University of South Carolina Libraries
dttlon which must necessarily surround these closets as long as they were bo located. Realizing the Importance of such conveniences, and being con vinced that some provision for them must bo made boforo the pwrmunent work on the State house was completed, the commission sought to provide a different, more convenient and safer locality in the building for these closets. These new closets were not contemplated when the question of completing the State house came be fore the general ussembiy, nor were there any plans, specifications or con ti act relating thereto; but the commis sion believing that out of the appro priation enough had been saved to in stall these necessaries, made,such con tract with reference to thenri as justi fies us In courting the most rigid In vestigation. At the time the fixtures were installed there was no sewerage system in the city of Columbia, und no municipal regulations covering details which though adopted for the sake of uniformity and governmental regu lation are but arbitrary. Since this In stallation there has been no complaint! of the presence or suspicion of the ex- I Istence of sewer gas. and the location i of the closets Is such that If the pres ence did actually exist there could be nt) detriment to the heulth or lives of the occupants of the rtiatc house. This determination on the part of the committee to make this arrangement was most fortunate, as subsequent events proved, for the discovery was about that time made that the old water closets* had been silently and un suspectingly venting their gases through secret and unknown flues in tin- brick walls of the building into the offices upon the lower floor and spreading disease and death among the State's employes. The commission of sanitary experts appointed by Gov. II? yward, while criticizing some do-i ails of the new work, ordered the old ! closets peremptorily and immediately i removed from the building, and in this demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary In- > spector of Columbia, Joined. The grates! or lire places in several of the offices wire directly connected with these! closets 'ami had to bo hermetically! sealed until the old work was removed from the building. The condemned closets had been In btailed at great expense to the State under the direction of the commission which erected the "splendid ten thous and dollar steel colling" in the main lobby, nearly 15 years ago, hugely un der the supervision of Senator Mar shall, who was then secretary of state. We desire to impress upon you the fact that you have not been put in pos session of any evidence or statement as to the apparent condition of the State house upon the day when the accept ance was made and the final install ment paid to the contractor. We. therefore, inform you that when the work was accepted and the money puld a personal inspection by special com- , mltteo of the commission was made and the roof with all of its accessories, appeared in perfect condition, and every stone laid under the contract was free from cracks or apparent de fects, and this notwithstanding a test period of nearly or quite a month had elapsed from the date when the build ing was tendered, during which period we wer,- satisfied that a sufficient test had been made. During said period! there were several precipitations of! rain, notably on the 12th day of May. 1002, when the rain began to fall about i 2 o'clock in the morning and continued untit about 7 of the same morning, during which time nearly an Inch of water fell. Rain followed again on tia? 14th. falling during the night, and on the 16th, when In 21 minutes H-4 of an Inch <if rainfall was registered. Under this severe test the roof ap peared lo be perfect as far as protec tion from water is concerned. This statement is made on official informa tion given us by the United States au thorities. Wc confess with the utmost candor that in some respects, particularly as to the roof and the floor lights, we have not been altogether pleased with the result of the work. Hut these at the worst are not as serious as would have been blunders involving the construc tion of the stone work, and other more permanent portions of the building, which has come up to the full measure of tin- expectation of the commission. It is well to remember, however, that we arc too prone to dwell upon that which has not come fully up to our expectations, while ignoring the fact that tills man probably succeeded in in ire Important matters where another would have been subjected to Just criticism. We have scrupulously avoided, either In this communication or in any of the steps lending up to the opportunity which has been accorded us by your honorable body to Set ourselves right, in making our cause common With that I Of either the architect or contractor, anil have endeavored to divorce our selves insofar as possible from them. First of all, though out of oftlce, wc are in a measure servants of the people and of the general assembly, and if that tribunal deems the,State to have sull'erod Injury from either, our first duty Is to the State. However, it is but Justice to say that wo have found the contractors in all their dealings with us honorable busi ness men, whom wo believe to lie above suspicion of wrong doinK, and who sought to live up to the true intent and meaning of their contract with the State. Wo desire It understood that wo do not claim that it is impossible that im positions havo been practiced upon this commission by the architect or contractor, for if any vital defects ex ist In the building or serious mistakes can be shown to have boon made, these must have been the outcome of the commission having been misled, but we do assert In the most positive mnnner that the findings and the conclusions contained in the report of the Joint in vestigating committee are not sus tained by the evidence therein con tained, and if they are ever sustained it must be by evidence produced before another tribunal. Whether this com mission or any of Its members were ever designedly or unintentionally im posed upon or deceived by either arch itect or contractor, it con only be proved out of the mouth or mouths of such member or members, unless it be conceded that the members would com mit perjury in order to hide