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.

ditk>n which must necessarily surround these closets HE loni aa they wer . located. Realizing the Importanc ot such conveniences; und being vinced' thut some provision for oin '^wist be made before the penni Work on the State house was comp the commission sought to prov' ' different, moro convenient and locality In tho building for closets. These new closets wet contemplated when the ' questl- ?: completing the State house can fore the general assembly, nor wen. there any plans, specifications or con tract relating thereto; but the commis sion believing that out of the appro priation enough had been saved to in stall these necessaries, mnde such con tract with reference to them as justi llos us In courting the most rigid In vestigation. At the time the fixtures wore installed there was no sewerage system in the city ot Columbia, and no municipal regulations covering details which though adopted for tho sake of uniformity and governmental regu lation uro but arbitrary. Since this in stallation there has been no complaint ol' the presence or suspicion of the ex istence of sewer gas, and the location of tho closets is such that If the pres ence did actually exist there could be no detriment to the health or lives of tho occupants of the State house. This determination on the part of tho committee to make this arrangement was most fortunate, as subsequent . .vents proved, for the discovery was about that time made that the old water closets had been silently and un-I suspecting)}' venting their gases ? through seer?t and unknown duos In I the brick walls of the building Into j the offices upon the lower door and spreading disease and death among tho Slate's employes. The commission of sanitary experts appointed by Gov. Hayward, while criticizing some de ni's of the now work, ordered tho old closets peremptorily and immediately I r< moved ? rom tho building, and In this | demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary in-j spector of Columbia, Joined. The grates' ?ir lire places in several of thc otil?os ; were directly connected with those; ?lc scls and had to bo hermetically' sealed until tin- old work was removed1 fi om the building. The condemned closets had hoon In stalled ?it great expenso to tho State , nuder tho direction of tho commission which creeled tho "splendid ten thous mid dollar stool colling" In tho main j lobby, nearly l.r> years ago, largely un- I dor th" supervision of Senator Mar-! shall, who was then secretary of state. ! Wo desire to impress upon you tho fact that you have not boon put In pos session of any evidence or statement as to the apparent condition of the State house upon tho day whoa tho accept ance was made and the Anal Install ment paid to tho contractor. AVo, therefore. Inform you that when tho wari, wes accepted and tho money paid a personal Inspection by special com mit leo of ile- commission was made and the roof with all of its accessories, appeared In perfect condition, nnd : every stone laid under the contract; was free from cracks br apparent de fects', and titi*-- notwithstanding a test; period of nearly or quit" u monti', had ? clapped from the dute when the build ing was tendered, during which period we We're satisfied that a su Hielen t test had boon made. During said period there were several precipitations of rain, notably on the 12th day of May. I1.".', when tho rain began to fall about ?J o'clock in tho morning and continued until about 7 of thc same morning, during which time nearly an Inch of water fell. Hain followed again on Ihe 14th, tailing during thc night, and on th" ir.ih. when In 21 minutes :i-4 of ?in Inch of rainfall was registered. Under this severe test tho roof ap peared to be perfect as far as protec tion from water is concerned. This statement is made on odlclal Informa tion given us bv tho United States all in manont portions of the building, w iii I has como up to tin- full measure of the expectation of Ihe commission. It is w.-il to remember, however, that we are too prone to dwell upon that which has not como fully up to our expectations, while ignoring the fact that this man probably succeeded In more important matters where another would bave Peon subjected to just ci it li ism. Wo have scrupulously avoided, either In thi; communication or in any of the steps hading up to the opportunity which has been accorded us by your honorable body to Set ourselves right, in making our cause common with that of either the architect or contractor, and have endeavored to divorce our selves insofar as possible from thom. First of all, though out of otllce, wc ari hi ii measure servants of the people and of the general assembly, and it" that tribunal deems the Stat" to have suffered injury from either, our first duty ls to tho Stale. However, lt ls but Justice to say that . Wo have found the contractors in ?ill j their dealings with us honorable busi- j ness men, w hom we believe to be above suspicion of wrong doing, and who sought lo live up to the true intent and j meaning of their contract with th?! state; W" desire it understood that wo do not claim Hint it is impossible that Im positions have boon practiced upon ' this commission by tho architect or contractor, for If any vital defects ox- ; 1st in the building or serious mistakes ?.an be shown to have been made, these must have been the outcome of tho; commission having been misled, but we ? do assert in the most positive manner j that the findings and tho conclusions ?.ont im. d In th" report of tho joint In vestigating committee are not sus tained h.? the evidence therein con t (fined, nnd if they aro ever sustained il must lu- by evidence produced before another 11 i ! 