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.

- . SUPPL ?ME NT' . THE MARLBORO DEMOCRAT BENNETTSVILLE, S. C., FEBRUARY 26, 1904. FORMER STATE HOUSE COMMISSION'S REPLY. Text o? the Answer to the Legislative Committee's Report on the " State House. ' _ ALL THE ISSUES ARE FULLY DISCUSSED A Document of Interest to All the People of South Carolina-The Charges and Counter Charges. Tn the Honorable Senate an? thc House . bf Representatives: On Monday. Feb. 8th, 1901, lhere was presented to your honorable body a re- j port of tho Joint committee appointed under concurrent resolutions adopted at ttio session ol 1S'J3, "to consider tho several reports of thc commission on the completion of tho State house and facts relating thereto," of which com mittee Hon. Robert Aldrich, of Barn? well, was chairman, and Hons. R. I. Manning, of Sumter, J. O. Patterson of Barnwell, J. M. Rawlinson of Rich land dud T. V. '\viiiiarns of Lancaster wore members. -.-? SltrS'report contained tho findings of said committee and tho testimony up on which said findings wer.; based. Tho sob? testimony relating to tho work Included therein was that bf "Captain" S. S. Hunt, who swore that ho was a resident of Washington, D. C., and for four years had held tho position of "Superintendent of con struction of tho United States capitol. Washington. D. C." Said Capt. Hunt proceeded in unqualified language to condemn each and every portion of the work on tho State capitol which had been done by tho commission ap pointed for tho completion ol' tho build ing. No other or further testimony relat ing to tho work of construction on tho tmiidlng was taken, except that of A. W. Edens, inspector of plumbing of the city of Columbia, who was ques tioned in regard to tho newly erected water closets. Tho testimony of these two witness es was concealed from the public and the undersigned until tin- said report was presented io your honorable body. Upon this testimony the aforesaid committee concluded, among other things, that "tho testimony tnken re vealed a dark ph ture," ip. i;'.>, "a tuon, strous swindle." ip. 13), and that, "il Would regard it remarkable indeed li there is not some remedy, civil or crim inal, or both, to bring tbeso malefactors to justice and to some extent to re dress the wrongs of the State." tp 13). A REQUEST FOR A FULL. FREI AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGA TION. Fooling that they had boon unjnstl: reflected on therein, and if those con elusions had any foundation whatever if there was even ground to suspi <? such a condition of affairs-that thor should be ruado a full, thorough am searching investigation into this mat ter. certain members of tho commis sion for tho completion ot' tho stat house mot in tho city of Columbia air adopted tho following memorial, wldcl was presented to your honorable bod along with and accompanying a r?solu lion providing for such an investiga lion: "Clontlemon of tho General Assembly From an Investigation of the ropor of the joint committee "to consider th Kevoral reports of the commission o (tho completion of tho State house air ?facts relating thereto,-' we, the under signed members of tin- commissloi authorized and directed "lo complet J tho State house." feel lhat the Il pili of tho committee does ns a mn n if es injustice, ns it, wittingly or unwilling ly, unfairly condemns our acts an tho work approved by us without glv lng us an opportunity to bo hoard an oven refusing to allow us a bea rim Many of tho allegations of error an Incompetency aro easily explained. Coi tain conclusions could not and woul md have boen drawn had avallab! ?vldch?e boon hoard. Above all, \v fool that an impression that must not essarily result from tin- tenor an terms of ibo report would not exist it wore allowed the opportunity io I heard. "Therefore, believing thal ibo poi oral assembly can have no intention < condemning us without a hearing, ? members of tho commission upi M hom you Imposed an involuntary pul be duty, should bo allowed to m ooni for thal trust ami to give their ai swer .'md explanation to any nllogntii or insinuation, do most respectful! meniorallzo your honorable body i make provision for giving us a hom lng in order that further ami all ev dence may bo produced that may ?i\ light tipoh tho question before tl committee, ami that our evidence ai reply to tho report of the commit ti should hornnv ;i public record of yoi honorable body of tho same p?rmi neiley and dignity ns tho report Itsel "Respectfully, M lt. .Mcsweeney. O. Ininean Bellinger, .1. Harvey Wilson, lt. II. Jennings, I lobe ri .1. i ?unit. IV. d. Johnson." When the said memorial was pr. sen ted Hon. T. Y. Williams introduci in tho house of representatives, ai lion. Hobcrl Aldrich in thc sena! tin- following resolution: ''Whereas, certain members of il former 'commission to complete tl state house' have memorialized ti general assembly to make provision give thom a hearing in reply to tl report hf thc Joint commit too lo ctn Hider tho several reports of tho cor mission for the completion of the sta house, ami facts relating thereto. "Bo lt Resolved by the general a tu'inbly of the Stale of South Cn roi h That any evidence, explanation, or oil 1 I ft? Ni?t?inciit in writing (Hat the sahl memorialists may have to submit will bo received and considered by tho j general assembly whenever presented." ; " Whereupon your honorable body saw lit to refuse the request for tho