University of South Carolina Libraries
SUPPLEMENT THE LAURENS ADVERTISER i LAURENS, S. C, FEBRUARY 24, 1904. FORMER STATE HOUSE COMMISSION'S REPLY.j Text of the Answer to the Legislative j Committee's Report on the State Rouse. ALL THE ISSUES ARE FULLY DISCUSSED! A Document of Interest to All the People of South Carolina?The Charges and Counter Charges. To the Honorable Senate and the House of Representatives: On Monday, Feb. Stil, lt?0f. there was presented to your honorable body a re port of the Joint eonnntttee appointed under concurrent resolutions adopted at the session of 1893, "to consider the several reports of the oommlssion on the eoinpletion of the State house and facts relating thereto," of which com inittee Hon. Robert Aldrlcll, of Barn well, wus Chairman, and Hons. K. I. Manning, of Sumtor, J. O. Patterson of Darnwell, .1. M. Rawlinson of Rich land nnd T. Y. WHiiuins of Lancaster were members. This report contained the findings of said committee and the testimony up on Which said findings were based. The sole testimony relating to the work ineluded therein was that of "Captain" S. S. Hunt, who swore that he was a resident of Washington, l). C. and for four years had held the position of "Superintendent of con struction of the United States lapitol, Washington, D. C." Said Capt. Hunt proeeeded in unqualified language to condemn each and every portion of the work on the State eapltol which had been done by the commission ap pointed for the completion of the build ing. No other or further testimony relat ing to the work of construction on the building was taken, except that of A. W, Edens, inspector of plumbing of tlie city of Columbia, who was ques tioned In regard to the newly erected water closets. The testimony of these two witness es was concealed from the public and the umlorsigned until the said report was presented to your honorable body. Upon this testimony the aforesaid committee concluded, among othei things, that "the testimony taken re vealed a dark picture," (p. 1.1), "a mon strous swindle," (p. l.H, and that "!t would regard it remarkable Indeed if there is not some remedy, elvll or crim inal, or both, to bring these malefactors to Justice and to some extent to re dress the wrongs of the State." (p. 13.). A REQUEST FOR A FULL, FREE AND IMPARTIAL IN\'ESTICiA TION. Feeling that they had been unjustly reflected on therein, and if these con clusions had any foundation whatever? if there was even ground to suspect such a condition of affairs -that there should be made a full, thorough and searching Investigation Into this mat ter, certoln members of the commis sion for the completion of the State house met in the city of Columbia and adopted the following m niorial. which was presented to your honorable body along with and accompanying a resolu tion providing for such an investiga tion: "Gentlemen of the Oonoral Assembly: From an investigation of the report of the Joint committee "to consider the several reports of the commission on the completion of the State houRe and facts relating thereto," we, the; under signed members of the commission, authorized and directed "to complete the Slate house," feel that the report of the committee does us a manifest injustice, as it, wittingly or unwitting ly, unfairly condemns our acts and the work approved by us without giv ing us an opportunity to be heard and even refusing to ollow us a hearing. Many of the allegations of error and incompelency arc easily explained. Cer tain conclusions could not and would not have been drawn had available evidence been heard. Above all, we \f00l that an impression that must nec 'essarlty result from the tenor and terms of the report would not exist If It were allowed the opportunity to be heard. 'Therefore, believing that the gen crarl osHcmbly can have no intention of condemning us without a hearing, os mo moors of the commission upon whom you Imposed an involuntary pub lic, duty, should be allowed to account for that trust and to give their an swer and explanation to any allegation or insinuation, do most respectfully niemornllze your honorable body to make provision for giving us a hear ing In order thut further and all evi dence may be produced Unit njay Rive light upon the question before the committee, and that our evidence and reply to tho report of the committee should become a public record of your honorable body of the same perma ? noitcy and dignity as the report itself. "Respectfully, m. r. MoSweeney, f.. Duncan Bollinger, .1. Harvey Wilson, it. ii. Jennings, Robert J. Qailtt, W. J. Johnson." When the said memorial was pro* sented Hon. T. Y. Williams Introduced in the house of representatives, ami lion. Robert Abhielt In the senate, the following resolution: "Whereas, certain numbers of the former 'commission to complete the Slat" house' have memorialized the general assembly to make provision to give them a hearing In reply fo Hie report of the joint committee to con sider thfl several reports of Hie iniu mlsslon for tho completion of the state house, mid fads relating thereto, "Re r flesolvfid by Ihe general as sembly of the state of South' Carolina That any evidence, explanation, or uth or statement in writ inn that tho snid I memorialists may have to submit will bo received nml considered by tho 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 permit ting the commission for the comple tion of the building to represent to your