the facts. \V. would remind your honorable' body that this commission has not! deemed it to bo Its duty to go Into the newspapers to defend tMe course of the majority, and that as but one side j has heretofore been presented to the public, we realize that It Is but natural that the conclusion should bo drawn ? that there has boon but one sldo to the question, ff. with all the facts before I you. you should conclude that the one man has boon always right and the j nine men always wrong, we can but pload in extenuation that we have done the beat w*? coula tor the State, "tin awed by influence, and unbrtbed by gain." In this report wo havo endeav ored to state tho facts fully, candidly and fairly, "nothing extenuate and naught set down In malice." AH of which Is respectfully sub mitt- d. M. TJ. McSwceney. ('.. Duncan Bellinger. lt. H. Jennings. J. Harvey Wilson. Robert J. Oantt. W. J. Johnson. Columbia, 8. C, Koruary 19, 1904. Having taken up the official duties upon, the commission at tho expira tion of the term of tho Hon. W. H. Tlntmerman. my predecessor, I had nothing to do with the election of the architect or the awarding or tho con tract, but ns to all the facts relating to tho actions of the commission, end tus opinions expressed herein with ref erence to those facts, expressed In the | above report I am in heuity accord with the report of tho commission, and with the limitttttons ubovo expressed I have signed myself us u responsible member of tho commission. It. 11. Jennings. Under ttie resolution passed by the general ussembly of South Carolina, allowing the members of the .State houBc commission to tile such state ments as they respectively desired Ue make, 1 submit the following: That in the election of architect to make plans and spoolllentums for tic completion of the work on the State house 1 did not vote for Mr. MUburn j for reasons satisfactory to myself. In I the acceptance for the completion Mc ! Ilvuln-l'nkofer Co. was the only one I that came within the limits of the ap propriation, and It resolved itself Into j the acceptance of the same or a pOBt i ponement of the work until the pro I visions should be made by the State legislature. When l went out of office as State treasurer my connection with the commission ceased, and 1 am In no way responsible for the completion or j acceptance of the work of the con tractor. 1 did not pretend to have any | knowledge of architecture, und could , therefore have easily been Imposed upon as to the beauty and the llnlsh of | the architecture. Very respectfully submitted, W. H. Tlmmerman, EXHIBIT A. Personally appeared G. Duncan Bel- i linger, who being duly sworn, says: That in the late fall of the year 1!H)3. j upon casually meeting the Hon. J. O. Patterson, a member of the joint In-i vosttgating committee, and ascertain lug accidentally from him that he tiad \ just returned from Columbia where he had been in attendance upon said committee, I asked hiin if the com mission w-uuld be accorded a hearing i before his committee. In reply to this' Mr. Patterson staled that Mr. Aldrich was the chairman of the committee and advised me that If such request | was made of the chairman it would be granted. Deponent referred to reft- I sons mutually known to bim ami to | Mr. Patterson why such request would j be unpleasant to deponent, upon which Mi*. Patterson assured me that lie would himself notify the chair man of the desire of the members of the commission to be heard. This con- i vernation occurred in the town of I Barnwell on a Saturday night, within UO feet of the paling of Mr. Patterson's front yard. Subsequently and before the OCCftS ion next to be referred to in the same , town, and near the same locality, I | recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous conversation and asked him if the right which we had demanded would be accorded to us, and he assured me that It would, and that tie had spoken to ttie chairman on the subject and the probability was that the Illness from which Mr. Aldrich was then suffering was the reason why I, and other mem bers of the commission had not been notified. I again impressed upon him that this request was made on behalf of all of the members of the commis sion. These are the occasions to which I referred In the communications which 1 recently published concerning this ! request made upon Mr. Patterson, and ? at that time I had no reference- to any j Other; but his published statement, | said to have been in defense of bis, conduct. While explaining upon the J floor of the house of representatives, | the injustice done by his committee to members of our commission recalled to me another ami third occasion when this demand for justice was repeated. In the city of Columbia, on the night of the 17th of December, just passed, | ?nie of my partners, the Hon. I,. W. Haskell, who Is a member of the house of representatives, and myself went by ' appointment to the Columbia hotel to! meet some clients from the city of Augusta, with whom we conferred un- ; til about 12 o'clock. After this confer ence and when about to leave the hotel we met Mr. .1. (>. Patterson, who re quested us to go to his room, as he 1 would have to sit up to catch a late train. While In this gentleman's room j the subject of the investigating com- I mittee arose and I learned accidentally . that a meeting of this committee had ibeen very recently held. Becoming thus convinced that the promised hear- ' Ing was in a fair way never to be ac corded to us, I most earnestly attemp ted to impress him with the determin ation on the part of some of us to appeal to tho legislature- were we so I unfairly treated as not to be accorded ! an opportunity to be heard. Again I J received empty promises and vain as surances. A very recent conversation with Mr. Haskell warrants me In the assertion that he was present and re calls that the request was most earn estly made Duncan Bellinger. ? Sworn to before me this, 18th duy of February, 190-1. J. t. Gnntt, Notary Public, S. C. j EXHIBIT B. State of South Carolina?County of Rlchland. Personally appeared W. J. Johnson, who being duly sworn, says that dur ing the present session of the legisla ture the deponent had an intimation i that the commission for the comple- ! tion of the State house were going to I be severely criticised by