Historical Newspapers of South Carolina

Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page. It is also available as plain text as well as XML.

^^^^^^^^s^^^ i^j^l^^^^^^i ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^'^^^^^ ^^^^^B^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ ^jj^j^^^^^^^i ^^^j^^^^^j? ^j^l^^^^^l^D ^^^^^?^^^^^^ ^^^^MI?^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^jj^^^^i^ ^^^^^ ^l^^^^^^^^^^K ^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^jjjl^^^^^j^^ SUMTER, S. C., FEBRUARY 23, 1904. FORMER STATE HOUSE COMMISSION'S REPLY, Text of the Ansier to the1 Legislative Committee's Report on the State House. ILL TIE ISSUES ABE 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, Feh. 8th, 1304, there was presented: to your honorable body a re? port of the joint committee appointed under concurrent resolutions adopted at the session of 1892, "to consider the several reports of the commission on the completion of the State house and facts relating thereto," of which com? mittee Hon? Robert Aldrich, of Barn? well, was chairman, and Hons. R. I. Maiming, of Sumter, J. ?. Patterson of Barnwell, J. M. Rawlinson of Rich? land and T. Y. Williams 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 included therein was that of "Captain" S. S. Hunt, who swore that he : was a resident of Washington, D. C., and for four. years had held the position of "Superintendent of con? struction of the United States capitol, Washington. D. C." Said Capt Hunt -proceeded in unqualified language to condemn each and every portion of. the work on the State capitol which had been-done by the commission ap? pointed for the.completion bf the build-, ingv . No other or further, testimony relat? ing to the .work: a? construction on the buHSIng was-:taken, except that of A. Wi Edens, inspector of plumbing of * the. ci ty. of Columbia, who was ques? tioned in regard to the newly erected water, closet?. The testimony bf these two witness? es was concealed from the public and the. undersigned until* the said report was presented to your honorable body. . Upon this testimony the aforesaid committee concluded/, among other things, that-"the testimony taken re? vealed a dark picture?" |(p. 13),,"a mon? strous swindle," (p. IS), and that "it would regard it remarkable indeed if ; there, is not some remedy, civil or crim- ? ina!, or both, to bring these malefactors j to justice and to some extent to re? dress the wrongs of the State." (p. 13.). A REQUEST FOR A FULL, " FREE AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGA? 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, certain members of the commis? sion for the completion of the State house met in the city of Columbia and adopted the following memorial, which . was presented to your honorable bocy along with and accompanying a resolu? tion providing for such an investiga? tion: "Gentlemen of the General Assembty: From an-investigation of the report of the joint committee "to consider the I several reports of the commission on J the completion of the State house and facts relating thereto," we, the under? signed members of the commission, authorized and directed "to complete the State 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 allow us a hearing. Many of the allegations of error and incompetency are easily explained. Cer? tain conclusions could not and would not have been drawn had available evidence been heard. Above all, we feel that an impression that must nec? essarily 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? eral assembly can have no intention of condemning us without a hearing, as members 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 mosft respectfully memoral i ze your honorable body to make provision for giving us a hear? ing in order that further and all evi? dence may be produced that may give light upon the question before the committee, and that our evidence and reply to the report of the committee should become a public record ol your honorable body of the same perma? nency and dignity as the report itself. "Respectfully, B. Mcsweeney, G. Duncan Bellinger, ? J. Harvey Wilson, R. H. Jennings, Robert J. Gantt, W. J. Johnson." When the said memorial was pre? sented Hon. T. Y. Williams introduced in the house of representatives, and Hon. Robert Aldrich in the senate, the following resolution: "Whereas, certain '"members of the ( former 'commission to complete the State house' have memorialized the general assembly to make provision to give them a hearing in reply to the report of the joint committee to con? sider the several reports of the com? mission for the completion of the State house, and facts relating thereto, "Be It Resolved by the general as? sembly of the State of South Carolina That any evidence, explanation, or oth er statement in writing that the said memorialists may have to submit will be received and considered by the general assembly whenever presented." Wnereupon 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 