honorable body such statement as they BttW tit. I WHY CONCEAL THE FACTS? When Louis the XVI was led upon ; the guillotine ami began an adddress in his defense. Santoere, a butcher who ! had been Riven eonnnand of the mu nicipal guard around tho scaffold, or dered the drums to be beaten. The words of the French king were thus silenced. Neither the lives nor tin? property of the members of this commission are threatened, but that Which is as dear to us as life and property?our repu j tatlon and good names?has been as sailed, and our respectful request that your body appoint n committee to hear ; both sides of the matter, and lay all i the facts before the people, has been : denied. You have, however, accord ! ed us the privilege of making a state I ment in writing, which we will now I proceed to do, and endeavor to make i this report in as parliamentary lan 1 gunge as our justly outraged feelings will permit, and the facts will justify. I Hut, gentlemen, what we asked and I demanded of your body which we feel WO had a right to demand, was I that all the evidence in this matter be brought to light, that the committee he empowered to summon witnesses and have them examined under oath and not to confine tho investigation to such evidence as could be secured from voluntary testimony. I Mnny witnesses to Important facts refuse to make affidavits, but they Could be compelled to testify at such hearing. , THIS COMMISSION HAS RF.KN REFLECTED UPON AN I) TIIK PERSONAL INTBOItlTY OF ITS MEMBERS ATTACKED BY TUB REPORT. This contention is made notwith standing the disclaimer of the members of the committee made upon the floor of the legislature to the contrary and without any assertion on our part that such reflection was Intentional. That the impression that such a tellectlon was made is abundantly proven by reference to every daliy paper pub lished in the State, wherein the ac tion of the commission Is character ized as an "infamy," a "scandal." otc. If tho committee was Innocent of any intention to attack the characters of thos* constituting the commission it was most unfortunate In its use of the Knglish language. The members of this Investigating committee now give it to be understood that their vicious attack was directed against tho archi tect and the contractors and charitably suggest that this commission was dup ed and bamboozled by those employes, and that we were to be forgiven for our weakness, and that the charge against us of being fools must not bo serious ly taken as reflecting upon us. If the committee did not mean to re flect upon this eommlsslon, why does it refer to us In its report as follows: (These references being taken at ran dom from tin? report.) "Tho contractors broke one of the columns Into two pieces, and rather than put the contractors to the expense of replacing the broken column they wore generously excused (by the com mission) from putting them In at nit, thoy paying the State S.VKl, leaving thorn $.'{,400 profit on that transaction." (Report, p. 7.) Surely, tho honorable gentlemen of the Investigating committee would not dare to say that aay one filling a fiduciary position could be generous with the State's money, or intentionally excuse any one from performing a duty delegated through an agent of the State to another party. Again: "A fine slate roof, bought by the State at. a heavy expense and Which afforded perfect protection for years, was taken off and appropriated by tho contractors." (Report, p. 8.) The inference necessarily drawn from this statement Is that, this "appropria tion" (which, had tho committee used the proper word to convey its meaning, would have been "mistapproprlutlon") was with tho knowledge ami consent of this commission, whose duty it was to protect the Interests and the prop ; erty of the State. The Investigating committee called before them the sec retary of the commission and hud bo fore thom for inspection the minute book and all the records of this com mission. That committee knew, or ought to have known, and wo believe did know, that before the contract was awarded it was agreed that tho suc cessful bidder should become tho owner of all the material torn out of, or off of. the State house, and that tho taking possession of the material of this roof was simply exercising the right of ownership, both under the general law and under I he special contract. Again: "Wo feel with what wo have reported, and the testimony taken, re veals a dark picture, it Is true, but nothing short of an actual Inspection of the WOS'K can convey nil nderpiale Idea of that monstrous swindle of which the Stato Is the victim, Hppro piiatlly portrayed in the closing words of Cupt. Hunt's testimony." (This worthy, imported from tho District of ? Columbia to teach too officials ami I citizens of this Slate the aesthetic as ; well as architecture, who testifies in ! reference, generally, to this work that j it is "A parody upon the science of I architecture and an Insult to the fame of John it. Ni M-nsee. and a disgrace to ttie State of South Carolina.' ) (Report, p. 13.) Does this committee discredit the in telligence of the people of this State to such an extent as to believe Cat ' they will accept the statement that no Intention is herein expressed to reflect I upon the C0mmt88lon who was a patty I to such an "Insult" to a distinguished man, and to such a "disgrace" to our I native State? If this model of lin guistic