the committee I appointed to investigate the several reports of the commission. That the deponent immediately looked up Repre sentative Hnwlinson, who was a mem ber of the investigating committee, and Informed him of what deponent had heard, and further informed him that if the reports of severe arraignment or criticism were true that the com mission had a right to be heard, and that an opportunity should be given them. That Representative Rawiin son assured deponent that there was nothing In the rumor and that the com mission would not be harshly criticis ed and that his committee had not fully made up Its report; that they would have another meeting and all the members of the old commission could he heard; further stated that it was his impression that all the mem bers of the commission had been In vited to attend their meetings; de ponent Informed hhn that none of the members of the commission had been Invited to any of the meetings so far as deponent know, certainly deponent had not been. W. J. Johnson, i Sworn to before me this, lxth duy of, February, I9?4, Lewis W Haskell. ? Notary Public for S. C. KX1IIU1T c. State of South Carolina?County of tllchluud. Personally appeared before mo A. H. S-ats, who being duly sworn, says: That he Is u reporter for* The Daily Record, a newspaper published at Co lumhla; that in company of Lewis Kohu, at that time reporter for The News nnd Courier, he applied at the agricultural committee room In the State house, where he heard the legis lative committee investigating the work oh the State house was in ses sion, for permission to report the evi dence and proceedings; that depon ent was told by one of the members of jjjj SJ^JU"*** tnnt tho meetings were A. H. Seats, i ?i&^frfi to and ?Ubeerlbed before me, ! this Kith day of February, 1904. A. C. DoPnss. I Notary Public. ' exhibit d. j .e-UiV; . lVo0d' beln* Su'y sworn. riif**k*iJYtLi,? J^'nt l.? tne agricultu *V#iHtT>In,tt*^roon' wh?w ?he investi mT , 5.^ .m'.ti,M<!0 Wft* hi.aewdon. *urt thfilf- W?? any news of the 1.11 UQ,til,i' lo b(> published at that time, and that he was told by a mom-? I her of the committee that there wan horn*. Lewis U. Wood, Jr.. The State. I i Sworn to before me this 10th dav of i Februury. 1'JtM. E. O. DePass, (L. a.) Notary Public for South Curollnu. Exhibit E. State of South Carolina, lcichland count'. Personally appeared before me D. H. Means, who being duly sworn says ' that he was summoned to produce cet i tain records of thu commission for the completion of tho state house and to testify before the "joint committee to 'consider the several reports of tho j commission on the completion of the ; State house and facts relating there j to," which committee was meeting in ; the agricultural committee room of the house. That he entered tho room and was about to be examined when another witness was announced as present whereupon deponent was in formed that he was excused until the I said committee had finished with said other witne?ss. That deponent then withdrew and waited In another office in the State house until after the de parture of said other witness when deponent was again summoned to ap pear and testify. That during his ex amination by said committee while de ponent was endeavoring to put In what ho considered necessary or proper qual ifications of "yes" and "no" answers deponent was interrupted by the chair man With the statements "answer tho question," and "you need not go in to thut at all." That just after the examination was completed the chairman of the com mittee requested deponent to nay noth ing of what had transpired during Ills examination by said committee. That during deponent's examination by said committee Senator J. (J. Mar shall was present. That some time subsequent to depo nent's examination by suhl joint com mittee ex-Attorney General o. Duncan Hellinger, handed to deponent a let ter written by said Q. Duncan Bellin ger to ox-OOv. M. B. McSweeney, tinted Dec. 2'_\ 1903, of which the following Is a copy: Columbia, S. C, Dee. 22, 1003. Hon. M. B. McSweeney. Hampton C. H., 8. C. Dear sir: In reply to your communi cation 1 write to say that 1 recollect , than oh May 31, 1902, when you wore ! governor and 1 attorney general ,of| South Carolina, 1 received from you a letter of dale May 31, 1902. a ciirbon copy of which is to be found nt pages 110 and 141 of volume of "Public Land Letter Hook, New Series. No. 1 to 200." of Which letter the follOWlllK is ? copy, to wit: "Columbia, s. c. May 31, 1002. "Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C. "Dear Sir: You are familiar with the action of the commission for the com pletion of the State house at meeting May 23, 1902, to-wit: 'Resolved that It appears to the commission for the com pletion' of the State house, Hint the .work is satisfactory and that the con- j tract has been substantially perform ed.' The above resolution was upon the question as to whether Mcllvatn Unkefer company has performed their contracts for the completion of the State house, and subsequently the com mission ordered the balance due Moll- 1 vain-Unkefor companv on their said contracts to be paid. Mcllvaiti-Unke fer company now desire that tho surety I bond for $50,000 given by them to the commission for tho faithful per formance of their said contract be by me surrendered to them the said con tractors. No action was by said com- j mission taken authorizing or directing the surrendei of said surety bond. Is j such action necessary or am 1 author- ' Ized, upon the action already taken by the commission to endorse upon said 1 surety bond the resolution of commis sion as to contractors' compliance with, or performance of contract, and surrender said surety bond to the said contractors? "Kindly give me your official opin ion upon this matter and oblige, "Respectfully, "M. B. McSweeney, "Governor and Chairman." "P. S.Mr. Unkefer informs me that until surrendered his surety bond ( is costing him $2/>.00 per month." Upon receipt of this letter from you I recollect that 1 gave you orally my j Official opinion, as attorney general, thut as Bald action of said commission was final and conclusive as to said con tractors having performed their con tract (to secure the performance of which said surely bond had been given to you as c hairman of said commis sion), said