said full, free and fair investigation, but ! Instead adopted a resolution permit- ; ting tho commission fur the comple tion of the building lo represent to; your honorable body such statement ]. as tliey saw lit. WH1' CONCEAL THE FACTS? When Louis the XVI was led upon thc guillotine and begun ah adddress in his d?fense, Santeerc, a butcher who had been given command of the mu nicipal ?uard around the scaffold, or dered tile drums to be beaten. The words of the French king were thus silenced. Neither the lives nor tho property of the members of this commission aro threatened, but that which is as dear to us as lifo and property-our repu tation and good names-has been as sailed, and our respectful request that your body appoint a committee to hear both sides of the matter, anil lay all the facts before tho people, has been denied. You have, however, accord ed us the privilege of making a state ment in writing, which we will now proceed to do, and endeavor to make this report in as parliamentary lan guage as our justly outraged feelings will permit*, and the facts will justify. But, gentlemen, what we asked and demanded of your body which we feel wo bad a right to demand, was that all tho evidence ii. 'his matter be i brought to light, that the committee !". empowered to summon witnesses and have thom examined under oath md not to conflue tho Investigation to such evidence as could be secured from voluntary testimony. Many witnesses to important facts refuse to make allidavits, but they could bo compelled to testify at such hearing. THIS f Ti.M MISSION HAP BEEN REFLECTED UPON ANO THE PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF ITS MEMBERS ATTACKED UV THE REPORT. This contention is made notwith standing the disclaimer ol' tho member? <if the committee made upon the lloor ot' tho 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 tho State, wherein the ac tion of tho commission is character ised as an '.infamy." a "scandal," etc. If the committee Mas innocent ol' any intention to attack the characters ot thoso constituting ib.- commission ii was most unfortunate in it.-- usc of tin Kuglish language. Thc members ot this investigating committee now give it io lie understood that their vicious attack was directed against tlio archi tect and the contractors and charitably suggest that tins commission was dup ed and bamboozled hy these employes und thal we were to be forgiven for om weakness, and that the charge against us of being fools must not !>.. serious ly taken as reflecting upon ns. If the committee dil not mean to re flect upon this commission, why does it refer to us in its report :.s follows: (These references being taken ai ran dom from the report.) "Tlie contractors broke one of tin columns Into two pieces, and ruthci iban put tho contractors to thc expense oi" replacing the broker column thej were generously excused (by tho com mission) from pulling them in at all they paying tin? State ?5Q0, loavin? them $3,400 profit on thal transaction.' (Report, p. ..> Surely, the honorable ecu:lemon ot the Investigating committee ivOnlc not dare to shy thal any ono niling : fiduciary position could l.e gonoroui with the State's money, or intent i.>?:.-1 llj excuse any <>ii" from performing ;i dutj delegated through an ngent of Un State io another parly. Again: "A tine slate roof, hough! bj the Slate at a heav y expense and whioi afforded perfect protection for years was taken oft and appropriated by tin contractors." (Report, p. s.> 'I'be inference necessarily drawn fron ibis statement is that this "appropria lion" (which, had ibo committee usn i he proper word to convey its moaning would have been "inls-npproprintlon" was with th" knowledge and consen of Ibis commission, whose duty it wa: io protect thc Interests and the prop eily of the Slate. Tho in vest Iga t i III committee called before them the sec rotary of tho coi.imisslon and had be foro them for Inspection the hiinuf boole and ?ill the records of this com mission. That committee knew, o might to have known, and wo bel lev lid know, that before the contract wa II warded it was agreed Hint tho sue .essflll bidder should become lb.? OWtlfi nf all the material torn out of, or of if, the State house, and that the (akin; lossesslon of the material of this roo .vas simply exercising the righi o ?wnership, both under ibo g..lierai lav ind under the special contract. Again: "We feel with what wo ha vi ?eporled, ned tho testimony taken, re .?cals a dark picture, it is true, bu milling short ol' an actual Inspcctini >f tho work cali convey an adcqiiati dca of that monstrous swindle o Vilich the State is the victim, appro ?riotely portrayed in the closing word: if Capt. Hunt's testimony." (Tbl: vorthy, imported from the District o Columbia to teach the ofllcials ami citizens of this State (he aesthetic as well as architecture, who testilles in reference, generally, to this work that lt ls "A parody upon the science uf architecture and an insult to the fame bf John lt. Niernsee, and a disgrace to Hie State of South Carolina.") (Report, p. 13.) Does this committee discredit the In telligence of the people or this State to such au extent as to believe that they will accept the statement that no Intention is herein expressed lo relied upon the commission who was a party to such an "insult" to a distinguished man, and to such a "disgrace" to tan native State? If this model of lin guistic inaccuracy was honestly