111 n. 11. Whether this cum-i mission or any of its members wore over designedly or unintentionally im posed upon or deco|ved by either arch-, in o! oi contractor, il can only bo ; proved bul of Ibo mouth or mouths of such member or members, unless it be conceded that tho members would corn mil perjury in order to hide the facts. We would remind your honorable body that this commission lats not dei ne d it to be Its duty to go into the newspapers to defend tho course of tho majority, and that as but om; side has heretofore been presented lo tho public, we realizo that it ls but natural i hal the conclusion should he driiwn thal there bas been but one side to tho question. If. with all the facts before you. you should conclude that the ono man has boon always right and the niai men always wrong, wo can hill plead In ext emin lion that wu have done1 the be t w* ?ould tor the State, "uh- ! awed by influence, and unbrtbod by gain." In this report wo have ondonV-j ored to state tho facts fully, candidly and fairly, "nothing extenuate and naught sot down in malice." All of which i.s respectfully sub mitted. M. H. Mcsweeney. ? ;. I ninon n Hellinger. rt. H. Jennings. J. Harvey Wilson. Robert J. Gantt. W. J. Johnson. Columbia, S. C., I-'eriinry 10. 1904. Having taken lip Hie official duties upon tho commission at the expira tion ol' tin- terni ol' th" Hon. W. ll. Tinimei'mun, my predecessor, I had nothing to do with tho election of tho architect or tin; awarding of Hie con trae!, but as lo all tho facts relating t? tho aetions of tho commission, and Hie opinion'! expressed herein willi ref erence I" those facts, expressed in tho abu y e report i um iu hearty uccoid Ith Jae report of the commission, and the limitations above exprcsstd I signed myself as a responsible )or of the commission. R. H. Jennings. I .) 1er the resolution plussed by the .al assembly of South Carolina, lng the members of the State ? commission to 111c such stnto .s ns they respectively desired to e. 1 submit the following; li?t lu the election of architect to ;e plans and specifications for the ._pletion of the work on the State house I did not vote for Mr. Milburn for reasons satisfactory to myself. In the acceptance for the completion Mc Ilvnln-Unkefor Co. WOK the only one that came within the limits of the ap propriation, and it resolyod Itself Into the acceptance of the same or a post ponement of the work until the pro visions should be made by the State legislature. When 1 went out of oillee ns State treasurer my connection with thc commission ceased, and I am In no way responsible for the completion or acceptance of thc work of the con tractor. I did not pretend to have any , knowledge of architecture, and could I therefore have easily been imposed I upon ns to the beauty and the finish of i tho architecture. Very respectfully submitted. \V. H. Tlmmcrman. KXIIII3IT A. Personally appeared (J. Duncan Del linger, who being duly sworn, says: That in tho late fall of the year 1S?03. upon casually meeting the Hon. J. O. Patterson, ii member of the Joint Iri ' vestlgatlng committee, und ascertain ing accidentally from him that he badi I just returned from Columbia where he had been in attendance upon said committee, 1 asked bim if tho com mission would bo accorded a hearing before bis committee. In reply to this Mr. Patterson stated that Mr, Aldrich was tho chairman of the committee and advised mo that if snell request \v:is made of tho chairman it would be granted. Deponent referred to rea sons mutually known to him and to Mr. Patterson why such request would be unpleasant io deponent, upon which Mr. Patterson assured me that bo would himself notify the ?hair-; man of tho desire of the members pf tho commission to bc beard. This con versation occurred in tho town of; Barnwell on a Saturday night, within1 :to feet of tho paling of Mr. Patterson's front yard. Subseqiiently and before thc occas ion next to be referred to in the same town, and near thc same locality. 1 recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous conversation and asked htm If the right Wliicll we had demanded would be accorded to vis, and he assured me that it would, and that ho bad spoken to the chairman on the subject and the probability was that the illness from which Mr. Aldrich was then suffering was tho reason why I, and other mein- : tiers bf the commission had not boen notified. I again impressed upon him | l'uni ibis request was made on behalf ol' all of the members of the commis sion. Those are thc occasions lo which ll referred In the communications which 1 recently published concerning this request made upon Mr. Patterson, and at that iliue I l.ad no reference lo any other: hut his published statement, said to ha v.- been in defense ol' bis conduct, while explaining upon tho Moor of the house of representatives, the injustice don.- by bis committee to members of our commission recalled to me another and third occasion w hen .this demand for justice was repeated. In thc city of Columbia, on the night I of the 17th of December, Just passed, one of my partners, the Hon. L. W. Haskell, who is a member of Ibo bouse of representatives, and myself went by appointment to the Columbia hotel lo noel some clients from thc city of thal a meeting of this committee had been very recently held. Becoming thus rouvin ed that the promised bear ing was in II fair way never to bo ac corded to us, I most earnestly attemp ted to imp: ess hilll with tho deterniin j litton on tho part ot some of us to appeal to tho legislature were we so unfairly treated as not to be accorded an opportunity to be hearth Again I received empty promises and vain as surances. A very recent conversa i ion with Mr. Haskell warrants mo in the nssertlon thal he was present and re calls that thc request was most enrn . cst ly made G. Duncan Bellinger. Sworn io before me this. ISth day of February, 1904. J. T. Gantt, Notary Public, s. c. EXHIBIT B. State of South Carolina-County of Richland. Personally appeared W. J. Johnson, who heilig duly 'sworn, says that dur ing the present session of the legisla ture the deponent had an intimation that the commission for the comple tion of thc State house wore going to be severely criticised by the committee appointed to Investigate the several reports of the commission. That the deponent immediately looked up Repre sentative Rawlinson, who was a mom bo r of the investigating committee, and informed him of what deponent had heard, and further informed him that ii th.