contractors were entitled to, the return of tho bond; and further action by the commission being un necessary, 1 advised you to surrender said bond to the contractors with nn endorsement thereon signed by you ' which I dictated. Very respectfully, G. Duncan Bellinger. That at the request of said OX-Qover nor M. B. McSweeney deponent pnsted the original of the foregoing letter, written by ox-Attorney General G j Duncan Bellinger to ex-Govcmor M. B. McSweeney, in the back of the min ute book of tho commission for the completion of the State house, so as to preserve in writing the evidence of the1 reasons and circumstances under which said M. H. McSweeney while governor surrendered said bond to said contractors, Mcllvaln, Unkefer Co. That subsequent to deponent's ?nid examination the secretary or ntcno grapner of said committee requested de ponent to give him access to tho rec ords of the commission, for the com pletion of the State house, for the mir pose of said secretary's comparing and verifying with said original records ?nid secretary's copies of portions thereof, to be used in said Joint com mittee report. That at this time de ponent rolled the attention of snld clerk or stenographer to said original letter from ex-Attornoy-General Bellinger to ex-Governor M. B. McSweeney, pasted as before stated. In the back of said minute book, and requested said clerk of said committee to lake a copy of said letter and show it to the chairman* of said Joint committee, thinking that snld chairman might desire to use said letter, hh it contained a statement by ex-Attorney General Hollinger of im portant facts hi reference to the sur render of the said bonds to the said contractors to M. H. McSweeney, up on which matter deponent had been ex amined. That salrl secretary or stenographer of said Joint committee did innke and take with him a copy of said letter, Which letter did not appear in said Joint committee's report to the legis lature D. H. Means. Sworn to before me this 16th day of February, 1904. Lewis W. Haskell, Notary Public for Soutli Carolina. EXHfHIT F. State of South Carolina?County of Rlchland. Persona'ly appealed before mo, Joe B. Garfunkol, who, belog du'y ??vorn, says that ho was summoned as a -Wit ness by the committee InvestlRatlng the work upon tho State house, and that when he appeared and gave h!s testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall was presont In the room. Deponent fur ther swears that he was present In tho State house when tho contract for the work on the State house was let, and knows that it was the general under standing among the bidders that the Junk removed from tho building in doing the work provided In the plans and specification"* of Frank P. Mllburn would go to the contractors: deponent Is peculiarly qualified to know this fact because he wished to buy this Junk, and talked about It to every one of the bidders whom he met. .Deponent furthor swears that prior to. tho letting of the contract for th? : work he had died with the commission an application to buy the said Junk, but was informed that he must apply to the contractors for the purchase of j same. That Mr. Unkefer told the deponent two or three days after the I contract was awarded that the com mission had referred to him the appli 1 cation deponent had made to buy the Junk. Deponent further swears that he is a dcah-r In, and familiar with the market value of old iron and other junk, and that he made an estimate of and of ten'.I the highest market price for the old Iron it was necessary to remove in placing the dome oh the building; that he regarded the said old iron worth less for any other purpose than junk and had he secured sunn! he would have immediately shipped It off as such; that the contractors secured a j higher price from other narlles for a ; portion of this old iron than deponent I would have paid for it. Deponent further swears that he ex amined the celling removed from the main lobby of the State house, while It remained on the State house grounds; that saht celling was galva nized iron, and worthless, even as Junk; that the contractors gave it to the de i ponent, but he would not haul it off, and In turn gave it to the usylum for the insane. That he did not testify to the facts above when being examined before the ! investigating committee because the 1 questions were not asked hin?. j. D. oarfunkel. Sworn to before me this 15th day of February, 190-1. D. W. McDaurln, Notary Public. 10XHIBIT Q. Richmond, Va.. Feb. 4. 1904. Robert J. Gantt, Capitol Building: In my capltol bid I figured on all old material being my property. YV, A. Chestermnn. Savannah. Qa? Feb. 19,1904. ; Robt. J. Cantt: I In making up bid for contract on , capltol there, contractor was to have ; all old stone. Iron and other material I on the premises, J. 10. Burgess, I (Of Stewart Contra, tin;; Company.) EXHIBIT H. BEQUEST FOR OPINION. Newberry, S. C, Aug. 9, 1901. Hon. Q. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General, Columbia, S. <'.: Dear Sir: Pursuant to the permis sion of the commission charged with the completion of the State house, I have the honor of asking your opinion upon a question which has arisen about the ownership of the old material. The facts appear In the paper here with submitted, and the contracts and the specifications. The papers submitted consist of a partial draft of a report of the com mittee and a copy of the letter from the architect. The minutes referred to com..ins the statement of Mr. Unkefer, one o? the contractors. The committee desires your opinion under the terms of the contract and the circumstances of the case upon the question where the ownership of the old material rests, whether In the con tractors or the State. Awaiting your reply, I am, Very truly yours, Ceo. s. Mower. Chairman. ATTORN KY GKNF.RA1/S OPINION. Executive Department, Office of the Attorney General, Columbia, S. C, Aug. *J6. 1901. Hon. Geo. s. Mower, Chairman, etc, Newberry, S. C. Dear Sir: I have before ine your let ter relating to the question of the own ership of what is known as the "old material" in connection with the con- i traet for the completion of the State house. 