I tion of the buil?ung to represent to ; your honorable body such statement as they saw fit t WHY- CONCEAL THE FACTS? When Louis the XVI was led upon j the guillotine and began an adddress in his d?fense, Santeere, a butcher who had been given command of the mu? nicipal guard around the scaffold, or I dered the drums to be beaten. The j words of the French king- were thus j silenced. Neither the lives nor the property of the members of this commission are I threatened, but that which is as dear j to us as life and property-o?r repu ! tation and good names-has been as ! sailed, and our respectful request that i your body appoint a committee to hear i both sides of the matter, and lay all the facts before the people, has been denied. You have, however, accord? ed us the privilege of making a state? ment in writing, which we will now j proceed to do, and endeavor to make I this report in as parliamentary lan j guage as our justly outraged feelings will permit, and the facts will justify. I But,. gentlemen,. what we asked and ? demanded of your body which we feel we had a right to demand, was I that all the evidence in this matter be brought to light, that the committee be empowered to summon witnesses and have them examined under oath and not to confine the investigation to such evidence as could be secured from voluntary testimony. Many witnesses to important facts refuse to make affidavits, but they could be compelled to testify at such hearing. THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN REFLECTED UPON AND THE PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF ITS MEMBERS. ATTACKED 3Y THE 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 reflection was made is abundantly proven by reference to every daily paper pub? lished in the? State, wherein the ac? tion of the commission is character? ized as an "infamy," a "scandal," etc. If the committee was innocent of any intention to attack the characters of those constituting the commission it was most unfortunate in its use of the English language. The members of this investigating committee now give it to be understood that their vicious attack was directed against the archi? tect and the contractors and charitably suggest that this commission was dup? ed and bamboozled by these employes, and that we were to be forgiven for our weakness, and that the charge against us of being fools must not be serious? ly taken as reflecting upon us. If the committee did not mean to re-' fleet upon this commission, why does it refer to us in its report as follows: (These references being taken at ran? dom from the report.) "The contractors broke one of the columns into two pieces, and rather than put the contractors to the expense of replacing the broken column they were generously excused (by the com? mission) from putting them in at all, they paying the State $500, leaving them $3,400 profit on that transaction." (Report, p. 7.) Surely, the honorable gentlemen of \ the i nvestigating committee would not dare to say that any 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 agen* of the State to another party. Again: "A fine slate roof, bought by j the State at a heavy expense and which ; afforded perfect protection for years, was taken off and appropriated by the contractors." (Report, p. 8.) The inference necessarily drawn from I this statement is that this "appropria? tion" (which, had the committee used the proper word to convey its meaning, would have been "mis-appropriation") was with the knowledge and consent of this commission, whose duty it was j to protect the interests and the prop I erty of the State. The investigating committee called before them the sec? retary of the commission and had be? fore them for inspection the minute book and all the records of this com? mission. That committee knew, or ought to have known, and we believe did know, that before the contract was awarded it was agreed that the sue- j cessful bidder should become the owner I of all the material torn out of, or off \ of. the State house, and that the taking possession of the material of this roof was simply exercising the right of ownership, both under the general lav.* and under the special contract. Again: "We feel with what we have reported, and the testimony taken, re- ; veals a dark picture, it is true, but nothing short of an actual inspection of the work can convey an adequate ! idea of that monstrous swindle of j which the State is the victim, appro- i priately portrayed in the closing words j of Capt. Hunt's testimony." (This worthy, imported from the District of j Columbia to teach the officials ai citizens of this State the aesthetic well as architecture, who testifies reference, generally, to this work th it is "A parody upon the science architecture and an insult to the far of John R. Niernsee, and a disgrace the State of South Carolina.'