inaccuracy was honestly In tended to be simply a statement that mechanical employes had failed to ? carry out their contract, why the bom bastic and grandiloquent language in which the report is dressed? When a committee ascertains and reports thot on architect has failed to lie efficient, ! or a contractor has slighted his work, \ does it "reveal a dark picture?" Again: In referring to the sattsfuc ' tion entered by the governor on the bond given by the contractors, the lucid composer of the report uses the follow ing language: "This surrender and at tempted discharge of this bond, the 1 State's only security for the vast losses sustained, was not the act of the com mission, as the governor alone, advised, as it is said, by the attorney general, undertook to perform this act, and It ! may be that the State may yet be able i to realize upon this security. "Your committee do not consider that it comes within the scope of their duties to determine questions of law involved in the matters embraced I herein, but would regard it remark able indeed if there were not some rem edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring ! these malefactors to justice, and to \ some extent redress the wrongs of the . state." (Report, p. 12.) The members of this commission j herein referred to by designation of i office deem it proper to state that their ( self-respect forces them to treat this language as if it does not express the , ideas or opinions of the respective members of the investigating commit I tee; yet we have reason to know that many intelligent people of this State believe "the malefactors" referred to are the then governor and the then at torney general, Inasmuch as the only inference to be drawn from BUch 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 j had committed a palpable ami noto irlous fraud and swindle upon the com j monwealth. Laying nslde expressions of indigna I tion and using simply the language of 1 crttlesin, we feel that the words of the distinguished composer of the report, as he addresses the dome of the capltol, Justly describes these two paragraphs in connection with the report: "This Is the crowning piece of this work in more senses than one. Taken all in all it is simply Infamous. To i 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. 0.) We feel that we are unjustly reflected upon. We knew that we had discharged our duty faithfully and honestly. We knew that the State? had received full value for every penny we had ex pended, ami we only asked an oppor j tunity to prove these facts. ! The members of the Slate house onm ? mission have been honored by the pco i pie of South Carolina, and they feel that ! their good names have been assailed land that they owe It. not only to them selves and their families but to their I people as well, that the greatest and ! fullest flood of light should be thrown upon the whole transaction. HOW THE SO-CALLED INVKSTI QATION WAS CONDUCTED. That against which we most stren uously protest is the manner in which j the Joint committee conducted the In vestigation. It was denied upon the I floor of the house that a member of our commission had asked for a hearing, j The attention of your honorable body] Is, therefore, especially asked to what we consider to be undeniable facts inj connection with tire report of the joint] committee hereinbefore referred to. It will be noted that said committee was empowered to consider the several reports of the commission for the com pletion of the State house, to appoint a secretary, to employ an architect, and to summon witnesses. We contend that the report of the majority of the commission, as well as tho report of tho minority, should have received the same consideration, and that witnesses should have been impartially sum moned to sustain or attack both. The majority report is practically dismissed with a quotation of less than four lines, whereas tho dissenting and accusing report of Mr. Marshall, tho minority member, is set out at largo in It specifications, and all of tho testi mony taken is directed against t he majority and in favor of tho minority report; and the committee thereupon, to use their own language, "feel con strained to report generally that tho minority report of Senator J. Q. Mar shall was fully sustained by the evi dence taken and by Cue visible facts for all to see for themselves who choose to go over 'he building and make even a casual examination of it." It will be remembered that both of these reports went officially to the leg islature and both of them were re ferred to the joint investigating com mittee. We contend that each should have received the same consideration as the other. We submit evidence to show that Mr. Marshall attended the sit I logs of the committee during tho taking of the testimony herein, where as no member of this commission was present at any time. (See testlmonv of I>. II. Means, exhibit 10. and of J. R. darf Uli KOl, exhibit l<\) It Is an admitted fact that no sin gle member of the commission, with the exception of Mr. Marshall, was noti fied that he could be heard before tho' committee or given notice as to tho time or place of meeting of said com mittee. We tender testimony to show thai at leant two of the non-attending members of this commission notified two of the five members of the commit tee that the commission desired to bo heard In their own behalf and that such requests were treated