1 note that you say that the commit tee desires my "opinion under the terms of the contract and the clrcum- j stances of the case upon the question where: the ownership of the edd material rests, whether In the con- | tractors or the State." I, have ttie tumor to reply as follows: As I gather them the admitted facts arc: 1 The only pertinent reference in the plane? specifications or written contract I ? of the use or ownership of the "old ma terial" in quest ion Is to he found In '? the specifications, in the following words; "The successful contractor will be permitted to use all old material ? that Is now on the ground, and such j parts of the present roof that conform , I to these plans and specifications; but It Is understood that the marble now on | j the grounds is not included. This only , covers the granite columns, balusters, j I old iron, bracing, granite, etc., In the ! I'Oof that Is suitable, ami the proper ' size that Is called for. If In doubt con ' suit the architect on this subject bo ' fore making n bid." 2. Before bidding on tho work Mo i IlvalnrUiikefer company, us well as Other competitive contractors, called j Iupon the architect, F. P. Milhurn, for !nn Interpretation of the clause quoted, concerning which they wer?' in doubt, I ;i. The nrchitei t Informed tho eon : tractors "that the contractors bidding for the work would get such "old mu j torlal,' and wouur be permitted to use such old parts as would conform with j ! the new plans ami specifications." i (See Mllburn's letter. July 31, 1901.) 4. Acting upon the interpretation \ ' given by the architect, Mellvnln-Unke- i fer company, after making allowances I for what was conceived to be the I j value of the "old material" to them. I put In their bid for the contract, and j 1 was duly accepted by the commission, j 5. one Mr. Ourfunkel, n junk dealer, 'submitted to the commission a proposl 1 tion to buy the copper ami old Iron i ! then in the old roof, and the conunis I slon, upon accepting Mcllvaln-Unkofer ' company's bid, ordered that the com- j I munlcutlon of Mr. Garfunkel be turned j over to the successful bidding con tractor, upon the ground that the Bald ? "old material" was at the disposal of I the latter. I The clause quoted for the speclfica ? Hons bears internal evidence of con i scions ambiguity, ami the conflicting linierest is susceptible of various In terpretations. It is easy to conceive I that the bidding contractors could | claim with a show of reason, the title i j to the "old material" in question, and; j inasmuch as the paper containing the I clause was prepared for and in behalf! j of the commission, and the law would, | las l understand it, construe the con-1 j tract strictly against the commission j i and in favor of the bidder, for one ren : son. ui ? mg others, that in cases of ; doubt, the construction by the con-j , tractors must be given the benefit of the doubt. Inasmuch as the conunis j slon, as the author of the specifica tions, must suffer, if either party must, on account of ambiguity. But I think thet up to n very recent date It had been the understanding on all sides that the contractors should be ! the owners of the old material, and j the facts as found seem to me to pre clude any other conclusion. Tho statement of Mllburn. the archi tect, sneaking on behalf of the commis sion, the known conduct of the con- i . inn tors, based upon Mllburn's inter pretation, the acceptance <>f the bid ? based upon the supposed ownership by i the contractors of the "old material." ! ? and the declination to treat with a pro- ? j posed purchaser for the sale of the old material, and the reference of his bid ! j to Mcllvninc-Unkefer company, all i estop the commission from claiming ttie "old material" in question. Hoping that this will meet with your I approval, I am, Very truly yours. (Signed) a. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney < loneral. Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin ion or the uttorm y general was ap proved by a vote taken viva voce, Mr. j Marshall voting against it. loxiuniT i Columbia, S. <:.. Feb. 1G.I001. This cert I lies that in the fall of 1901 1 bought from J. B. florfunkel, for the use of the state hospital for the Insane, I tor the amount of ??'>.oa a lot of gal van I zed iron railing and that ho threw in as worthless, a lot of metal : celling, which he said we might have for hauling off. The ceiling is now ly lug in a rubbish heap In the back yard | of the hospital. .1 W, Babcock. THE ANSWER OF ARCHITECT FRANK P. M1LBURN. In Detail the Man Against Whom Charges Were Made Replies to His Accusers in the General Assembly. REPLY ok KRANK P. M1LBURN, ARCHITECT, TO REPORT OK IN VESTIGATING COMMITTEE, RE LATING TO THIO WORK ON THE STATE HOUSE. To tho Public: I will be glnd for you to consider my reply to so much of tho report of the investigating commlttoo, recently made to the legislature, as seems necessary at this time. In tho first place, tho committee, composed of chosen representatives of the people, "all honorable gentlemen," In their desire to vindicate the author of the minority report of one mem ber of the old eapitol commission, have gone beyond tho authority given by the concurrent resolution under which they acted. Ry that resolution they were directed to report to the next session of the general assembly "such, facts und recommendations in reference thereto as they may deem advisable." And yet these "honorable gentlemen" go out of their way to Inject into their report Wholly unwarranted and Im proper conclusions, which are neither "facts" nor "recommendations," but libellous and indiscriminate rellcctions on numerous State officers and repre sentatives, as well as the architect and contractors. "Miserable fraud," "mon st -aus swindle" and "malefactors!" Sl h gratuitous expressions are as fnl .o as they are uncalled for by tho concurrent resolution. But, that this committee was more bent on vindicating the one dissenting member of the eapitol commission than carrying out the suggestions of tho legislature. Is evidenced by the fact that they did not "employ nn archi tect," as was suggest od by the authori ty given in the concurrent resolution, but paid $15.00 a day for a "contract or," who says he has been "superin tendent of constructing of tho United States eapitol for four years." But further still, this committee was directed to consider tho ' several re ports of the commission for the con pletlon of the State house," with au thority to summon witnesses, etc. They seem to have considered only tho one minority report of Senator J. Q. Marshall, made in February, 1903, and examined witnesses only in support of that, minority report, without calling a single witness in support of tho re port and notion of sovon honored citi zens and officers of the State, who dif fered with Col. Marshall, and who are ns wide awak" to ?