- reports of severe arraignment or criticism were true that the com mission had ll right to be bearii, and that au opportunity should be given them. That Representative Rawlin son assured deponent Hutt lhere was nothing in tho rumor and that the com mission would not bo harshly criticis ed and thai his committee had not fully mad- up its report; that they would hiivo another meeting and nil the members of the old commission could bo leard: further stated that il was his impression thai all tho mom bo s oi' tho ..Immission had been in- 1 vi teil to attend their '.meetings; de ponent informed him that none of the member* ol tho commission had been invited i<i ano Of ibo meetings so far as deponent hm-w. certainly deponent had not h,., W. J. Johnson. Sworn i., before m.- (his, 18th dav of February,; lii.i. I., .vis W. Haskell, Notary Public for S. t". KN IIIBIT <\ ?f South Carolina--County of Cii bland. _ Persona Hy appeared before me A. H. .-?.air. who being duly sworn, says: That lc i> a reponer for Tho Daily ^???".l. 1 newspaper published at Co limo.M; that in company of Lewis Koh'i, at thai timo reporter for The Nows mid Courier, ho applied at Un-, agricultural committee rrv.nr. la (fee Stale house, where he heard the legis lative committee investigating the work on the State house was in ses sion, foi- permission to report the evi dence and proceedings; that depon ent was told by on,, nf tho members of th" committee that the meetings were . not public. A. H. Seats. j Sworn to and subscribed before me this loth day of February, 1904. Ai C. DePass. Notary Public. EXHIBIT D. Lewis fi. Wood. Peing lilly sworn. Fays: Thai ho went io tho agricultu ral committee room where tho investi gating committee was in session, an? inquired it there was any neus ?if tho ?gallon In be published al that lime, und that hu was told by a mern ber of tUr' ?ommltte? Hui (her* wi none. Lewis <?. Wood, Jr., The State. Sworn to before nie this lGtli day of February, 1904. E, O. DePass, (Li. S.) Notary Public for South Carolina. Exhibit E. State of South Carolina, nIchland county. Personally appeared before me D. H. Means, who being duly sworn says that he was summoned to produce cer tain records of the commission for tho completion of the State hou^e and to testify before the "Joint committee to consider the several reports of thu commission on the completion of the Stute house and facts r?latins there to." which committee waa meeting in the agricultural committee room of the house. That ho entered *he room ami wns about to be examined when another witness was announced as present whereupon deponent was In formed that bc was excused until the said committee had finished with said other witness. That deponent then withdrew and waited in another otilce in the State house until after the de parture of said other witness when deponent was again summoned to ap pear and teatlfy. That during his.ex amin?t hm by said committee while de ponent was endeavoring to put In what lie considered necessary or proper qual ifications of "yea" ami "no" answers d?ponent was interrupted by the chair man with the statements "answer tho question," md "you need not go In to that at all." That just after the examination was completed the chairman of the com mittee requested deponent to say noth ing of what had transpired during his examination by said committee. That during deponent's examination by said committee Senator J. Q. Mar shall was present. I That some time subsequent to depo nent's examination by said joint com mittee ex-Attorney General G. Duncan Bellinger, handed to deponent a let ter written by said G. linnean Bellin ger to ex-GoV. M. li. .Mcsweeney, dated Dec. 2?. 11)03, of which the following is a copy: Columbia, s. C., Dec. 1903. Hon. M. Ti. Mcsweeney J Hampton C.! H., S. C. Dear Sir: In reply to your communi cation I write lo say that I recollect , than on May SI; 1902, when you were governor and 1 attorney general of South Carolina, I received from you a , htier of date May iii; 1902. n carbon copy of which is to be found at pages I 14? and lt! of vohimi of "Public Land Letter Cook, New Series, No. 1 to 2lH>." of which letter the following is a cop}*, to wit : "Columbia, S. C., May 31, IDOL'. "Hon. Ci. Duncan Hell Inger, Attorney General, Columbia, s. C. "Dear Sir: You are familiar with the j action of the commission for the com pletion of the Stale house at meeting I May Xi. 11*02, to-wit: 'Resolved that it appears ti? the commission for the com pletion of thc State house, that the work ia satisfactory and that the con tract has been substantially perform ed.' The above resolution was upon the question as to whether Mcllvalu Unkefer company has performed their contracts for the completion of the Slate house, and subsequently the com mission ordered the balance due Mi II valn-tlnkefer eompnnv on their said contracts to be paid. Mctlvaln-TJnke fcr company now desire that the surety bond for $50,000 given by them t.