*) (Repo P. 13.)' Does this committee discredit the i telligence of the people of this Sta td such an extent as to believe th they will accept the statement that i intention is herein expressed to retie upon the commission who was a par to such an "insult" to a distinguish man, and to such a "disgrace" to o native State? If this model of li guistic inaccuracy was honestly i tended to he simply a statement th mechanical employes had failed carry out their contract, why the boi ; hastie and grandiloquent language which the report is dressed? When I committee ascertains and reports th ?an architect has failed to be efficiei [or a contractor has slighted his wor ?does it "reveal a dark picture?" j Again: In referring to the satisfa j tion entered by the governor on t I bond given by the contractors, the lue j composer of the report uses the follow ?lng language: "This surrender and a ? tempted discharge of this bond, tl j State's only security for the vast loss i sustained, was not the act of the cor ! mission, as the governor alone, advise jas it is said, by the attorney genere undertook to perform this act, and may be that the State may yet be afc to realize upon this security. "Tour committee do not consider th j it comes within the scope of the duties to determine questions of la involved in the matters, embrac< herein, but would regard it remar] able indeed if there were not some ren edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bril j these malefactors to justice, and some extent redress the wrongs of tl j State." (Report, p. 12.) j The members of this commissi herein referred to by designation < ! offiee deem it proper to state that the j self-respect forces them ter' treat th j language as if it does not express tl ideas or opinions of the respects members of the investigating comhai tee; yet we have reason to know ths many intelligent people of this Sta believe "the* malefactors" referred ? are the then governor and the then a torney general, inasmuch as the oh inference to be drawn from such lat guage (if intelligently used by a ma of ordinary education) is that thei officers "attempted" and "underfoot to destroy the only remedy that tl State had against the employes wi had committed a palpable and not< rious fraud and swindle upon the con mon wealth. j Laying aside expressions of indigne ? tion and using simply the language < criticsm, we feel that the words of tl distinguished composer of the r?por as he addresses the dome of the capito justly describes these two paragraph in connection with the report: 1 "This is the crowning piece of th: ? work in more senses than one. Take } all in " all it is simply infamous. T ; start with, an uglier and a more ur ' sightly creation could not be devise 'even had it been properly constructe j-but our observation shows that it i i nothing short of a miserable fraud. , (Report, p. 9.) We feel that we are unjustly reflecte ; upon. We knew that we had discharge ! our duty faithfully and honestly. W J knew that the State had received fu value for every penny we had ex pended, and we only asked an oppor tunity to prove these facts. ' The members of the State house com i mission have been honored by the peo ; pie of South Carolina, and they feel tha I their good names have been assailei ; and that they bwe it, not only to them j selves and their families but to thei j people as well,. that the greatest an< ; fullest flood of light should be throwi ?upon the whole transaction. i HOW THE SO-CALLED INVESTI t GATION WAS CONDUCTED. That against which we most stren i uously protest is the manner in whicl the joint committee conducted the in j vestigation. It was denied upon th< j floor of the house that a member of oui ,; commission had asked for a hearing ; The attention of your honorable bod3 ; is, therefore, especially asked to wha1 i we consider to be undeniable facts ir i connection with the report of the joint j committee hereinbefore referred to. j It will be noted that said committee j was empowered to consider the severa reports of the commission for the com j pletion of the State house, to appoim a secretary, to employ an architect ; and to summon witnesses. We contend I that the report. of the majority of th? I Commission, as well as the. report ol I the 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 j four lines, whereas the dissenting and ; "accusing report of Mr. Marshall, the ! minority member, is set out at large in I ll specifications, and all of the testi ! mony taken is directed against the j majority and in favor of the minority : report; and the committee thereupon, to use their own language, "feel con? strained to report generally that the j minority report of Senator J. Q. Mar ; shall was fully sustained by the evi? dence taken and by the visible facts for ail to see for themselves who choose to go over the building and make even i a casual examination of it." ? It will be remembered that both of j 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 sittings of the committee during the taking of the testimony herein, where? as no member of this commission was present at any time. (See testimony of D. H. Means, exhibit E. and of J. B. Garfunkel, exhibit F.) 