with silent con tempt. (See aflldavita of Messrs. John? son and Bellinger, marked respectively Exhibit H and Exhibit V.? WHY HIDE THE TRUTH ? Does it not seem very singular, to say Hie least, that the members Con stituting Ibis investigating committee led the light upon tho Moor of both tho house and tin- senate \., prevent, any further investigations of this matter, and that on the same night identically the same resolution, Hie purpono of Which wan to deny a foil hearing, was Introduced by suld conuultUs in the house arid Ihe senate? The true mis sloo ot an Investigating committee) as its uuine Implies, is to Investigate and bHng to light every side and hearing I of a question, and not to prosecute. [This Is the llrst time in the annals of South Carolina where an investl Igating committee only heard and re ported one side of an Important niat I ter, or which held secret meetings be hind closed doors, from which mem bers of the press were excluded. EVEN THE VILEST CRIMINAL IS GIVEN A HKARINO. In his message to your body our chief executive ashed you to devise some law to put an end to the lynching in our State. Now, what Qov. Hcy \vard demanded for the vilest eins? of criminals has been denied some of our fellow-citizens who have been recog nized and honored by their people? the right of making a defense, and a fair, impartial hearing. Before this report Is ended we propose to prove to the satisfaction of every fair-minded person in South Carolina that our com mission was tried behind closed doors, only one witness at the time being ad mitted, and what is a most unheard of proceeding, the reporters of our State papers excluded. (See affidavit of A. H. Seats, Exhibit C. and Lewis G. Wood, Jr., Exhibit D.). Not only this, but apparently to keep the mem bers of our commission in ignorance of what was going on in that meeting some of tho witness wore hound not to divulge the questions that had been usked them. (See aflldavlt of D. H. Moans, Exhibit E.). To show further what a one-sided affair this was, the son of one of this committee was made clerk, and tho only outsider admitted to that room was Senator Marshall, the minority member and the prosecu tor. (See affidavits of J. B. Qarfunkel, Exhibit P.) Is tho life, liberty, property or good name of any citizen of South Carolina safe when he can bo tried by any such secret, one-sided tribunal of BOcalled justice? The palladium of liberty in every country is a free moss, but wo lind In tho proud old State of South Carolina a throttled press when an investlga j ttoil was in progress in which every j taxpayer of the State Is personally in terested. HUNTING FOR HUNT. Wo ate convinced, gentlemen, from Buch evidence as We are able to secure, 1 that the sole witness against us was [ falsely represented to the .people of South Carolina, as an "expert archi I toct" In charge of the work of the United States government, when his name does not appear in tho list of government employees and he Is to tally unknown to the experts of the United States government who are I charged with the construction of its buildings; that his name does not ap ! pear in tho "blue book" which contains the names of all government employes wherever located: while the directory of congress which contains the names of the attaches of the national capltol, j does not show any such officer as "su perintendent of constructing." All we now have to ask of you Is that this protest be spread upon your Jour nals and bo given the fullest publicity, as you have promised, anil we further beg tho press of South Carolina, and of every other Stale that has given publicity to that report, to reproduce our defense. AN APPEAL to THE PEOPLE. Let us say that we have nothing 1 more to ask of your body. We now appeal to the highest tribunal known to a sovereign State?an honorable, Just and fair-minded people. A PERFECT BUILDING HAS NOT BEEN ERECTED SINCE THE 1 DAYS ok solomon'. We assort that we have given to the completion of the capltol the same watchful care that we would have done had this building been our personal property. The members of this com mission are not architects, and the legislature was aware of this fact when they appointed us to this duty. We do assert, however, that wo gave careful thought and study to the do tails and science of tho work, and left no effort unturned to fully acquaint ourselves with the minutiae of the problem presented. We do not suppose that anyone over constructed a build ing, however humble it might bo, but utter completion he discovered that .ho might have made desirable changes ami Improvements. It is easy to criti cise the builder after his work is done. A building erected by human hands is never perfect, and this, of course, is true of tho work on the State house, hut we do assert that the general result was to the satisfaction of the commission, and wo further believe that it would sat isfy tho taxpayers of tho State who aro paying for this work were they familiar with all tho facts surround ing tho task assigned us and appreci ated the difficulties which we encoun tered and tho problems presented in the construction of this building, since the completion Ot our State house thousands have visited Columbia and inspected this work, and expressions as to tho beauty and magnificence of this building have been heard on every side. Tho Slate House commission alleges that if there arc some defects in the South