> the commission for the faithful per formance of their said contract he by tuc surrendered to them the said con tractors. No action wu's by said com mission taken authorizing or directing tia? surrender of ssiid surety bond. Is such act ion necessary or am I author ized, upon the action already taken by the commission lo ?mrtnrsp anon said "Governor and Chairman." "P. S.Mr. Unkefer informs me thai until surrendered his surety bond is costing bim 125.00 per month." Upon receipt of this letter from you 1 recoiled that i gave you orally my otlicial opinion, us attorney general, that as said action of said commission was llrial and conclusive as to said con tractors having performed their con tract no secure the performance of which said surety bond had been given to you as chairman of said commis sion), said contractors were entitled to the return of the bond; and further action by thc commission being un necessary. I advised you to surrender sahl bond to the contractors with an endorsement thereon signed by you which I dictated. Very respectfully, ci. Duncan Bellinger. That at the requist of said ex-Gover nor M. li. Mcsweeney deponent pasted the original of the foregoing lotter, written |>y ex-Attorney General *v Duncan Hetlinger to ex-G?v?r'nor M. It. Mcsweeney, in the back of the min ute book of the commission for the completion of the state house. so as to preserve In writing the evidence of the reasons and circumstances hilder which said M. B. Mcsweeney while governor surrendered said bond to said contractors, Mcllvain, Unkefer ? ">>. That subsequent to deponent's said examination the secretary or steno grapher of said committee requested de ponent to give him access io the rec ords of the commission, for the com pletion of the State boase, for the mil pose of said secretary's comparing and verifying with said, original records said secretary's coplea ol' portions thereof, io be used in said Joint com mittee report. Thal at this time de ponent called the attention of said clerk or stenographer lo said original letter from ex-Attorney-Gcneral Hellinger to ex-Governor M. l:. Mcsweeney, pasted us before stated, in the hack of said minnie book, and requested said clerk of said committee to take a copy ot" saul lette,- and show it io the chairman of said joint committee, thinking that said chairman might desire to use said letter, as it contained a statement by ex-Attorney General Bollinger of Im portant facts in reference lo thc sur render of the said bonds to the said cont ra. t..rs iq M. lt. Mi-Sweeney, up on which matter deponent bad been ex amined. That said secretary or stenographer oi sahl joint committee did make and take with bim a copy of said letter, which letter did not appear in said joint committee's report to the legis lature D. ll. Means. Sworn lo before ni'- this ICth day of February, 1904. I .eu ts Wi Haskell, Notary Public for South Carolina. EXHIBIT F. Slate of south Carolina-County of Bielda nd. Pees.ir/?.|jy ?iyp.-ar.-d before me. .Toe 1;. Garfunkel, who. being ?v'v sworn, says that bc was summoned <lfl A wit tie:;.-, by ila- committee Investigating the work upon the Stale house, and that when he appeared and gave his testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall was present in the room. Deponen! fur ther swears thal he was present in the Shite bous,- when the contract for the work on the State house was let, and knows that It was tho general under standing among the bidders that the junk removed from the building in doing the work provided in the plans nml specifications of Frank P. Milburn would go tn the contractors; deponent is peculiarly qualified to know this fact horans* be wished I? buy this Junk, and talked about il io every one of the bidders whom be met. Deponent furl her swears that prior to thu le i tum of the contract J or the .... but was inf to Hie conti same. Tho deponent tv contract \vr mission had cation depo junie. Deponent dealer in, ai value of oh that he ms fered the h old iron it placing: the he regarde less for ar. and had 1 have limn such: Huit higher prk portion of would hay? ? Deponent n.mlned th? main lobb; lt remain grounds: t nixed iron, that the cc ponent, bu and lu tur the insane That be above who Investigad questions ' c auu junk, ' : must apply purchase of er told the days' after the tat the com tm the appli 0 to buy the 1 that he ls a . h the market aer junk, und ! e of and of- I price for the 1 to remove in | Udlding: that j iron worth- I se than junk I ne he would ' i*U it off us ! irs secured a ! parties for a ! han deponent? .a that be ex- I ved from the '? house, while | State house I g was gal va- ? . even as junk : I . it to the de-I it haul lt olT, : . n? asylum for i opie rho i.'.ia iii toi: fi obi to the facts led before the because the him. I. Garfunkel. Sworn tt February, B Robert .T. In my ci material I Hobt. .1. G In mak capitol th all old st. on the pr? (Of Ste? REI Ne Hon. G. General, Dear Si sion ?if tl tlo- compl have th.- I upon a oil' tho owner. Tho fuel with subn tho spcclfl The pat partial dr mittce ail' tho archil Tho min Blitteiiteiti contractor Tho con under thc tho cucum question \ ol.i mater! tractors o: A walline ATTORN! E><ru i lye Gol lion. Geo. Newberr Dea; Slr tot- relatinj orshtp of material" tract for t house. I not" th ls 15th day of : MoLaurin, itary Public. Feb., 4,- , 190-1. Building: ired ou. ?JJ old rty. *r Chostem;u.n. ! Feb.'\,19.fy04. \ 1 1 .?. contract on I was to have j ither material j Burgess, r Company.) I. PINION. Aug. 9, 1901. .ger. Attorney ! o the pennis- I charged with Stute house, I : your opinion s ariser, about material. .-' paper hero- ! contracts and consist ol' a of tho com- ' o loller from the tho your opinion contract and i sase upon tho ? ership of tho ir in the con- ' am. i, I Chairman. S OPINION. Office of the .al. 1 Ug. "ti. 19'H. tairmaii. eti .. : mo your )ot 1 Of 111-' olvn- ! as the fold villi tho <ion- j of tho slate the comlnlt- ! THE Jj In Dctc REPLY ( A Kt ur YEST1C! LATIN! STATIC To the l'l I will bo j reply io s Investiga tl to tlc leg at ibis iii In the . composed ' Ibo people : in their d' ; of th?