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 the committee or given notice as to the time or place of meeting of said com? mittee. We tender testimony to show that at least two of the non-attending members of this commission notified two of the five members of the commit? tee that the commission desired to be i heard in their own behalf and that such ! reepjests were treated with silent con- j tempt. (See affidavits of Messrs. John- i son and Bellinger, marked respectively I Exhibit B and Exhibit A.) WHY HIDE THE TRUTH? Does it not seem very singular, to \ say the least, that the members con? stituting this investigating committee led the fight upon the floor of both the house and the senate to prevent any further investigations of this matter, and that on the same night identically the same resolution, the purpose of which was to deny a full hearing, was introduced by said committtt ia the house and the senate? The true mh sion of an investigating committee, a its name implies, i3 to investigate an bring to light every side and bearin of a question, an? not to prosecuti This is the first time in the anna: of South Carolina where an invest gating committee only heard and ri ported one side of an important mal ter, or which held-secret meetings bi hind closed doors, from which meir hers of the press were excluded. EVEN THE VILEST CRIMINAL I GIVEN A HEARING. In his message to your body ox; chief executive asked you to devis some law to put an end to the lynchin in our State. N?w, what Gov. He^ ward demanded fer the vilest class ( criminals has be ea denied some of or fellow-citizens who have been reco* nized and honored by their people the right of making a defense, and fair, impartial hearing. Before th: report is ended we propose to prove 1 the satisfaction of every fair-minde person in South Carolina that our con mission was tried behind closed door only one witness at the time being ac mitted, and what is a most unhear of proceeding, tie repeaters of ot State papers excluded. (See affidav of A. H. Seats, Exhibit C, and Lew G. Wood, Jr., Exhibit D.). Not onl this, but apparently to keep the merr hers of our commission in ignorance ( what was going on in that meetin some of the witness were bound nc to divulge the questions that had bee asked them. (See affidavit of D. I Means, Exhibit E.). To show fur th? what a one-sided affair this was, th son of one of this committee was mad ?clerk, and the only outsider admitte to that room was Senator Marshal i the minority member, and the proseci tor. (See affidavits of -J. B. Garfunke Exhibit T.y Is the life, liberty, property or goo name of any citizen of South Carolin safe when he can be tried by any sue secret, one-sided tribunal of socalle justice? j The palladium of liberty in ever ? country is a free ^press, but we find i L-the proud old State of South Carolin a throttled press when an investiga !tion was in progress in which ever I taxpayer of the State is personally ir jterested. HUNTING FOR HUNT. We are convinced, gentlemen, froi such evidence as we are able to secur< ! that the sole witness against us wa ! falsely represented to the people c ?South Carolina, as an "expert, arch; ? t?ct" in charge bf the work of tb ! United States government, when Ki j name does not appear in the list c j government employees and he is tc j tally unknown to the experts of th United States government who ar charged with the construction of it buildings; that his. name does not ap pear , in the "blue book" which contain the names of. all government employe wherever located; while the director of congress which contains the name of the attaches of trie national capito does not show any such officer as "su perintendent' of constructing." All we now have to ask -of your is tha j this protest be spread upon your joui nais and be given the fullest publicitj as you have promised, and we furthe ! beg the press of South Carolina, an I of every other State that has give publicity to that report, to reproduc our defense. AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE. Let us say that we have nothim more to ask of . your body. We no* appeal to the highest tribunal know; j to a sovereign State-an honorable ?just and fair-minded people. ?A PERFECT BUILDING HAS NOr ? BEEN ERECTED SINCE TH1 DAYS OF SOLOMON. We assert that we have given t the completion of the capitol the sam watchful care that we would have don j had this building been our persona I property. Th? members of this com ; mission are not architects, and th J legislature was aware of this fae ?when they appointed us to this duty We do assert, however, that we gav I careful thought and study to the de tails and science of the work, and lef no effort unturned to fully acquain ourselves with the minutiae of th problem presented. We do not suppos that anyone ever constructed a build ing, however humble it might be, bu i after completion