Carolina capitol, that tho respon sibility rests not upon the commission, hut is due to the fact that $1m,,000 was totally inadequate to complete the] building In conformity with the origi nal work on this Structure. The State Mouse commission endeavored to com- I ploto tho budding so that It would present an Imposing appearance. It 1 did not attempt to do the work accord- 1 Ing to tho mothodH of 50 years ago, but took advantage of improvements In methods of construction, and for this it has no apology to offer. This duty, gentlemen, was not so licited, and ihorc is not a member of this commission tint sacrificed his per sonal interests and affairs in tho dis charge of the duty imposed upon him. If. was not ours to fix, the sum neces sary to do the work. That was the province of the legislature. We did what W0 wore directed to do, complet ed tho w ork your predecessors contem plated within the appropriation they made. We did not doom it your wish or desire that we should apply to you for additional appropriation when we found tho funds provided Insufficient for tho employment of foreign artists and for tho purchase of $10,000 colllngH. Th&l quest Ion was not ours, hut yours. Tho commission does not feel called upon to defend tho architect. In tho execution or his work they feit called upon to sustain hhu only so long as In tho combined wisdom of tho commis sion he wns right. As to purely tech nical matters It necessarily relied on his Judgment and deferred to Iiis ud vice. THE COMMISSION RECOGNIZES its DUTY TO THE STATE, If any evidence is brought before our commission that cither tho archi tect or contractor have been' guilt) of collusion or neglect of duty, or in any manner silRhted their work, it would not only become our duty, but our pleasure, to prosecute either or both to the extent of the lav:. Any facts in the possession of this commis sion, either matters of official record or matters of personal knowledge In connection with the work on the state house, will be fully and frankly given under oath to 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 commis sion, under the provisions of the law constituting it, elected an architect and paid htm the usual fees to design and superintend the work of completion of the capltol. The commission, under the provision of the law, let the work to the lowest bidder. If there has been any collusion between the archi tect and the contractor it is a fact ab solutely unknown and unsuspected b5' the State house commission, and there has not been published or produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that any such collusion existed. CAN 'WE AFFORD TO RAY FOR MAGNIFICENCE? When the commission was ap luted to complete the State house t ' ope or Its duty was clearly markeu t in the act creating It. R was required by the law to complete the State house within the appropriation of $175,000. When the fact is considered that the State house as it stood in Its Incomplete condition had cost the State of South Carolina over $2,000,000, It would have been the height of folly for our com mission to attempt with the limited amount given us to carry out the de sign of the original architect, who de signed and contemplated a $5,000,000 building. The act further stipulated that not one dollar of the money ap propriated should be expended until a contract for the completion of the : building within the amount stipulated was made, ami this contract we were directed to mnke and did moke. It has been the purpose of ttie commis sion in the expending of the limited sum at our disposal to make all permanent work good and substantial, to conform as near as possible to the original building, and if there has been, as al leged, "cheap and shoddy work" put upon the building, an Investigation will reveal that such work can be easily re moved at any time, without marring In any way the substantial portions of the building, and that It can be re placed by as costly material as the State cares to pay for. Only St.200 I was spent for the roof. This roof it was believed, would be satisfactory; if it hns not proven so It can be easily replaced by as expensive a structure as you wish and In the meantime it will have served the purpose. The com mission in this matter, as In many others involving questions of the re lative quality of materials and meth ods of construction, relied to a large extent upon the judgment of the archi tect. As business men they felt that I the wide and varied experience of the men whom they had entrusted with the power and authority of an archi tect, which must of necessity be exten sive, justilled thom in deferring to his judgment and advice. This arch itect was necessarily governed by the amount appropriated for the work, and, of course, could use only such ma terial as the appropriation would pay i for. The limited funds placed at our dis posal is the only reason that any part of this work is inferior in character to tho liest work on the old portions of this building. We do not wish, however, to be un derstood as apologizing for the present condition of the State house. It is to day 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 carvings by imported artists, it wos not believed by the commission that the people of South Carolina either desired or pur nosed to have them now. When they are willing and able to pay for these tilings they can be placed there. Rut this criticism can be made