- mil i ber of t ho i gone beyoi i concurrent ' acted. H; 1 directed l? ! of the gem recommen as they i i yet these ! out of th I report iv proper co "facts" t libellous ; ! on mimer ? sonia tivos j controctoj ! st rous Si Snob gra j false as l concurren ; But, th: ! bent on v member o I e?.rrying ! legislator) ; that tliey tect." as v ' ty given but paid : or," who tendent ol Slates cai Dut furl directed t . ports of t I plotion of thor I ty t They soon , one mirica 1 Marshall. examined that min? . a singlo v , port and a , zens and o fered with as Wide tu St.ii" as li? vost iga l ino ' always dei lu this Sta Ililli ty aro than a I r?commen . tb.- federa I doubt n?\ i laroliua. , But lei ' this invc ' t hey solot , tO l '01111111 i pla ns and cont t act oi I work : bu ?ni? ?di fica tl for nan.i F AHCHI1 i Against His Acct Assci . MILBURN, ?ORT <?K IN ; CTEE, RE IRK ON Tl I IO o consider my report of tho recently made oms necessary he committee, resentatives or lo gentlemen,'' ate tho author? of ?me njem n m i ss ion, have ? .y given hy the der Which they ?OM they wore j .ie next session 'such facts ami '..rom .! thereto I v?soblo." And gentlemen" no j iject into t heir ' inted and Irn ich are initiier ndnllonS," but unto reflections ??.rs and repre e architect and fra ml," "mon "inalofactors!" sions aro as led for hy the Hoe was more ono dissenting Immission than estions of tho 1 by the fact ploy an arclil by tho niitbori .cnt resolution, ir a "contract been "siiiierlii of tin; United years." committee was .o "several r? ti tor tho coti iuse," with nu wltriesses, etc. lidered only tho Senator .1. Q. .miry, 190.".. and y lu support of without, enlling port ?if tho ro il honored <iti Stato. who dif 1. and who ore nterests of the hers <n" this Irl and who have upon witnesses iding ami criid ein i? rsonally, talion who is i poi Intendcnt of ng, and was no td of In South io procedure of mit too. When ho is brought the general upon which to bid for tho s showing tho tail drawings examinen tho >Uns. specifications or written contract i of tli?? usc or ownership of the ."old ma terial" in question Is to be found in i tho specifications, in the following wonls: "The successful contractor will be permitted to use all old material . that ls now cn the ground, and such parts of the present roof that conform to these piting and specifications; but it ? ls understood that the marble now on j the grounds Is not included. This only covers thc granite col ii pms, balusters, ; old iron, bracing, granite, etc.. in thc roof that is suitable, and the proper size that is called for. If in doubt con sult the architect on this subject be I fore making u bid."' 1 liefere bidding on the work Mc Ilvaln-Unkefer company, as well as other competitive contractors, culled I upon the architect, F. P. .Milburn, roi an interprete timi of thc clause quoted, concerning which they were in doubt. :i. The architect informed the con tractors 'that the contractors bidding for thc work would get such 'old ma terial,' and would bc permitted to use such old parts as would conform with the new plans and specifications." (See Milburn'!* letter, July 31, mot.) 4. Acting upon the interpretation given hy the architect, Mcllv'aln-Unke fer company, after making allowances for what was conceived to be the value of the "old material'* to them, pul tn their bid for thc contract, und was duly iioccpted hy the commission. fi. One Mr. Garfunkel, a junk dealer, submitted to the commission a proposi tion to buy thc copper and old iron then in the old roof, and the commis sion, upon accepting Mcllvaln-Unkcfer company's bid, ordered that '.be com munication ol' Mr. Garfunkel be turned over to the successful bidding con tractor, upon the ground that tile sai l "old material" was at the disposal of the latter. The clause quoted "ir tho specifica tions bears internal evidence of con scious ambiguity, and the coull leting interest is susceptible of various In terpretations. It is easy to conceive that tin- bidding contractors could claim with a show of nason, the title1 to the "old material" in question, and Inasmuch as the paper containing the clause WUK prepared for and in behalf of the commission, and the law would, as 1 understand lt. construe the con trad strictly against the commission and in favor of the bidder, for one rea son, among others, that in easer, of doubt, tin- construction hy the con tractors must be given tie- benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the commis sion, MS tie- author of tn,- specifica tions, uni suffer, il" either parly must, un account ni ambiguity. Hut 1 think that up toa very recent ? 'ate ii ha i )>.i tie- understanding on .'??.?es i;,.-.t the contra., lois should be the owners of the old material, and the fa? ts as found seem to me to pre clude any other conclusion. 'I'la- statement of Milburn, the archi tect, speaking <>n behalf of tin- commis sion, tin- known conduct oi the con tractors, based upon Mllburn's Inter pretation, thc acceptai!.d" the bid based upon the suppose.I ownership by the contractors of th.- . old nuttcrlul," and thc declination to treat with a pro posed jul! chaser for Ile- sale of the old material, and tin- reference of his bid to Mcllvnlne-Hnkefcr company, all ?slop, tin- commission from claiming tie- "old material" in question. Hoping that this will med with your approval, I am. Very truly yours. (Signed) nuncan Bellinger, At teiney General. Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin ion <d" the attorney general was ap proved by a vote takeil viva voce, Mi. Marshall voling against ii. i::: nt PIT i. ? '. lumbla. S. ' '.. Feb, 115,1904. 'i bis certifies that in the f;ill of 1901 ' <.#-I? . I !. < ?;i .'f.ii>l.-,.l IVvr t?