in tended to he simply a statement that mechanical employes had failed to I carry out their contract, why the hom bastle and grandiloquent language in ? which the report is dressed? When n committee ascertains and reports that an architect has failed to be eflleieht, or a contractor has slighted his work, does lt "reveal a dark picture?" Again: In referring to Hie satisfac tion entered hy thc governor on the bond given by the contractors, the lucid composer of the report uses the follow ing language: "This surrender anti at tempted discharge of this bond, the Slate's only security for the vast losses sustained, was not the act ?d' the com mission, as tht> governor alone, ativised, as it is said, by the attorney general, undertook to perform this aid, and it may he that the State may yet be able to realize upon this security. "Your committee do not consider that it comos within the scope of their dUt'CS to delvi mine questions ot law involved in the matters embraced herein, but would regard it remark able indeed if lhere were not some rem edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring those malefactors to justice, and to some extent redress the wrongs of tho State." (Report, p. 12.) The members of this commission herein referred to by designation of office deem it proper to state that their self-respect forces them to treat this language as if lt does not expie.:;.- tie ideas or opinions of the respective members of the Investigating commit tee: yet we have reason to know that many Intelligent people of this State believe "the malefactors" referred to aro the then governor anti the then at torney general. Inasmuch us the only inference to be drawn from such lan guage (if intelligently used by a man of ordinary education) is that these officers .'attempted" and "undertook" to destroy the only remedy that the State had against the employes who had committed a palpable and noto rious fraud and swindle upon tlc com monwealth. Laying aside expressions of indigna tion and using simply th.- language of critlesm, we feel that tia- words of tin; distinguished composer of the report, as he addresses the ?lome of th.- capitol, Justly describes these two paragraphs in connection with the report: "This is the crowning piece of this work in mord senses than om . Taken all in all il ls simply iota mons'. To start with, an uglier and a more un sightly creation could not be devised even had it been properly constructed but our observation shows that it is nothing short of a miserable fraud." (Report, p. :>.) We feel that we are unjustly reflected upon. We knew that we had discharged our duty faithfully and honestly. Wi knew that the State had received full value for every penny we had ex pended, and we only asked an oppor tunity to prove these facts. Thc members of the State house com mission have been honored by (he peo ple of Simili Carolina, ami they feel tba! thr-ir good names have been iissnilec anti that they owe it, not only to I hem selves and their families but to theil people as well, that the greatest and tull.-si Hood of light should be throwr upon the whole transaction. HOW THE SO-CALLED INVESTI CATION WAS CONDUCTED. That against which v..- most stren uously protest is the manner in whlci the joint committee conducted the III vestigation. Ii was denied upon Hit Hoc ir of the house that a member nf om commission had asked lor a hearing Tin- attention of your honorable bod} is. therefore, especially asker! io whn( we consider to be undeniable facts it connection with the report of the Joint committee hereinbefore referred to. lt will be noted that said commit ter. was empowered to consider tin? severa reports of the commission for the com pict ion of thc State house, to appoint a secretary, to employ an architect and io summon witnesses. Wc content thal the report ol' Hie majority of He commission, as well as the report m the minority, should have received Hu sumo consideration, and that witnesses should have boen impartially sum moued to sustain or attack both. The majority report is practically dismissed with a quotation of less thai four lines, whereas the dissenting am accusing report of Mr. Marshall, th? minority member, is itel out at large ii ll sp?cifications, and all of the testi mony taken is directed against Hu majority and in favor of the minority ?(pori: and the committee (hereupon io use their own language, "feel eon Kl rained io report generally that Hu minority report of Senator .1. Q. Mar shall w as fully sustained by the evi dence taken and by the visible fact! lor till to see for themselves who choosi io -go ever Hie building and make evei i casual examination of it." li will be remembered thai both ot these reports Weill olllolnlly io the leg sid I urn ll lui loth ol' them were re le? red io the joint Investigating com nit tee. We contend that each shouh lave received Hie same considera! ioi is Hie other. We submit evidence I" diow that Mr. Marshall attended Hu it lings of (he commit lee during tin Oking of the testimony herein, whore is no member of this commission wa; ? resent al any time. (See lesliihoh} .f 1). II. Means, exhibit E. and of J. H ja rf unkel, exhibit l\i lt Is an admitted fact that no sin flo member of Hie commission, with tin inception of Mr. Marshall, was noli led (hat he i.ld be heard before He onimlttoo or given notice as to Hu ?me or pince of meeting of said com lilttee. We tender testimony to show hat at least