light every side and bearing ' f u question, and not to prosecute. | "his is the first time in the annals f South Carolina where an investiattng committee only heard and reiorted one side of an Important mater, or which held secret meetings beilnd closed doors, frohi which inetniers of the press were excluded. SVEN THE VILEST CRIMINAL IS GIVEN A HEARING. In his message to your body onr hief executive asked! you to devise ome law to put an end to the lynching n our State Now, what Gov. Hey^ard demanded for the vilest class of riminals has been denied some of our ellow-citizens who have beer, recogilzed and honored by" their people? he right of making a. defense, and a air, impartial hearing. Hefore this eport is ended We propose to prove to he satisfaction of evSry fair-minded icrson in South Carolina that our comnission was tried behind closed doors, ' mly one witness at the time being ad- < nitted, and what is a most unheard i >f proceeding, the rqnijters of our <tate pnpers excluded. tSee nfildavit if A. H. Seats, Exhibit C, and Lewis I. Wood, Jr., Exhibit D.). Not only his, but apparently to keep the mem?ers of our commission in ignorance of vhat was going ou in Lhut meeting ome of the witness were bound not o divulge the questions that had been iskcd them. (See affidavit of D. H. (leans, Exhibit EL). To show further vhut a one-sided affnir this was, the ion of one of this committee was made lork, and the only outsider admitted 0 that room was Senator Marshall, he minority member and the prosecuor. (See affidavits of J. B. Garfunkel, Sxhibit F.) Is the life, liberty, property or good tame of any citizen of South Carolina infe when he can he tried by any such tecret, one-aided tribunal of socalled usttce? The palladium of liberty in every ountry is a free press, but we find in he proud old State of South Carolina 1 throttled press when an investtgaion was in progress in which every ui iuv cmic is personalty interested. HUNTING FUR HUNT. We are convinced, gentlemen, from luch evidence us we are able to secure, :hnt the sole witness against us was alsely represented to the people of iouth Carolina, as an "expert architect" in charge of the work of the Jnited States government, when his lame does not appear in the list of government employees and he is toally unknown to the experts of the L'nited States government who are :harged with the construction of its buildings; that his name does not apiear in the "blue book" which contains he names of all government employes vherever lm.?iru; \*idie the directoiy if congress which contains the names >f the attaches of the national capitol, loes not show any such officer as "aulerlntendent of constructing." All we now have to ask of you Is that his protest he spre-vV upon your jourlais and be given the fullest publicity, is you have promised, and we further leg the press of South Carolina, and )f every other State that has given jublicity to that report, to reproduce )ur defense. AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE. Let us say that we have nothing nore to ask of your body. We now ippeal to the highest tribunal known o a sovereign State?nn honorable,' ust nnd fair-minded people. \ PERFECT BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN ERECTED SINCE THE DAYS OF SOLOMON. Wc assert that we have given to he completion of the capitol the same vatchful care that we would have done lad this building been our personal iroporty. The members of this comnission nrc not architects, and the legislature was aware of this fact vhen they appointed us to this duty. iVc do assert, however, that we gave :areful thought and study to the denils and science of the work, and left 10 effort unturned to fully acquaint jurselves with the minutiae of the " roniem presented. IV e do not suppose hat anyone ever constructed a buildup. however humble it mlsrht be. but ifter completion he discovered that he night have made desirable changes md improvements. It is easy to eritiise the builder after his work is done. V. building erected by human hands is icver perfect, and this, of course, is true ?f the work on the State house, but we lo assert that the general result was to he satisfaction of the commission, and co further beiieve that it would satsf.v the taxpayers of the State who ire paying for this work were they amiliar with all the facts surroundng the task assigned us ami appreclited the difficulties which ve encounered and the problems presented In he construction of this building. Since he completion of our State house housarvds have visited Columbia and nspected this v ork, and expressions as o the beauty and magnificence of this milding have been heard on every ido. The State House commission alleges hat if there arc same defects in the South Carolina eapitoi, that the re.xponihillty rests not upon the commission, , >ut is due to the fact that $17.",.000 was otslly inadequate to complete the j luiidiug in conformity with the nrigi- ' lal work on this structure. The State louse commission endeavored to com ileio the building so that it would resent an imposing appearance. it