>.. "EGT FRANK P. MILBURN. Whom Charges V. ere Made jsers in the General nbly. building in the light of these original, general plans and specifications. And yet no on<- of the seven gentle men of th-- capitol commission, who honestly differed with liol. Murshall, was called, nw was 1 asked to show him the modified and complete speci fications ami detail drawings under w hich .the w ork was actually done. 11 appears thai on a Friday in May, l'.'u:'., heil.re this investigating commit tee was KI take testimony, as remem bered by the chairman, the chairman of tlie committee called at my office, .luring my absence from the cite and left a verbal message willi one of my draughtsmen about the meet ir.!;, at which the expert from Washington would give his testimony, and thal I could be present, OJ- send any com munication ii I desired. M?t l never received tin- message, and. in fact, never heard ot the incident until last Friday, the Ut li inst. In this connec - tion I bec tn submit the following statements: "To Whom it May Concern: .This is tu certify that I am in the employment of Krank 1'. Milburn, ar chitect, in thc capacity of engineer and draughtsman, ami was during the last year, "Thal once winn Mr. Milburn and Mr. Heister were out of the office, .Mr. Milburn being out of the city, a gentleman ?ailed, and renre scntlng himself io i.c a member of the State house Investigntlrifi commit tee, stai.-d in effect that said commit tee would shortly tar: i understood, the next day) have a session, and asked thal 1 Iel Mr. Milburn know, and also nd word to McTlvnin, Unkefer com pany. I promised to iel Mr. Milburn know, and also Mcllvain, Unkefer com pany if we could; that I thought wo had their address in ihe office. ' That Upon the return of Mr. Heister, who is chief draughtsman and assist ant to Mr. Milburn. 1 told bini of what had taken place, ami supposed In- would communicate with them, but I never mentioned tho matter to Mr. Milburn until K.l.. 112, 1904. "(Signed) "Geb. F. Kepler." "To whom it May Concern: "l hereby certify timi I am now, and was lost year chief draughtsman and assistant to Mr. Frank I*. Milburn, architect. "That I have read the foregoing cer tificate of Mr. George F. Kepler, but have no recoiled ion of ever hearing of the conversa I ion therein referred to, before Feb. 1.'. 1901. If Mr. Kepler is correct in his recollection of stating the .nailer to ir > l di.I not lake lt in suffi . lently lo l>..,?\.J!; ly mind, and f am sure thal I never mentioned the mat ter tb Mr. Milburn. "(Signed) "Mi? hae| Heister." After tills hearing, at which ls now appears thal several witnesses were ex amined, I lcii ned of it from the news papers and common rumor; bul never knew anything of the purport of the testimony, although I heard thai Col. Marshall was prosent, and that the sessions were behind closed doors. 1'n til my return to this city ln?t Friday, whet, 1 coi hold of n copy of the report -tlie committee having never honored me with a copy-] never knew nuthi ri? tatively of the rulleciioua on thc work. After kerning th? testimony, and their proceedings secret, as I believe, from May to December, more thun six months, I received a note from the ? secretary of the committee, dated ; Barnwell, S. C.. Dec. 7, 1V03. ?mt malled in Columbia, 11th December, giving me j an opportunity to appear before thc ?' committee, if 1 desired. Having heard I of the proceedings in iMay, at which I was told, and believed, Col. Marshall had been present, I decided, without I having counsel, that 1 had best not ! appear unless the committee desired my ' presence, I had been guilty of absolute ly no wrong, or conscious neglect of any duty to the Stute, but hud given my best efforts to assist the capitol commission in the discharge of its du ties and the proper expenditure of the States money, hence 1 had nothing to explain away. But knowing that I had modilicd and detailed drawings In my office not on lile In the State house, 1 offered to place my office records at the disposal of the committee. In this ? connection I sec that my note to the ; commit lee hus been termed "curt." I I wish to disclaim any such Intention; i and if lt is, 1 .egret lt. and plead In ex ? temiutlon thc fact that I began the I struggle for bread early In life, and had I not the opportunities of collegiate edu . cation enjoyed by some members of the investigating committee. But in justice to the capitol commis sion, which with one exception up proved my work, as well as to myself j and family, 1 wish to say something in j regard to the specific findings of the j investigating committee, in the order I stated. First. As tu the charge that i the plans and .specifications tiled with j the secretary of state wei?' not suitable I and complete. 1 believe this was the lb st objection mude by Col. Marshall after my elec ? lion as architect, and was fully con > sldered ami passed upon bv the capitol commission in the year 1900, .Mr. Mar shall alone dissenting. At that time ? the commission had before it letters from four ol' the most prominent con 1 tractors ami builders of this section : of the country, who, after studying those plans carefully to base upon them bids for a very large sum of money, secured by ti heavy bond, had bbl upon this work. Some of these \ gentlemen were personally known to members of the commission, ?rid their statements were to the effect that the drawings ami specifications were plain ! enough to make an intelligent bld.; that the plans an?! specifications were fully understood, and were proper for good work. The opinion of such well known contractors ami builders us Ilude ?\i Walker, J. W. Bishop & Co., \V. A. j Chesterman an?'