two of the noii-attend hu: Members of this commission not I lint: wo of the live members of the commit >-c i bat lb? commission desired to ht iehl'd in their own behalf and that sud . quests were treated with silent eon Ompt. (See a Alda Vi ts of Messrs. John on nnd Helllnger, marked resppctlvclj Sxhibil II and LOxhiblt A.) WHY HIDE 'fill-: TRUTH? Does it not seem very singular, tr ay the least, that the members con Hinting ibis investigating commlttci vi Hie fight upon the Hoar of both he house and the senate to prevent nnj in (her investigations of this mal lei , mi that op the same nigh.: Identically he same resolution, thc purpose bl ha li was to deny a full hearing, waa Ui?duced by mild COmmltUt in thc house arni the senate'/ The true mis sion of an Investigating committee, ns Its name Implies. Ls ?r. investigate and bring to light every '.dde and bearing of a question, and not to prosecute. This ls tiie first tine In the annals of South Carolina Where nn Investi gating committee onlv: heard and re porteil one side of ari importai\t mat ter, or which held secret meetings ue hind closed doors, fpim -which mem bers of tho press were excluded. EVEN THE VH^ES-Vf CRIMINAL IS GIVEN \ HUAltlNG. In his inessivgo to your body dur chief executive asked you to devise some law to put an elfd to the lynching in our State. Now,, what Gov. Key- j ward demanded for the vilest class of criminals has boon denied some of our follow-cltizons who have boen recog nized- and honored by their people the right of making a defense, and a fair, ?ivfierlinl hearirg. Ilcforo this report.i? ended -we propose to prove to the Fa?ls??ictlon of every fair-minded pcu-Fon/in South Carolina that our com mission v.->.s tried behind closed doors, on ly wie /-itness a! the time being ad 11111100, and what is u most unheard of proceeding, the reporters of our Stat?; papers exclude.-."!. (Seo ntlldavit of A. H. Scats, Exhibit C, and Lewis G. Wood, .Tr., Exhibit u.). Not only this, but apparently to keep the mem bers of our commission in Ignorance of what was ?oing on In that mooting some of tho witness, were bound not to divulge the questions tbnt had been asked thom. (Soe affidavit of D. li. Moans. Exhibit E.). To show further what a one-sided affair this was, the son of one of this committee was made clerk, and the only outsider admitted to thal room WaSj Senator Marshall, the minority member and tho prosecu tor. (See atlldavibs i f J. P.. Garfunkel, Exhibit E.) ' < ls tho lifo, liberty, property or good name of any citizen of South Carolina safe when ho can bo tried by any such secret, one-sided tribunal of socalled justice? Tho palladium oC.ljborlv in every country is a free,press, but wo find in tho proud old State ot South Carolina a throttled press when an Investiga tion was in progress in which every taxpayer cf tho State is personally in terested. HI NTING VOn HUNT. Wc ar.- convinced, gentlemen, froir such evidence as wo ilre able to secure that the --'ole witness against us wai falsely represented to the people ol South Carolina, as an "expert archi tect" ii) charge of .the work of tin United States government, when hi: name does not appear in tho list o: government employees and he in to tully unknown to tho exports of tin I'nitod States government who an charged with the construction of lt: buildings; thai his ?ame does not ap pear In the "blue book" .'which contain tho ra?mos of all government employe wherever located; while the director; of congress which contains the name of tho a i tachos of the national capitol does not show any s ?ch officer as "su perin/.- .dont of con '.i-ictlng." A?i ?re now have to ask of you is thu this protest bo spread upon your jour nala rand be given the fullest publlcltj as yob have promised, and wo furtho bog tiio press of South Carolina, an of every other State that has give publicity to that report, to reproduc our defense. AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE. Let us say that we have nothin moro td ask of your body. Wo noi appeal to the highest tribunal know to a sovereign Stan-nh ho'norabli just and fair-minded people, A PERFECT BUILDING HAS NO BEEN ERECTED SINCE TH HAYS OF SOLOMt >N". We assert that we have given I the completion of the capitol the san: watchful ( aro that we would have dor had this building been our person) pi opei ty. The members of this cnn mission are not architects, rind tl legislature was aware of this fa? when tln-y appointed us to ibis dut; We do assoit, however, that wo g.-u careful thought and study to tho di tails and science of Wio work, and le no offer* unturned to fully ncquali ourselves with the minutiae of tl problem presented. Wo do not supp?t that anyone ever constructed a bulb lng, however humble it might ho, bi after completion he discovered ll.nt 1 might have made desirable chang) and improvements. It ls easy to crit eise the builder after his work ls don A building erected by human 1 ands never perfect, and this, of course, ts tn of the work on tho State house, but v do assort that the general result was the satisfaction of tho commission, ai wo further believe that lt would sa Isfy thc taxpayers bf tin? Slate wi are paying for this work wore th? familiar with all tho facts surroum lng tho task assigned us au l upprei ated the di (lieu I ties which wo encoui tercd and tho problems presented Hie construction of tins building. Sin the completion of our State hon thousands have visited