id not attempt to do the work nccordng to the methods of .r>0 years ago, iut took advantage of Improvements ri methods of construction, and for his it has no apology to offer. This duty, gentlemen, was not socited. and there is not a member of his commission but sacrificed his pcional interests and affairs in the dis- , barge of the duty imposed upon him. t was nor niir? in iiv ? ... ? ary to <jo the work. That w.ts the. rovlneo of the legislature. We did hat nc wore dirertod to do, eoinpletd the work your predecessors con tornlnted within the appropriation they lado. We did not deem it your wish r desire that we should apply to you ">r additional appropriation when we jund the funds provided insufficient ir the employment of foreign artists nd for the purchase of $10,000 rollings, "hat question was not ours, out yours, j The commission does not feel railed , pon to defend the architect. in the xecution of his work they felt called pun to sustain him only so long as in io 1 onibtued v isdoin of tlie commis- i ion he was right. As to purely tech-j ioal mat tern it necessarily relied 011. is Judgment and deferred to Ills ad- i ice, 1115 fOM MISSION RKCOO SIZES ITS DVTY VO TI1K STATIC. If any evidence is brought before or commission that either the arclii ?ct or contractor have been guilty f collusion or tickIc- t of duty, or in nv nvmnoi iimi* ? uuKJ nut only become our duty, but j '"l -y our erasure, to prosecute either or I both to the extent of the law. Any ' facts in the possession of this comtnis- I sion, either matters of official record or matters of personal knowledge in connection with the work on the State house, will be fully and franklw given under oath to any attorney or attorneys that the legislature, governor or any other properly constituted authority may appoint to prosecute suits in the interest of the State. This comtnis- | slon, under the provisions of the law constituting it. elected an architect and paid him the usual fees to design and i superintend the work of completion of ! the capitol. The commission, under, the provision of the law, let the work . to the lowest bidder. If there has j been any collusion between the archi- i tect and the contractor it is a fact ab- , sclutely unknown and unsuspected by the State bouse commission, and there lias not been published or produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that any such collusion existed. CAN WE AFFORD TO PAT FOR 1 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 wus required by the law to complete the State house within the appropriation- of $175,000. When the fact Is considered that the State house us 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 comi mission 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 has been the purpose of the commission in the expending of the limited sum at our disposal to make all permanent work good and substantial, to conform as near as possible to the original building, and if there has been, as al: leged, "cheap and shoddv wnrir'i nnt upon the building:, an investigation will reveal that sucb work can be easily removed at any time, without marring in any way the substantial portions of the building, and that it can be replaced by as costly material as the State cares to puy for. Only 91,200 was spent for the roof. This roof it was believed, would be satisfactory; If it has not proven so it can be easily replaced by as expensive a structure us you wish and in the meantime it will j have served the purpose. The commission in this matter, as in many others involving questions of the relative quality of materials and methods of construction, relied to a large extent upon the judgment of the architect. 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 was 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 dis(posal is the only reason that any part , of this work is inferior in character to the best work on the old portions of this building. We do not wish, however, to be un derstood ns apologizing for the present 'condition of the State house. It is today an imposing and stately structure and a credit and an honor to South Carolina, and the new work, as well as the old, will stand for centuries. While the interior of the new work has not been embellished with Italian marble and with delicate curvings by imported artists, it was not believed I by the commission that the people of South Carolina either desired or purposed to have them now. When they are willing and able to pay for these things they can be placed there. But this criticism can be made of the old portions of the building, as well as the new. and notwithstanding the so-called $10,000 galvanized ceiling liable, In the words of thio ?? ....... uit.uii.rvi, XI U 111, IO "rust out In a few years." which was placed there by the commission, of which Senator Marshall was a member, tiftecn years ago. the main corridor of the building was unsightly ' and unadorned by the beautiful marble with which John 11. Xiernsee designed to cover its walls. AS TO THE SELECTION OF THK 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 sej-vic"S of the best and most experienced man w hom 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 I'. 