of the ohl portions of the hullding, as well as the new. and notwithstanding the so-called $10,000 galvanized ceiling liable, in the words of this "architect. Hunt," to "rust out in o few years," which was placed there by the commission, of which Senator Marshall was a mem ber, fifteen years ago, the main cor ridor of the building was unsightly and unadorned by the beautiful marble with which John It. Nlernsco designed to cover Its walls. AS TO THE SELECTION OP THE ARCHITECT. In selecting an architect for the work It was the sincere desire of the com mission to put aside personal consid erations and to secure for the State the services of the liest and most experi enced man w hom we could tind. Two plans/Were presented to the commis sion, while numerous architects were suggested as thoroughly competent to do the work. Six of the ten members of the commission voted for Frank P. Mllburn, whoso plans scorned liest adapted for the work contemplated. Mr. Milb irn 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 erec tion of all its stations and buildings. Resides, he had erected the Thompson auditorium at Charleston, tho court house at Anderson, ami other build ings, which Within the personal knowl edge of members of the commission had proven satisfactory and he was las well highly rocom mended to us by jail with whom we knew he had had dealings. It may bo added that since that time, Mr. Milhurn has been se lected as tho architect of both tho ] Florida and North Carolina state enp Itols, Consequently, the commission thought they were just hied In the se lection they had made. If the report of the Joint investigat ing committee, however, is followed to Its logical conclusion, It Is evident that it wos the opinion of that committee, that the commission made a mistake' I in electing an architect at all. but that we should have sent to Washington for a hanger-on around the national CO pi I tol. to Instruct us 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 (larolfnn. AS TO Till-: SUFFICIENCY ok THE PLANS. When Senator Marshall made, tho ob jection that tho plans for tho work were Insufficient, wo referred the mat ter to the architect with directions to show to our satisfaction if he could that this objection was not well found ed. As the liest, evidence of the fact that this complaint was not well founded Mr. Milhurn submitted to the commission statements from several contractors who had filed bids ?or the work, and who necessarily must have familiarized, themselves with every fen turo and detail of the plans In order to make an Intelligent bid upon the ; work, in which they declared not only that the plans were sufficient but that } If the true intent and spirit of them was carried out the Stute would se cure a good job. Not being ourselves : competent to pass upon a technical . point of this nature, we knew no high er or better uuthority to whom we could refer the mutter. That we had secured a most desirable contract un der sufficient specifications we felt con I vlnced and satisfied when the other j bids submitted under them ranged up : as high as $212,000, which seemed to be the price necessary to Justify that j contractor in engaging to erect the . work according to the accepted re ' qulrements. The difference in the low est bid nnd the one next to it of nearly JlO.Oijo, absolutely precluded any idea , of collusion In awarding the contract. There is a general impression fos tered by this report, if not created j thereby, that the act creating the oom ! mission for the completion of the State house directed that said commission , should require bond from the eon , tractor. It will, therefore, be a BUr ? prise to most members of the general assembly and the public to be informed I of the fact which is now stated, that i no such bond was required or sug gested by the legislature when defining the duties of the commission. There ' being an utter absence of any mention ' of u bond in connection therewith, it I is clear that the bond actually taken ; was one required by the commission : solely upon its own motion and in or- j i der the better to aid them In enforc- ] j lug the performance of the contract j which they entered into with Mcllvaln ' Unkefer company. Wo take the poel ! tlon that this bond was not at any j time under the control of the legisla | ture, and that it became, according to i Its terms, utterly null and void as soon ; as this commission, acting through a ' majority of Its members, expressed itself as satistled with the performance of the contract 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 i became ipso facto cancelled and an nulled, when the commission expressed j Itself satistled with the job; and the , endorsement upon the bond was merely ; a ministerial duty done by the gov orHftr and which we are convinced he ? could have been mandamused to do under the circumstances. Wo an; In? ; formed by the members who belong to 1 the I.