Columbia ai Inspected this work, and expressions to tho beauty and magnificence of iii building have hoon hoard on eve side. Tho State House commission allot; ihat if there aro sumo defects in tl South Carolina capitol, that the respq slbility rests not inion the commlsslo hut is duo to the fad that (175,000 W totally inadequate to complete t building in conformity with tho orlj ?tal work on this st ruc tit re. The sta I louse commission endeavored to coi ploie th.. building so (hal it won present an Imposing appen ra nee. rlid not attempt to do Ihe work accor lng t?i tho methods of .".n years af lau took advantage of Improvemen m methods of roust ruction, ami t' lins it Inn; no apology io oller. This <iuty, gentlemen, was not s Molted, and there is not a member ibis commission but sacrificed bis pr sonni Interests and affairs in the di charge of tho duty Imposed upon hi lt was not ours io lix the sum nocit arv to d<< tho work. That was t province of tho legislature. We ri ivhal we wer.- directed to do, comph .1 the work your predecessors cont ci [dated within the appropriation th undo. Wo did not do.-in it your Wi >r desire that we should apply to y or additional appropriation when } 'mind the funds provided insulin ie 'or tho employment of foreign nrth ind for tho purchase of $10,000 cellini l'ha? question was not ours, hut you Tho commission does not reel call ipon to defend lin- architect. In t -Mention of his work they felt call ipon to sustain him only so loin,' as po combined wisdom of tho comm lion lb- was right. As to purely toe deal malters it necessarily rolled ds lini?lnent and deferred to his a .ice. rill-: COMMISSION RECOGNIZ1 I 'l's DUTY 'I'D THE STATE, If nuy evidence ls brough 1 hoff ur commission that either the arel . ?et or contractor have boon guil d collusion or neglect of duty, br ny manner slighted their work, lould not only become our duty, b ?ur pleasure, to prosecute either or both to the extent o' the law. Any facts Jn the possession of this commls slon, either matters of official record ur matters of personal knowledge in connection with the work on the State house, will be fully and frankly given ? under oath to any attorney or attorneys I that the legislature, governor or any ' other properly constituted authority ! may appoint to prosecute suits In the j Interest of the State. This commis Sion, under tho provisions of the law i constituting lt, elected an architect and i paid him the usual fees to design and superintend the work of completion of Ute c?plto}'. The commission, under i the provision of the law. lot the work ; to the lowest bidder. Il* there has i been any collusion between the arcbl- , teet and the contractor lt is a fact ab-i sulutcly unknown and unsuspected by ! the ?"tate bouse commission, and there has not been published or produced a Scintilla of evidence to prove that any stich collusion existed. CAN \VF. AFFORD TO PAT FOR ;M AO NI Fl CEN CE ? "When tia? commission was nppointed 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 3175,000. When the fact ls considered lhat the State house as it stood in its incomplete condition hnd cost the State of South Carolina over $2,000,000. lt would have been the height of folly for our com mission td attempt with the limited amount given us ta carry out the de sign of the original architect, who de signed und contemplated a ?&.ooo.coo building. The act further stipulated that not one dollar of the money ap probated should be expended until a contract for the completion of the building within the amount stipulated was made, and this contract we were direeteil to make and did make. lt has been tho purpose of the commis sion in the expending of the limited sum at our disposal to make all permanent work gool and substantial, to conform as near as possible to the original building, and if there has boen, as al leged, "cheap and shoddy work" pul upon the building, an investigation wil reveal that such work can be easily re moved nt any time, without marring in any way thu substantial portion! of the building, and that it can be re placed by as costly material as th< State cares to pay for. Only $1,20 was spent for the roof. This roof 1 was believed, would be satisfactory if it lias not proven so it can be easll; replaced by as expensive a structure a you wish and in the meantime it wil have served the purpose. The com mission in this matter, as l.i man; others involving questions of the re latlvc quality of materials and moth ods ot const ruction, relied to a larg extent upon the judgment of tbe ?rcltl teet. As business men they felt thu the wide and varied experience of th mon whom they had entrusted wit the por.c and authority of an arch teet, ivhbh must of necessity be extet slv\ justified them in deferring t bis judgment and advice. This arel itooi was necessarily governed by tl: amount appropriated for the worl and, of course, could use only such nu terial as the appropriation would pa for. Thc limited funds placed at our di! posai is the only reason that any pa: of this work is inferior in characti to the best work on the old portioi of tills building. We do not wish, however, to be ul derstood as apologizing for the preset condition of tho Stale house. It 'ls t< day un imposing and stately structu and a credit and an honor to Sou Carolina, and the new work, as wt as thc old, will stand for centurie While the interior of the new wo has not been embellished with Itali, marble