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. Resides, 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 us well highly recommended to us by al! with whom wo knew ho had had dealings. It may be added that since that time, Mr. Milhurn has been selected as the ar?-hite?t of both the Florida and North Carolina Ftate capitols. Consequently, the commission thought they were justitied 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 11s not only how to erect a building, but Incidentally to show how to avoid insulting the memory of a distinguished architect and imposing a disgrace upon the State of South > Carolina. AS TO THK SUFFICIENCY OF THE PI.ANS. When Senator Marshall made the objection that the plans for the work were insufficient, we 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 Ircst evidence of the fact that this complaint was not well founded Mr. Mijburn submitted to the commission statements from several contractors who had tiled bids for the work, and who necessarily must have familiarised themselves with every fea- ' ture and detail of the plans in order to make an inlellikcnl bid upuu the _ I- ^k-' ' n ~ i J ~T work^^ln which they declared not only] ft iu?>- i?r tiiuii* were lumcwm DUt tUlt (u If the true intent and spirit of them tn carried out the State would secute a good job. Not being ourselves gj competent to pass upon a technical w point of this nature, we knew no high- <0 er or better authority to whom we *7 could refer the matter. That we had ^ secured a most desirable contract untier sufficient specifications we felt con- #, vinced and satisfied when the other bids submitted under them ranged up as high as $212,000, which seemed to -> be the price necessary to justify that contractor in engaging to erect the work according to the accepted requirements. The difference in the lowest bid and the one next to it of nearly _ $10,000, absolutely precluded any idea of collusion in awarding the contract. ? There is a general impression foetered by this report, if not created . thereby, that the act creating the com- " mission for the completion of the State ? house directed that said commission J should require bond from the con- ? tractor. It will, therefore, be a sur- * prise to most members of the general assembly and the public to be informed of the fact which is now stated, that 1 no such bond was required or sug- ? gested by the legislature when defining 51 the duties of the commission. There J1 being an utter absence of any mention of a bond in connection therewith, it 11 is clear that the bond actually taken 9; was one required by the commission ? solely upon its own motion and in or- * der the better to aid them in enforc- * ing the performance of the contract c which they entered into with Mcllvain- v Unkefer company. We take the posl- P tion that this bond was not at any e time under the control of the legisla- 1 ture, and thut it Jftgcajne. according to its terms, utterly Mil and void us soon as this commission, acting through a ' majority of its members, expressed Itself as satisfied with the performance u of the contract which it secured. The * commission having accepted the work j b of the contractor, the bond given to! secure the performance of the contract s : to the satisfaction of the commission j ; became ipso facto cancelled and an- c nulled, when the commission expressed a itself satisfied with the job; and the t endorsement upon the bond was merely ? a ministerial duty done by the gov- t j ernor and which we are convinced he 1 ; could have been mandamused to do a i under the circumstances. We are In- * i formed by the members who belong to ^ . the legal profession that if said bond t ! were now in possession of the officers * of the State unmarred by any endorse- i a roent. the plaintiff in interest could i not recover under the facts without j t I alleging and proving fraudulent col- j f lusion aB to acceptance of the work be- c tween the commission, the obligees and s thp nnntrontniH: tWn ^ .... V?*V WU140WIO, OiiU IIIC C members of the investigating commit- u tee have given public assurance that no such collusion is even suspected. , Furthermore, at a meeting held subi sequent to the endorsement made by t I the governor, the attorney general re- t ported Informally to the commission i that the governor had satisfied the | bond upon his legal advice. a i THIS OLD"IRON AND OTHER JUNK. It was never the intention of the ( commission to reserve to the State, t the old iron and other junk removed j c I from the biulding. Not only did they 0 believe that the contractor would al- j low more for It in his bid than they could get for it otherwise, but questions would have been continually arising as to the expense, etc.. of removing, this old material, and of getting it out, of the way. It copt several hundred | dollars to get the old Iron alone down from the roof. Besides, the appropriation for the work was limited, and the commission desired to