-gal profession tlint If said bond j were now In possession of the officers of the State unmarred by any endorse* i meat, the plaintiff in interest could '. not recover under the facts without j alleging and proving fraudulent col ! lusion as to acceptance of the work be . tweon the commission, the obligees and the contra? tors, the obligors, and the I members of the Investigating commit* ? tee have given public assurance that ! no such collusion is even suspected, Furthermore, nt a meeting hold sub ; sequent to the endorsement made by I the governor, the attorney general re ported. Informally to the commission '. that the governor hud satistled the i bond upon his legal advice. THE OLD IKON AND OTHER JUNK. it was never the Intention of the commission to reserve to the State the old iron and Other Junk removed from the biuldlng. Not only did they believe that the contractor would al j low more for It In his bid than they I could get for it otherwise, but ques tions would have been continually aris ing as to the expense, etc., of removing this old material, nnd of getting it out ' of the way. It cost several hundred dollars to get the old iron alone down : from the roof. Besides, the appronrla ' tion for the work was limited, and the commission desired to mit In the huild i ing In value all that the funds nt their disposal permitted. Not only did i the architect, as the agent of the com ? mission. Inform the bidders personally j that the specifications would bo so con ' sfrued, (See opinion of the attorney general, exhibit ID. but there is ahun ' dant evidence that all who filed a bid for the work did so on the basis of gelling in partial payment the old ma terial that was removed. Mr. J. B. Gnrfunkel, the man best qualified to know this fact, the man whom the j investigating committee itself sum - monod to testify in regard to this old material, swears that ho knows of his own knowledge that the different bid ders for the work filed their bids upon j the basis that the old material, all of it, would go to the contractor. (See I affidavit of J. B. Oarfunkol, exhibit J). l,f any further evidence of this fact was necessary the reply of w. A. Chester man, one of the bidders, and of J. E. Burgess, another to the samo effect, in ? response to n telegraphic inquiry that j ("In my capitol bid I figured on all old 'material being my property." Soo tel ! cgrams, exhibit o.) should do so. j No one doubted for an Instant that not only as a matter of tight but under 'the strict lotter of the law and the contract this old material went to the contractor, until over a. year after thO : contract was let, when Senator Mar shall filed his protest. An Investiga tion resulted, when the fact developed that the contractors had actually al lowed the State a credit for this old J I material in their estimate sheets. I Thereupon the attorney general gave; . to the commission this opinion, which ! j has been completely Ignored by the in-' vostlgating committee, not withstand-. i Ing the fact that it was in their pos session; that not only of right, but of j law, this material, under the contract, I was not the State's. (See opinion at torney general, exhibit II.) ! Every member of the commission ex Cept Senator Marshall believed hud' i they attempted to claim this old ma i torlal under all the circumstances, they i would have been acting not only un fairly, but dishonestly, with the con j tractor. The contractor had actually i given the State value for this material,! I and the specifications had been so con strued and made absolutely plain he-j fore the bids wore even filed. The peo ple of the State do not ask their pub lic servants to do a dishonest deed. Ill our opinion if would have been dls l ton est to have attempted to take from' ihe contractor that for w hich he had j paid. If demand Is made that the State shall attempt to dishonestly retake; from the contractor the value of prop erty sold by the State for full < on it eration, this end must bo obtained' through other Official agencies than that of the members who compose this commission. AS TO THE BIIOKEN COLUMNS. Under the terms of the specifications for the work "nil of the columns that I uro out ami the five unfinished will I lie COmpletQd Olid used by selecting the1 perfect ones for the main front, and using the ones with small defects In l the rear." (Report, p. 4M, In the' progress of the work, in attempting In ralSfl one of ihr finished columns frofn Its bod where It hail remained for 11 number of years. tiw> column Ipuko of its own wclRbl along the line .,r a hid* den crack in the stone. At the meet ing ensuing tue contractor appeared bofore the cuminiiirilou and ututort that t It would bo necessary for the State to furnish a column to replace the one broken. The column was a portion of the material to be furnished by the state under tho contract and tb?:. was no doubt in the minds of n ma jority of the commission, after u care ful examination of the contract, plans and specifications, that the commission could have been compelled by the con tractor to furnish a new column. To quarry and carve a new column would have cost the State at least $2,000; it would have delayed the work of completion Of the State house about six months. The contractor reported that the column could he patched by putting In a section uf new stone at a cost of about |500, and a delay In the work of 30 days. i According to the plans there were to be two columns placed within what is now the open Moor space on the front portico. These columns supported none of the weight of the walls of the struc ture, and were located by the architct ? within this area because under the approved plans the State had on hand two columns that could be used for J purely ornamental purposes. The < o:. ! tractor proposed to the commission that he would deduct the cost of rais ing these two inner columns into posi - tion and the cost of the unfinished carving of caps for same if they could be left out, and the work proceed. Upon the report of the architect that the strength of the structure of the completed building WOUkl be in no wise Impaired, tills solution of the problem was deemed the best and most: expedient, Innsmuch as the funds In the hands of the commission were limited, the work would not b>; d? - i layed and no damage would bo done the structure. At a subsequent meet ing of the legislature the broken col umns were appropriated and given bv the State to Greenwood and Spartan burg. The question of utility having be. ?