*m Interests of tho State as ho or ?.ne itu^nbors of this in vestigating committee, and who havo always depended moro upon witnesses in t his State, wheso standing and cred ibility arc known to them personally, than a foreign importation who Is recommended by the superintendent of the federal eapitol building, and was no doubt novor before heard of In South Carolina. But let us glance at tho procedure of this Investigating committee. When they select Inelf expert he is brought to Columbia and shown tho general plans and .specifications upon which contractor* were invited to bid for the work: but not the plans showing the modifications nor the detail drawings foe Actual work. He examines tua building in the light <>t" these original) general plann and specifications. And yet no one of tlx1 seven gentle men of the eapitol commission, who honestly differed with Col. Marshall, was called, no*' was I asked to show him the modilied and complete speci fications and detail drawings under which the work was actually done. It appears that on a Friday in May, 1903, before this investigating commit too was to take testimony, as remem bered by tho chairman, the chairman of tho committee called at my office, during n v absence from the cilv. and left a vci bal message with one of my draughtsmen about the meeting, at which the expert from Washington would give his testimony, and that I COUld be present, in- send any com munication if 1 desired. Hut 1 never received the message, and, in fact, never heard of the incident until best Friday, tho L2th Inst. in this connec tion I beg to submit the following statements: "To Whom it May Concern: "This Is tO certify that I am in the employment of Frank P. Milburn, ar chitect, in the capacity of engineer and draughtsman, and was during tho last year. "That once when Mr, Milburn and Mr. Heister were out of the Office, Mr. Milburn being out of the city, a gentleman called, and icnre sentlng himself to bo a member of the State house Investigating commit tee, stated In effect that said commit tee would shortly (as 1 understood, the next day) huvo a session, und asked that 1 hit Mr. Milburn know, and also [ get word to Mcllvaln. Unkefer com pany I promised to let Mr. Milburn know, and also MoTlvntu, t'nkefer com pany if we COUld; that I thought we had their address In the office. "That upon the return of Mr. Heister, who is chief draughtsman and assist ant to Mr. Milburn, I told him of what had taken place, and supposed he would communicate with them, hut i never mentioned the matter to Mr. Milburn until Feb. I-, J90i. "(Signed) 'Ceo. F. Kepler." "To WhOm it May Concern: "I hereby certify that I am now, and was last year chief ilraughtsmnu and assistant to Mr. Frank P. Milburn, architect. "That I havo read the foregoing cer tificate of Mr. Ocorge F. Kepler, hut havo no recollection of ever hearing of the conversation therein referred to, before Feb. 12. 190f. If Mr. Kepler is Correct In his recollection of stating tho matter to n*? I did not tuko it. in suffi ciently to h,.,w\.i; \y mind, and I am sure that I never mentioned the mat ter to Mr. Milburn. "(Signed) 'Michael Heister." After this hearing, at which Is now appears that several w itnesses wero ex amined. I learned of it from the nows papers and common rumor; but nover knew anything of the purport of the testimony, although I heard that Col. Marshall was present, und that tho sessions were behind closed doors. Un til my return to this city last Friday, when t got hold of a copy of the report ?the committee having never honored me with a copy?l nover knew authori tatively fit the reflections on the work. After keeping the testimony, and their proceeding!! Beeret, as l believe, from May to December, more than six months, I received a note from the secretary of the comndttee, dated Barnwell, S. C. Dee. 7, 1903, but mailed in Columbia, nib December, giving me un opportunity to appear before the committee. If t desired. Having heard of ttie proceedings In May, at which 1 was told, und believed, Col. Marshall had been present. I deckled, without having counsel, that I 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 Stale, but had given my best efforts to assist the capltol commission in the discharge of its du ties and the proper expenditure of the State's money, hence I had nothing to explain away. I tut knowing that I had modified and detailed drawings in my office not on file in the Suite house, I offered to place my office records at the disposal of the committee. In this connection 1 see that my note to the committee has been termed "curt." l wish to disclaim any such intention; and If it is, 1 regret it. and plead In ex tenuation the fact that I began tie struggle for bread early in life, and had not the opportunities of collegiate edu cation enjoyed by some members of the investigating committee, But In Justice to the capltol commis sion, which with one exception ap proved my work, as well as to myself and family, 1 wish to say something in regard to the specific findings of the investigating committee, In tlie order stated. First. As to the charge that the plans and specifications tiled with i the secretary of slate were not suitable und complete. 