and with delicate carvings 1 imported artists, it was not bel levi by the commission that the people South Carolina either desired or pu posed to have thom now. When th aro willing and able to pay for the tilings they can bc placed there. Il this criticism can be made of the c portions of the building, as well as t now, and notwithstanding the so-call $10,000 galvanized ceiling liable, in t words of this "architect. Hunt," "rust out in a few years," which w placed there hy tho commission, which Senator Marshall was a mei ber, fifteen years ago, the main cc rider of the building was unsighl and unadorned by the beautiful marl with which John 1J. N'iernsee design to cover its walls. AS TO THE SELECTION OF * THE ARCHITECT. In selecting an architect for thc wc it was tho sincero desire of the coi mission to put aside personal cons orations and to secure fop tho State t services of the best nnfl most expo en. eil man whom wo could find. T plans were presented to tho comm sion, while numerous architects wi suggested as thoroughly competent do the work, six of tho ten mcmbi of the commission voted for Frank Milburn, whose plans seemed b adapted for tho work contempl?t Mr. Milburn had not only enjoyed w experience in the erection of pul buildings throughout tho south, 1 came with ilie prestige of employm by the Southern raliway for thc, er Hon of nil its stations and buildin Besides, he had erected the Thompt auditorium at Charleston, tho co house at Anderson, and other hui lugs, which within the personal kno edge of members of the commlss lind proven satisfactory and he \ us well liiuhlv recommended, to ns all with whom wc know bo had , dealings, li may be added that el that time, Mr. Milburn has boon lo ted as Ihe architect nf both Florida and North Carolina State c Itols, Consequently, the commis? thought they were Justified in the lection tiley had made. If the report of the Joint investie wv committee, however, is followed its logical conclusion, it is evident t it was Hie opinion nf that commit that Hie commission made a mist in clei ting an architect at all. but 1 wo should haye sent lo Washington i hanger-on around tho national cr lol, to Instruct ns not only bow to ot n building, but incident ally to si how to avoid insulting tho me mor j i distinguished architect and ?nipos i dlsgrncc upon tin- state of So i 'arolina. AS TO Till: SUFFICIENCY OF Till" PLANS. When Senator Marshall made tho lection thai tho plans for tho w vere Insufficient, we referred thc rr 1er to Ihe architect with dire, Hons diow to our satisfaction if ho co hat this objection was not well fou vi. As tho host evidence of the 1 hat this complaint was not i 'mnided Mr. Milburn submitted to .ommlflslbn statements from sev< .ontfactors who had Hied bids for york-, mid who necessarily must li nmilinrlzed themselves with every I ure and detail of tho plans In oi o make an intelligent hld upon 7 work, in which they declared not oniy that the plar.s were sufficient but that ii thu true intent and spirit o? them was carried out the State would fle xure a good job. Not being ourselves competent to pass upon a technical point of this nature, we knew no high er or better authority to whom we could r-icr the mutter. That we had secured a most desirable contract un der sulllclent specifications we felt con vinced and satisfied .when the other bids submitted under them ranged up as high as S?l'J.OoO, which seemed to be the price necessary to Justify that 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 of nearly $10,000. absolutely precluded any idea of collusion in awarding the contract. There is n 'general impression fos tered by tills report, if not created thereby, that thc act creating the com mission for the completion of the State house directed that said commission should require bond from the con tractor. lt will, therefore, be a sur prise to most members ot the general assembly and the public to be informed of the fact which is now stated, that no such bond was required or sug gested hy tile legislature when defining the duties of the commission. There being an 'utter absence of any mention of u bond in connection therewith, it ls clear that the bond actually taken was one required by the commission solely upon its own motion and in or der tlie better to aid them in enforc ing the performance of the contract which they entered Intn with Molivtiir. Unkefer company. We take the posi tion that this bond was not at any time under the control of the legisla ture,- and that lt became; according to its terms, utterly null and void as soon as this commission, acting through a majority of its members, expressed itself BS satisfied with the performance of the conti act which it secured. The commission having accepted the work of the contractor, the bond given to secure the performance of the contract to the satisfaction of the commission became ipso facto cancelled and an nulled, when, the commission expressed itself satisfied with the job; and thc endorsement upon the bond was merely a ministerial duty done by the gov ernor and which we are convinced he could have been mandamused to dr under the circumstances. "We aro in formed by the members who belong tc the legal profession that if said boni were now in possession of the officer; of the State unmarred hy any endorse ment, thu plaintiff in interest couh not recover under the facts withou' alleging and proving fraudulent col luslun as to acceptante