> settled to the satisfaction of a ma jority of the commission it then be came one purely of taste and ornamont, ; and upon this issue wo considered that i the best interests of the State W. subserved by carrying to completion [ the front portico as it now stand It may be added that in the final VOlO as to leaving out these two centre col umns that Messrs. CJantt and Johnson voted with Mr. Marshall In the nega tive, the other members present con stituting a majority, voting in the afllrmatlve. In addition to the $000 above men tioned as a part of the consideration for relieving ttie contractor of the work of placing the columns the commis sion reserved for the benefit of the State the remnants of the broken col- . umns. THE CEILING IN* THE MAIN LOBBY. One of the most serious charges brought by the investigating commit - I tee related to the removal of the coll ing in the main lobby and this is a typical Illustration of their methods land Of the value of their conclusions. "Captain" Hunt in his tcstim. I (p. IT) SWOI'C thai the State had lost, in his opinion $15,000 by the removal of this ceiling, which was represented as "steel" ceiling ami that "had cost in the neighborhood of $10.000." (p. "> ) Now, what are the facts?. The ulli clal records of the old Stele house commission show the awarding of tho contract for this ceiling .as folh vvs: ??Columbia, S. C, May 2nd, 1889. Tho commission met this day. Present: Hon. J. Q. Marshall, secretary of Stute; Hon. J. s. Vorner, comptroller general. The bids were presented, be ing six in number, for putting in Iron i (galvanized) ceiling, beams, skylights, I etc., in the main corridor on the second j floor, together with the celling over i Hie senate lobby. ? ? ? Mr. John Alexander's bid upon plan No. l, for ' $7.8!t8 was accepted." I This record was accessible to the In vestigating committee and could have , clearly shown 4hom that this ceiling I did not cost "in the neighborhood of I $10,000," hut that the . r iling of the ] senate lobby, which bail not been re moved, end the cornice of the main lobby, which was still there, consti tuted three-fourths of the work tor which less than $8.000 had been paid, ? and that the ceiling that had been 1 removed cost, 15 years ago. less than j $L\000. Tt is u very plain piece of work with little ornamentation and cer tainly not beautiful. Architect Wilson In his report stated that it could now be put back for about $1,800. This colling, as the records show, was not only bought as galvanized iron. but. an actual inspection of it win show that the ceiling taken oul was nothing but galvanized Iron. The committee found that "the contractors l >odily took ami carried away and converted to their own use this valuable and beauti ful part of tho obi building." <p. 7) when one of the five witnesses whom they themselves put upon the stand certified and could have told (hem (hut it was galvanized Iron, and when re moved "w orthless even as Junk." (Si a affidavit of j. B, Garfunkol, Exhibit P), Dr. Bnbcock, superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane, certifies i that the celling is now in his posses sion as an Officer of the State. (Sen certificate of J. \V. Rabcock, Exhibit D. The commission put back oxnetly tho same material they took out, simply requiring the contractor to repines worthless and damaged material with new material of the same kind. The wanton misrepresentation which it was necessary for this so-called "architect" tf. make to show that the removal of a dngen squares of gal vanized Iron which was in bud shape, bent and rusted, and replacing it with other galvanized Iron of a pattern which bettor suited the round opening of the dome entailed a loss r?f $15,000 upon the State, certainly entitled him to the compensation of $1", a 'lay. whe h he was paid nnd which he was evi dently industriously endeavoring to earn. If the ceiling removed could hn properly designated as "steel coiling" that put in its place could 1? ho desig nated, as it Is the .same material. !f one is pressed into form by a ' stamp 1 and the oilier shaped by a soldering iron, that fad would add nothing to its beauty and would make || (11 mi-lor and easier to gel out of shape. AS TO WATER CLOSETS, When w< took charge of the com plotlon of tho State house under fhls act there were as there had been for many yens, two water closets of old and defective design placed consider ably beneath the level of IhO surround ing grounds, and absolutely without ventilation. The use of these by (hfl occupants of the th.st oi ground floor necessitated the descent of one flight of stairs, and were removed another long fllghl of stairs from lh( legisla tive halls. Those members of (ho com? mission who were also Slate officers fully realized and Appreciated in? in tolerable, u remediable unsanitary con