1 believe this was the first objection made by Col. Marshall after my elec tion as architect, and was fully con sidered and passed upon bv the capltol commission in the year 1900, Mr. Mar shall alone dissenting. At that time the commission had before it letters from four of the most prominent con tractors and builders of this section of the country, who, after studying, those plans carefully to base upon, them bids for a viM-y huge sum of money, secured by a heavy bond, had bid lipon this work. Some of these gentlemen were personally known to members of the commission, and their i statements were to the effect that the drawings and specifications were plain j enough to make an Intelligent bid. that | the plans and specifications were fully understood, nnd were proper for good , work. The opinion of such well known contractors and builders as (Jude & I Walker. J. W. til shop & <''<.. W. A. Chesterman and Nicholas Ittner, com- | monly known as "Honest Nick." must outweigh the opinion of Mr. Marshall and the Washington "expert" with any Impartial judge. Second. That the contract fixed the old work on the completed portion of the building as the standard. This is not true. There Is nothing in the plans and specifications which could be so construed except, perhaps, the word "prototype," on one of the general drawings, and this was intend- ; ed to apply only to style, outline, form, shape; and was not Intended to apply to the classification of the workman ship. Inder each of the headings of the various cdasses of work the same was fully outlined, giving the number of cuts to the inch lor the different parts of the Work. In this connection. I may say that it was not Intended to make the stone cornice in one piece, for instance. The ; small appropriation tor the whole work necessitated great economy, and , tin; scab- detail drawings show that It was to be built up of several members, as It was done, instead of the more ex pensive one-piece cornice. Referring to sheet c of the general drawings where the note before re ferred to is found. It will be seen that the work is to he the same only when U has its prototype 111 tin- old building. That it does not mean lh.it the cornice, for instance, is to be Identical with the ?.hl work, y?u have only to see sheet of those same drawings, where the cornice Is distinctly shown to be built Up of several pieces. Third. That the State at a great ex pens.-, in the neighborhood of (10,000, had splendid st. el celling In the main lobby, which tin- contractors look and converted to their own use. where by the Stale lost in the neighborhood ' of $10,000, l ie- plans and specifications required the contractors to cut a circular open- i illg into the ceiling lor the inner domo. I When the ceiling was cut, and It was thoroughly examined, It was found to lie galvanized iron. In a bad condition and difficult to work Into shape, es pecially as it contained celling lights | no longer of use. The conti actors said It would require special workmen and considerable loss of time to patch it up, and would not then be as satis factory as a new celling, which could ? lie gotten in less time, and enable them to be ready for the meeting of the 1 legislature, although the new celling would cost them more. After full In vestigation of all the facts and con ditions, I decided that it was to I the interest of the State to aceepl t/le ' proposed change, and I approved tho celling they used, which harmonizes perfectly with the design of the cell ing under the- balcony around the main | lobby, which was placed there under , Mr. Nlernsee's supervision. As both ceilings are in the same lobby and are' seen at the same time, harmony is es sential. Neither the cornice nor cove mouldings in this lobby were interfered ' With, but the new ceiling was used only In the field or body of the ceiling through which the dome Is cut. The j contractors thought they ought to have extra for this new celling, but I would not allow it, and the State got the ! new ceilings without cost. This Item shows the fearful mistake | the Investigating committee made in ! not examining farther into the real j facts Instead of giving so much weight | to that minority report. They would i have the public believe that ft was a ' "steel celling," costing in the neighbor hood of $10,000. when the records in the | secretary of states office show that all the ceilings and cornices, steel beams, | nnd skylights In the rotunda, or main 1 lobby, and the Ceiling over the senate1 lobby together, cost only $7.898. on the; ! 2d of May, 1889. Any well Informed ' man will know that the cornice actual ly cost much more than the celling. The public must In charity put this I blunder of the committoe down to neglect and ignorance, or convict them of deliberate misrepresentation in' making the statement that "on this; Item the State lost in the neighbor- 1 hood of $10.000." Let the public guess why Mr. Munt advanced the Idea that the contractors removed this celling that they might hoist into position the large steel box girders that support the dome! The fact is, these heavy steel beams Mid girders were raised from the outside wall, a id not through tin main lobby. Hut not content with trying to arouse public indignation over the alleged loss to the State, they atten.pt to injure! character by charging that "the con tractors bodily took and carried away and converted to their own use this Valuable and beautiful part of the old building." The cold fact Is. and they1 either know It. or could have learned it ! by reasonable, fair and impartial In- i qulry, that this old celling that was! removed from the- rotund- lobby was i never sold or used by the. .rV tors but was given to Mr. Oarrunk?*? if he would remove It from the grounds. 1 nnd he In turn gave it to Dr. B ibcock I on the same condition, and this "vnl- * nable and beautiful." this "t-plendld Steel celling." now lies in a rubbish I heap In the back yard of tho State in natlc asylum, a silent but unimpeach able witness of the outrageous libel which this Investigating committee has spread upon the records of the legisla ture. Fourth, That by, tho omission of twoj I inner columns from the front portico I the contractors made a profit of $3,400. and the estimated loss to the Stute is I $4,500. Thut the public may fully understand ! this matter, I wish to call attention to the fact, that when called to this work :i found a partially completed building, i much valuable stone and marble on hand, and an appropriation wholly and I admittedly Insufficient to complet ? the ! building as originally designed. tVhen \ made the plans, it was to utilize all the very expensive columns then lying Ion the ground, and considered lit for use, that largely induced me to pro Vide for two Inner columns on the front j portico, it turned out with this work, ias is generally the case in remodeling old, or partially completed buildings, that many modifications and changes became necessary, and were made with the consent and approval of the com mission, as a rule Col. 