nut in the building in value all that the funds at their disposal permitted. Not only did * the architect, as the agent of the com- J mission, inform the bidders personally : that the specifications would be so con- ! strued. (See opinion of the attorney j general, exhibit ID. but there is abundant evidence that all who filed a bid for the work did so on the b*?sis of I getting in partial payment the old ma- i terial that was removed. Mr. J. B. Garfunkel, the man best qualified to ! know this fact, the man whom the 1 investigating committee itself summoned tb testify In regard to this old material, swears that ne knows of his own knowledge that the different bidders for the work filed their bids upon the basis that the old material, all of It. would go to the contractor. (See affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel. exhibit J). If any further evidence of this fact was ma cooai y IUC Vtzyiy Ul M I. flCSIPr- ' man. one of the bidders, and of J. E. Burgess, another to the same effect, in response to a telegraphic inquiry that ("In my capitol bid I figured on all old , material being my property." See telegrams, exhibit G.) should do so. No one doubted for an instant that I not only as a matter of right but under the strict letter of the law and the I contract this old material went to the contractor, until over a year after the | contract was let, when Bona tor Marshall filed his protest. An investiga- ; tion resulted, when the fact developed that the contraetors had actually allowed the State a credit for this old material in their estimate sheets. Thereupon the attorney general gave to the commission this opinion, which | has been completely ignored by the investigating committee, notwithstanding the fact that it was in their pos- ! session; that not only of right, but of law. this material, under the contract, was not the State's. (See opinion attorney genera!, exhibit H.) Every member of the eommisslon except Senator Marshall believed had they attempted to claim this old ma- . terial under all the circumstances, they would have been acting not only unfairly, but dishonestly, with the contractor. The contractor bad actually given the State value for this material. arid the specifications had been so con- . v ; strued and made absolutely plain be- j c fore the bids were ever filed. The peo- v pie of the State do not ask their pub- 1 lie sorwants to do a dishonest deed. In & otu- opinion it would have been dis- d honest to have attempted to take from e the contractor that for which he had paid. If demand is made that the State j t shall attempt to dishonestly retake1 n from the contractor the value of prop- o erty sold by the State for full eonsid- a eration, this end must he obtained ii through other official agencies than it that of the members who compose this a commission. AS TO THE BROKEN COLUMNS.Under the terms of the specifications I p for the work "all of the columns that a are out and the five unfinished will j rr be completed and used by selecting the a: perfect ones for the main front, and al using me ones witn small defects In ir the rear." (Report. p. 4.r.). In the v< progress of the work, in attempting to. o< raise one of the finished columns from n< its lied where it had remained for a J ot number of years, the eohnnn broke of < 1? Its own weight along the line of a hid- tt den crock In the stone. At tlie meet- m ing ensuing th? contruetor appeared f? before the commission and slated that v ifv "2$PiS': , i' tt&?. f %&??% - ;';mMHEM L j*y- . *f ? v,^.3| i uvii H coiunn w okeii. The column wu a PoIwMKwSa ' te material to )w - '^T^SSPtoI AU under tha.; emitjfhct as no doubt U? the minds sf A my ot the comm teflon, after a oar*- -' -, 38? tl examination at the romtnafc' id apaciAcatlont, that the' oomiiilmliili uiid have been compelled bp the cah^.'yyqjS^S^SisB -actor to furnteb'a new frdfawie .^xL' To quarry and carve a new uuhifrsa ould have coat the State at i.ooo; Jt would have delayed the wortc. ' completion at the*ta?EESib0|Sjf?^m5^^O x months. The contractor reported that *ho"-r " >y';,;Sfev ffifreK >lumn could be patched by putting in , V :-SitwS5 section of new stone at a<co*t of V- ,,'ffSS bout 1600, and & delay in the rmrtf 1 daya ' - ' ^$@0 According to the plana there were 4# ' '* .* ; -? jJ&k b two columns placed Within what h -.. -:" ^SB-^Rai ow the open floor space od th<6n? ortloo. These columns supported Bttae iSI, --- && f the welsh t of the walls of the strsc- -'^siSS ure. and were located by the architect %. ' ' ?> ritbln this area because under the pproved plans the State had on hand i?o columns that could he uued for -VrriMMr urely ornamental purposes. The cooactor proposed to the ootomlsedon JjHs aat he would deduct the nost of this* '%|1j .-,??? uc these two Inner columns Into post* on and the cost of the unfinished "V arvin* of caps for same If they could e left out. and the work proceed. ' *J ? pen the report of the architect thatfev ' be strenc-th of ftie_ of ti>? ?