. Nicholas Itt uer. com monly known as "Honest Nick." must outweigh the opinion of Mr. Marshall and the Washington "expert" with any Impartial judge. Second. That the contrai t fixed the ??lil work ?rn th" completed portion of tn- building; as the standard. This is not true. There Is nothing in the plans ami specifications which could be so construed except, perhaps, , tie- woid ''prototype," on on?' of th?: general drawings, and this was intend ed to apply only to styl?', outline, form, , shape; ami was not intended to apply to the classification of the workman ship. Under each of the headings of the various classes of work the same was fully outlined, giving the number of cuts to th.- inch for the different parts of the work. In tins connection, I may say that it was not intended i?> make the stone . oralee in om- piece, for instance. The smell appropriation for the whole work necessitated great economy, and the scale detail drawings show that it was to bc built up ot several members, as it was done, instead of the more ex penslv? one-piece cornice. Referring to sheet <: of the g?nerai drawings where the note before re ferred io is found, it will be seen that! pens.-, in th.' neighborhood ol' $10,000, had a spleudl '. steel culling in the main lol.by, which the contractors took and converted to their own uso. where by the State lost in tb?, neighborhood ot $10,000. The plans and specifications required ! the contractors to cut u circular open- i lng Into the ceiling for the inner dome. When the celling was cut, and it was thoroughly examined, it was found to be galvanized iron, in a bad condition ami ditlieult to work into shape, es pcclally as it contained celling lights no lunger ol' use. Th" contractors said it would require special workmen an?! considerable loss .if time to patch it e.p. and would not then bo as satis factory as a now ceiling, which could j be gotten in less time, and enable them to lu? ready for the meeting of tho legislature, although the new celling would cost them more. After full in vestigation ?if all the facts and con ditions, 1 decided that it was I?? the interest of thc Stat., to accept the ! proposed change, and I approve.) Hie ' ceiling they used, which harmonizes perfectly with the design of tho cell ing under the balcony around Hie main bibby, which was placed there under Mr. Nlenisee's supervision. As both ?.?.?lings ar?- In the same lobby und are seen at the same time, harmony ls es sential. Neither tb?- cornice nor cove mouldings lu this lobby were interfered ? with, but the new coiling was used only . in the field or body of tie- ceiling through which the dome is cut. The contractors thought they ought io have extra for this now ceiling, but 1 would not allow ii. ami the Stale got the i new ceilings without cost. This iii in shows lia- fearful mistake thc investigating committee made in not examining farther into the real facts Instead of giving so much weight to that minority report. They would hliv? th?- public believe that it was a ''steel celling," costing in the neighbor hood of $10.(iii0. when the records in the secretary of state's office show that all the ceilings and cornices, si?-?-l beams, 1 ainI skylights in thc rotunda, or main ; lobby, and the celling over the schale lobby together; <<>st only $7.SDS, on the j 2d of May. ISSI). Any well informed man will know that the cornice actual ly cost much moie than 'ho celling. Tho public must in charity put this blunder of the committee down lo neglect and ignorance, or convict them pf deliberate misrepresentation in j making the .statement that "on this I item th?- State lost in tin- neighbor hood of $10,000.'! Let th?- public guess why Mr. Tl ?m t advanced the Iden that the contractors removed this ceiling thai th?>y might, hoist into position the larne Steel box girders that support the doine! The fact is. these heavy sto?'l beams lind girders wera raised from the outside wall, and not through ibo main lobby. Hut not content with trying lo nrdtisc public indigna linn over the alleged loss to tho stat?-, they attempt t" InjiiVe character by charging that "tin' con tractors bodily took an?l carried away ami converted i" their own use this valuable and beautiful part of ibo obi : buddinu." The cold fad is. and they ?Miller knew P. or ? mild have learned ii by reasonable, fair and impartial In quiry, thal tiiis old celling timt was removed from Ihe rotund* l?d>l?y was never sold or used t>y th?. if tors, but was given to Mr. Oarrtiifke. if he would remove it from the grounds, land he In turn gave ii lo Dr. Rabcock j on Hie same condition, and this "val uable nml beautiful/' ibis, ''splendid steel coiling. " now lies in a rubbish heap in tho back yard of Hie State lu natic asylum, a silent but unimpeach able witness of tho outrageous libel which lins investigating committee has spread upon Hie records of the legisla ture. Fourth, That by the omission of two Inner columns from the front *? li? > the contractors made a profit of 93,400, ami thc estimated IOBK to lhe State is M.?.00. That the public may fully understand this? matter, I wish to call attention to the fact, that when called to this work 1 found U partially completed building, much valuable stone and marble on band, ami an appropriation wholly and admittedly insufficient to complete the building ns originally designed. "When I made the plans, it was to utilize all . the very expensive columns then lying on the ground, ami considered flt for use, that largely induced me to pro vide for tw> inner columns on the front portico, lt turned out with tills work, us is generally the case in remodeling old, or partially completed buildings, that ninny modifications and chunges became necessary, and were mude with the consent and approval of the com mission, as a rule Co). Marshall being the only one dissenting. In hoisting these massive columns Into position, one of them broke by Its own weight when being removed from its position on the ground. An examination set tled beyond question that there was a defect tn the stone, which then showed nn old crack about two thirds of the way through. It was generully be lieved and conceded that the loss fell upon