of the work be tween the commission, the obligees am the contractors, the obligors, and thi members of the Investigating commit tee have given public assurance fha no such collusion is oven suspected Furthermore, at a meeting held sub sequent to the endorsement made bj the governor, the. attorney general re ported informally to the commission that the governor had satisfied tin bond upon bis tegul advice. THE OLD I HON AND OTHKU JUNK It was never the intention of th commission to reserve to the Stat the old iron and other junk removci from the building. Not only did the; believe that the contractor would al low more for lt In his bid than the; could get for it otherwise, but ques tions would have been continually aria ins as to the expense, etc., of r?movin this old material, end of getting lt eu of the way. lt cost several hundre dollars to .not the old iron alone dow from the roof. Besides, the appropria lion for the work was limited, and th commission desired to put in tho build lng In value all that the funds ri their disposal permitted. Not only di the architect, as the agent of the com mission, inform the bidders personall that the sp?cifications would be so con struct!. tSee opinion of the attorne general, exhibit ll), but there ls abun dant evidence that all who filed a bi for the work did so on the basis o getting In partial payment the old ma (erial that was removed. Mr. J. I Garfunkel, the man best qualified t know this fact, the man whom th investigating committee itself sum moued to testify in regard to this ol material, swears that he knows of hi own knowledge that the different bid ders for the work tiled their bids upo the basis that the old material, all c lt, would go to the contractor. (Se affidavit of J. I?. Garfunkel, exhibit J] If any furl her evidence of this fact wa necessary the reply of W. A. Chester man, one of the bidders, and of J. ? Burgess, another to the same effect, i response to a telegraphic inquiry tha ("In my capitol bid I figured on all oi material being my property." See te] egrams. exhibit (I.) should rio so. No one doubted for an instant tim not only as a matter of right but undo the strict letter of the law and th contraer this nhl material went to th contractor, until over a year after th contract was let, when Senator Mat shall filed his protest. An investiga Hon resulted, when the fact develops that the contrai tors had actually al loweri the Stale a credit for this ol material in their estimate sheet! Thereupon the attorney general gav to thc commission this opinion, whlc has been completely ignored by the il vest iga ting conn,iii te,-, nntwlthstnni lng the ?:M t that it was in their po? session: t lut t not only of right, but < low, this material, under the contrae was not the State's, (See opinion a torney general, exhibit H.) Every member of the commission ei eept Senator Marshall believed ha tliey attempted to claim this old mi terlal under all Hie circumstances, thc would have been acting not only ut fairly, but dishonestly, with the coi tractor. Tho contractor had actual given the state value for this ma ter in and the specifications had been so coi .'trued and made absolutely plain b fore Ute bids were even filed. The pe pie ot thc Slate tlo not ask their pul tic servants to do a dishonest deed. ] our opinion it would have been di honest to have attempted to take fro tho contractor that for which ho hi paid. If demand ls made that Hie Sta shall attempt io dishonestly retal from the contractor the value of pro; erty sold by the state for full conslt oration, this end must be obtaiiu through other official agencies thr that of the members who compose th commission. AS TO THE BROKEN fOI.l'MX Under thc terms of the spcclflcatioi Tor the work "till of the columns th: ire out and tho live unfinished wi De completed and used by selecting tl .erfect ones for tiri' main front, ar isiug the ones with small defects I the rear." (Report, p. 4.5). In tl nogress of the work, In attempting I .aise ene of the finished columns froi ts beti where it had ?remained for lumber of years, the column broke < ts own weight along the line of a blt len crack In the stone. At the meei pg ensuing flie contractor nppeare lefcre the commission and stated th. lt would be necessary for the State to furnish n column to replace the one broken. The column was a portion of the materlul to be furnished by the State under tho contract and there was no doubt In the minds of a. ma jority of the commission, after a enre ful examination or the contract, plana and specifications, that the commission could have been compelled by the con tractor to furnish a new column. , To quarry and carve n new column would bave cost the State at leant ?2,000; it -would have delayed the work or completion of the State house about six months. , The contractor reported that the column could bo patched,by putting in ii section of new atone ot e. cost or about $500, and a delay in the work or 30 days. According to the plans there were to be two columns placed within what is how the open floor space on thc front portico. These columns supported none in* the weight or the walls or the struc ture, and were located by the architect ?within this area because under th? approved plans the State had on hand two columns that could be used for purely ornamental purposes. The con tracter proposed to the commission that he would deduct the cost of rais ing these two inner columns