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 in the stone, which then showed an old crack about two thirds of tho way through. It was generally 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 Moor space, be cause the architectural features would be Just as good, because with slight changes (omitting a wood truss and substituting steel trussed perllna) the strength of the structure wouMl not be impaired in the least; because it would save much time in completing tho work, and because it would save rather than cost the State anything. The contractors offered to furnish a new column for $2,000, necessitating several months' delay; or, piece the broken column for $f>00, 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 $600, which it was shown by an itemized statement would be saved to the contractors by the change. With all this Information before the com mission, after full consideration. It de cided, by a vote of 5 to 3, to change the original plan and omit the two columns, thus saving to the State $600. without detriment to the work, and giving these columns to tho State for monumental purposes. Mr. Hunt talks about "the stone lin tel and brick work on top of these col umns." The specifications never called for any such thing. And yet this will ing witness, unable to condemn the sufficiency of the "bracing and anchor ing." goes out of his way to suggest carelessness in "u great portion of the construction throughout this building." Again, this "government" witness says the two massive square pillars, under the portico, "now perform no duty at all." Any sane person can see for himself that these piers, originally constructed principally to support tin two inner columns, since the change support much of the portico. And it was to get such .a witness that the In vestigating committee passed over so many southern architects and con tractions of known ability and Integ rity. Fifth. That the new leaf work on the capitals Is not as fine as the old. it being impracticable to get the stone for this new work from the old quarry, a stone was selected which matched it exactly, and the same ac cepted with the bid of tin/ contractors, the only slight difference, and which is not appie, lable, in the work on the capitals, Is due to the fact that the Pacolet granite is a trifle softer and therefore not suceptlblo to quite so high n finish. Sixth. That lintel stones should ex tend from columns at the rear of tho portico to corresponding front columns, where there are sheet iron boxes paint ed to resemble grange. That Is just according to the plans and specifications, first-class galvan ized iron being used, which was as good as could be afforded with the ap propriation, and answers every pur pose. In reference to the glass floor 'which leaks in rainy weather. I beg to say it does leak, and I regret it.. In my ef fort to give all the light possible to the offices and passageways below, I selected this style of floor light, which is suitable for the place. Unfortunately there Is but little full, and yet I gave it all l possibly could to connect with the granite work and the height of the second Moor doorway entering the lob by. This is no fault of mine; it is one of the troubles en countered in remodeling or adding to a building. The chief trouble, how ever, with the portico floor is that to accommodate the legislature, it was laid just before the meeting of that body ami was walked on and abused before the concrete and cement mate rial s. t sufficiently. The natural con sequence was that it was damaged and still presents a bad apnearance. An Inspection of the rear portico floor, which was not so used and abused, will substantiate this contention. As to the celling of the portico, I do not know of any material more suit able for such ceilings. It is made from the same class of material that was removed by the contractors from the main lobby, although not the same de sign. I wonder if the gent lemon of the Investigating committee know that tho portico celling in the main entrance to tin' United States eapitol at Wash ington was common plastering, and that leaks from the roof caused some of it to fall. Seventh. That the roof is a "tar and gravel" roof, unsuitable, and leaks badly. It is not a tar and gravel roof, but is of the very finest quality of asphalt and crushed quartz, and there Is no ' doubl about its answering the purpose for at least ten years, as tin' roof con tractors gave a guarantee for ten years against leaks and material wear and tear, This same class of roofing is on the following buildings in the city of Washington, i). c.: Atlantic Coast Uno office building, Southern Railway Office building, Iowa department house, Raleigh hotel. RUSH department house. United Stales Cen sus building, government printing house, ami many others too numerous to mention. It Is a matter of profound regre'. I" me that the roof leaks. I have done ' verythlng in my power from the first to remedy it. it is a well known fact that much more expensive roots than this have proved unsatisfactory. The government postoffice at savannah, which has a tile and copper roof leaked badly. The United States pOStOfflce at Augusta, which also has an expensive roof, leaked for years. In this connection 1 submit the fol lowing: Columbia, S. C, Jan.. 1R, 1004. Mr. Frank P. Milburn, Architect, Co lumbia, s. C: Dear Sir. Referring to our conver sation in regard to the State house, will say that a short time after the State house work was finished the Charlotte Roof and Paving company telegraphed me to go there and exam !nC tie- roof and make tho same sat a t. dory If I could. I wont on top of the building and was somewhat surprised to thul that some one had torn the flashing loose at several places between the main roof and the bnse of tho dome f< i several feet, allowing the water Mowing off of tho dome and the base to run down into the rotunda bolow. The work wan well flashed around tho dome nnd counter dashing was put Into the Joints not In the wnv it Is Ul ually .lorn , vie,: by putting the flash Iftg Into tho Joint and turning It up, hut by cutting Into the Joint nnd ex tending the tin back into the Joints and bolting it with rods, nuts and washers, and it was Impossible for it to get out unless some ono had torn