the State. The matter was promptly reported. I was of the opin ion, and am still, that it was then best to omit the two Inner columns, because there would be more floor space, be cause the architectural features would be just as good, because with Bil ' changes (omitting a wood truss a substituting steel trussed perlins) . strength of the structure would he Impaired in the least; because it would save much time in coniph the work, and because lt would oave rather than cost the State anything. The conti actors offered to furnish a new column for $2.000, necessitating several months' delay; or, piece the broken column for $500, causing a de lay of one month, or change the plans and omit the two columns,, causing no delay, and deduct from the contract price $G()0, which it was shown hy an Itemized statement would be saved to the contractors by the change. With ull tills information before the com mission, after full consideration, it de cided, by a vote of r> to 3, to change the original plan and omit the two columns, thus saving to the State $600, without detriment td the work, and giving these columns to the .State for monumental purposes. Mr, Hunt talks ?ibout "the stone Hu tt:! and brick work on top of these col umns." Thc specifications never called for any such thing. And yet this will ing witness, unable to condemn the sufficiency of the "bracing and anchor in:;," goes out of his way to suggest carelessness in "a great portion of the v construction throughout this building." Again, this "government" witness fays the two massive square pillars, under the portico, "now perform no duty :it all." Any sane person can see for himself that these piers, originally constructed principally to support the two inner columns, since- the change support much of the portico. And it wns to get such a witness that the in vest ig.-iilng committee passed over so many southern architects and con trat.Huns of known ability and Jnteg rity. . Fifth. That the new leaf wor: the capitals' ls not as fine as the li being impracticable to get stone for this new work from tin quarry, n stone was selected v matched it exactly, and the sanif . cepted with the bid of the contractors, the only slight difference, and which is not appreciable, In the work on the capitals, is due to the fact that the Ph colet granite is a trifle softer ?hC therefore not high a finish. Sixth. Thal pose. in referent: lenka In rain does leak, ami ??regret it., in my ei forl to give all the light possible to the offices and passageways below, I selected ibis style of lloor light, which is suitable Cor the place. Unfortunately - there is btu litt!?; fall, and yet I gaye it all I possibly could to connect with thc granite work and the height of the second floor doorway entering the lob by. This ls no faull of mine; it is "lie of the troubles en countered in remodeling or adding to a building. The chief trouble, how ever, with the portico lloor ls that to accommodate lhe legislature, it was laid just before the meeting of that body nnd was walked on and abused before the concrete and cement mate rial sel sufficiently. The natural con sequence vas that it was damaged and still presents a bad apoeiirance. An inspect ion of the rear portico floor, which ivas hoi flo used and abused, will substantiate this contention. As io the coiling of the portico, 1 flo not know of any material more suit able for such ceilings, lt ls made from the sanie elliss of material that was removed by the contractors from the main lobby, although not the same der sign. 1 wonder If thc gentlemen pt the investigating commlttci know that the portico celling in the main entrance to the United States capitol at Wush- j ington was common plastering, and \ that leaks from the roof caused some I of il to fall. 'S. ^f"f' Seventh. Thai the roof Is a "tar and gravel" roof, unsuitable, and leaks, badly. ll ls not a tar and gravel roof, but ls of the very finest quality of asphalt and crushed quartz, and there is no doubt abolit its answering the purpose for at least ten years, as thc roof con tractors gave a guarantee for teri year? against leaks and material wear and tear. This same .-lass of roofing ir on the following buildings tri the city of Washington. D. C.: Atlantic Const lane office building, ?southern Railway office building, Iowa department house. Raleigh hotel, Illiss. depart molli house. United States Cen sus building, govornr house. :i)nl many Othei'f to mention. It is .; matter Of prof . me thai the roof leaks, everything In my power to remedy it. lt ls il M that much more expensive roofs than this have proved unsatisfactory. Thc. government ppstofllce nit Savannah, which has a tile and copper roof leaked badly. The United States postofllce at Auausta. which also has an expensive roof, leaked for years. In this connection I submit the fol lowing: Columbia, S. c.. .lan. IS, 1004. Mr. frank P. Milburn, Architect. Co lumbia. S. C.: Dear sir: Referring to our conver tit lon in regard to the State house, will say that a short time after the Hitit.- house work was finished the Charlotte Roof and Paving company telegraphed me to go there and exam ine thc roof and make the same satis factory if 1 could. I went on top of the building and vas somewhat surprised to lind that some one hail torn the Hashing loose at several places between the main roof and tho base of the dome fur several feet, allowing the water flowing off of the dome and the base to run down Into the rotunda below. Tile werk was well Hashed around the Lune nnd counter Hashing was put Into the joints not In the way it Is usually done, viz.: by putting the flash ing Into the joint and turning lt up, but by cutting into thc Joint and <*x I tending Ile' tin back Into the joints land bolting it with rods, nuts and washers, and it was Impossible for it Ito get oui unless some cue had ton?