into posi tion nnd the cost of the unfinished carving of caps for same ir they could be lort out. and the work proceed. Upon the report or tho architect that the strength of the structure of the completed building would be in no wiso impaired, th'.:i ao?u??cn o? tho problem was deemed the best and most ! expedient, inasmuch as the funds In j tho hands of the commission were limited, the work would not be de layed and no damage would be done tho structure. At a subsequent mee? ? lng of tho legislature the broken col umns were appropriated and given by the Stnte to Greenwood and Spartan burg. The question of utility having been settled to the satisfaction of a, ma jority of the commission it then be- , came one purely of taste and ornament, and upon thia Issue we considered that tho best Interests or the State were subserved by carrying to completion the front portico as lt now stands. lt may bo added that In tho final vote as to leaving out these two centre col umns that Messrs. Gantt and Johnson voted with Mr. Marshall in the nega tive, the other members present con stituting :i majority, voting in tho atllrmatlvo. Jn nddltlon to the $G00 above men tioned as a part or the consideration for relieving the contractor of the work of placing the columns the commis sien reserved for the benefit of the State tho remnants of the broken col umns. THE CEILING IN THE MAIN LOBBY. Ono of the most seri i charges brought by the Investigating commit tee related to the removal of the ceil ing in the main lobby and this ls a typical Illustration of their methods., and of the value of their conclusions. '.Captain" Hunt in his testimony ip. 17) swore that the State had lost in h ?a opinion $15,000 by the removal of 'his coiling, which was represented as "steel" celling and that "had cost in tlio neighborhood of $10,000." (p. 7.) Now. what are the facts?. The offi cial records of tho old State house commission show tho awarding or the I contract for this coiling as follows: "Columbia, S. C., May 2nd, 1889. Tho commission mot this day. Present: Hon. J. Q. Marshall, secretary of State: Hon. J. S. Verner, comptroller general. Tho bids wore presented, be ing six in number, for putting in iron (galvanized) coiling, beams, skylights, 'otc, in tho main corridor on the second j door, together witli the ceiling over tho senate lobby. ? * * Mr. John Alexander's bid upon plan No. 1, for ' $7.80S was accepted." i This record was accessible to the In vestigating committee and could have 1 clearly shown thom that this coiling did not cost "In the neighborhood of $10,000." but that tho colling of the senate lobby, which had not boen ro j moved, and tho cornice of the main i lobby, which was still there, consti tuted three-fourths nf tho work for ? which less than SS.000 had boon paid, ! and th.at the coiling that had been I removed* cost, 15 years ago. loss than $2,000. it is a very plain piece of work willi little ornamentation and cer ; tainly not beautiful. Architect Wilson i in ins report stated that it could now j be put back for about $1,800. Tills colling, as tho records show, was i not only bought as galvanized iron, but jan actual inspection of it will show I that the coiling taken out was nothing ? but galvanized iron. Tho committee I found that "tho contractors bodily took i and carried away and converted" to ? their own uso this valuable and beauti I fill part of tho old building." (p. 7) when ono of the five witnesses whom I they themselves put upon the stand j certified and could have told thom that it was galvanized Iron, and when re 1 moved "wonbless oven as lank." (Soe affidavit of J. B. Garfunkol, Exhibit V). Hr. Babcock, superintendent of tho Hospital for tho Insane, certifies that tho coiling is now in his posses sion as an officer of tho State. (Soo cort incite of J. W. Babcock, Exhibit Tho commission put back exactly the samo material they took out, simply requiring tb.- contractor to replace worthless and damaged material with now material of tho same kind. Tho wanton misrepresentation which it was necessary for this so-called I "architect * to make to show that the removal of .a dozen squares of gal vanized iron which was in bad shape, bent and rusted, and replacing it willi other galvanized iron of a pattern which bettor suited tho round opening of tho dome entailed a loss of $15.000 upon tho State, certainly entitled him to tho compens?t lon of $15 a day, which he was paid and which ho was evi dently industriously endeavoring to oa rn. If tho colling removed could hf>' properly designated as "stool coiling" that put in its place could ho so desig nated, ns it is tho ramo material. If ono is pressed into form by a "stamp" and the other shaped hy a soldering Iron, that fact would add nothing to its beauty and would make it. flimsier and easier to got ont of shape. AS TO WATER CLOSKTS. When wo took charge of tho com pletion of tho State house under this act there wore as there had boen for many years, two water closets of old and defectivo design placed consider ably beneath tho lovel of tho surround ing grounds, and absolutely without ventilation. Tho uso of those by tho occupants of tho first or ground floor necessitated the descent of ono flight af stairs, nnd wore removed another long flight of stairs from tho loulala :ive halls. Those members of tho com mission who wore also State officers rul!y realized and appreciated^ the ln olorable, irremediable unsanitary con