*eii?E?M ^ ompleted building would be in no .)He impaired, this solution of the roblem was deemed the best and most xpedient, inasmuch as the'funds lisR^BSSHH| > he hands of the commission were ' .,'^<^88 imlted, the work would not be denyed and no damage would be done 1 he structure. At a subsequent meet ng of the legislature the broken cotimns were appropriated and given by he State to Greenwood and Spartan The question of utility having been ettled to the satisfaction of a maority of the commission it then bea me one purely of taste and ornament, nd upon this issue we considered that he best interests of the State Were ul>served by carrying to completion he front portico as it now stands, t may l>e added that in the final vote s to leaving out these two centre coiimns that Messrs. Gantt and Johoson jJ.Lg oted with Mr. Marshall in tbe negaive, the other ipembers present conitituting a majority, voting la the iflirmative. In addition to tbe |600 above menioned as a part of the consideration or relieving the contractor of the work d placing tbe columns the conunta- - Bpw Ion reserved for the benefit of the Hate the remnants of the broken coining. THE CEILING IN THE MAIN One of the most serious charges Jf.'' trought by the investigating commitee related to the removal of the ceilng in the main lobby and this Is a vWj ypical illustration of their methods md of the value of their conclusions. "Captain" Hunt !n hip testimony B p. 17) 8wore that tne State had lost n ltis opinion $lb,000 by tbe removal f this ceiling, which was represented v;S8K|S) a "steel" ceiling and that "had cost " n the neighborhood of $10,000." (p. 7.1 Now, what are the forts?, The offl i:i > records of the old State house . ommlssion show the awarding of the on tract for this ceiling as follows: Columbia, S. C., May 2nd. 1889. The S& ommisslon met this day. Present: Ion. J. Q. Marshall. secretary of 5tate; Hon. J. S. Verner, comptroller reneral. The bids were presented, benjf six in number, for putting in Iron galvanized) ceiling, beams, skylights. tc., in the main corridor on the second loor, together with the ceiling over he senate lobby. Mr. John Uexander's bid upon plan Xo. 1, for 17.898 was accepted." This record was accessible to the In'estigating committee and could have iearly shown them that this ceiling lid not cost "in the neighborhood of >10,000," but that the ceiling of the enate lobby, which had not been re- . noved, and the cornice of the main obby, which was still there, const 1uted three-fourths of the work for vhich less than 88,000 had been paid, md that the ceiling that had been removed cost, 15 years ago," less than 2.000. It is a very plain piece of work Jgj vith little ornamentation and cerlainly not beautiful. Architect Wilson In his report stated that it could now >< put back for about 81.800. This ceiling, as the records show, was ?ot only bought as galvanised iron, but in actual inspection of it will show . hat the ceiling taken out was nothing mt galvanized iron. The committee 'ound that "the contractors bodljy took ind carried away and converted to heir own use this valuable and boautiul part of the old building," (p. 7) ivhcn one of the live witnesses whom hey themselves put upon the stand sertitled and eould have told them that t was galvanimed iron, and when renoved "worthless even as Junk." (See l(IIdavit of J. It. GarfunkrI, Exhibit ">. Dr. Babcock. superintendent of he Hospital for the Insane, certifies hat the celling is now in his posseslion as an officer of the Stale. <Sc crtificate of J. W. Babcock, Exhibit The commission put back exactly the m.f_o^i..i *u -- * *" - u>cy iodk oui, simply equiring the contractor to replace worthless and damaged material with lew material of the same kind. The wanton misrepresentation which t was necessary for this so-called architect" to make to show that the emoval of a dozen squares of galanized iron which was in bad shape, lent and rusted, and replacing It with it her galvanized Iron of a pattern k'hich lietter suited the round opening >f the dome entailed a loss of flSOftO ipon the State, certainly entitled him o the compensation of $1". a day. which le was paid and which he was evllently industriously endeavoring to urn. If the celling removed could be iroperly designated as "steel celling" hat put in its place could be so designed. as it is the same material. If no is pressed Into form by a "stamp" nd the other shaped by a soldering on. that, fact would add nothing to s beauty and would make it llitusler nd easier to get out of shape. AS TO WATER CLOHKTS. When we took charge of the com- ML letion of the Ptate house under this it there were as there had been for inny years, two water closets of old nd defective design placed considert?iy beneath the level of the surround*- ;.0. is grounds, and absolutely without fgjgfdi.J -ntilation. The use of these hy the peupanta Of the 1irst or ground tloor resaitated the dement of one flight 1 stairs, and were removed another nor iif if? ? "" *?' " ii viii Ifir ir?imave hall*. TIioho members of Hit? <omIssion who wore a left Stntn ..Wcmii . % $ illy realised and ftpprecfetM tt(? tn- ;*yiMrSi lerabie, Irremediable uiiKunllarj etn