he discovered that h< might have made desirable change; and improvements. It is easy to criti eise the builder after his work is done A building erected by human hands j: never perfect, and this, of course, is trut of the work on the State house, but w( do assert that the general result was ti? the satisfaction of the commission, anc we further believe that it would sat? isfy nhe taxpayers of the State wh( are paying for this work were thej familiar with all the facts surround? ing the task assigned us and appreci? ated the difficulties which we encoun? tered and the problems presented ir the construction of this building. Since the completion of our State house thousands have visited Columbia anc inspected this work, and expressions as to (he beauty and magnificence of this building have been heard on every side. The State House commission alleges that if there are some defects in the South Carolina capitol, that the respon? sibility rests not upon the commission, but is due to the fact that $175,000 was totally inadequate to complete the building in conformity with the origi? nal work on this structure. The State House commission endeavored to com? plete the building so that it would present an imposing appearance. It did not attempt to do the work accord? ing to the methods 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 there is not a member of this commission but sacrificed his per? sonal interests and affairs in the dis? charge of the duty imposed upon him. It was not ours to fix the sum neces? sary to do the work. That was the province of the legislature. We did what we were directed to do, complet? ed the work your predecessors contem? plated within the appropriation they made. We did not deem it your wish or desire that we should apply to you for additional appropriation when we found the funds provided insufficient for the employment of foreign artists and for the purchase of $10,000 ceilings. That question was not ours, but yours. The commission does not feel called upon to defend the architect. In the execution of his work they felt called upon to sustain him only so long as in the combined wisdom of thc commis? sion he was right. As to purely tech? nical matters it necessarily relied on his judgment and deferred to his ad? vice. TUR COMMISSION RECOGNIZES j ITS DUTY TO THE STATE. If any evidence is brought before our commission that either the archi? tect or contractor have been guilty of collusion or neglect of duty, or in any manner slighted their work, it would sot only become our duty, but ! our pleasure, to prosecute either or j both to the extent of the law. Any facts in the possession of this commis? sion, either matters of official record or matters of personal knowledge in j 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 j other properly constituted authority i may appoint to prosecute suits in the interest of the State. This commis- i sion, under the provisions of the law I constituting it, elected an architect and [ paid him the usual fees to design and ; superintend the work of completion of j the capitol. The commission, under ; the provision of the law, let the work to the lowest bidder. If there has been any collusion between the archi- j tect and the contractor it is; a fact ab- ! solutely unknown and unsuspected by the State house commission, and there bas not been published or produced a scintilla of evidence to prove that any | such collusion existed. CAN WE AFFORD TO PAY FOR i MAGNIFICENCE? I When the commission was appointed i i to complete the State house the scope j ? of its duty was clearly marked out in ; the act creating it. It was required j by the law to complete the State house within the appropriation of $175,000. j When the fact is considered that the j 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, and this contract we were directed to make and did make. It j has been the purpose of the commis I sion in the expending of the limited sum ? at our disposal to make all permanent j work good "?nd substantial, to conform j as near as possible to the original ? building, and if there has been, as al i 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 i placed by as costly material as the I State cares to pay for. Only $1,200 ?was spent for the roof. This roof it j was believed, would be satisfactory; j if it has not proven so it can be easily replaced by as expensive a structure as I you wish and in the meantime it will ?have served the purpose. The com? mission in this matter, as to 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 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, justified them in deferring: to j 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 : for. , j The limited funds placed at our dis I posai is the only reason that any part j of this work is inferior in character J to the best work on the old portions i of this building. j We do not wish, however, to be un : derstood as apologizing for the present j condition of the State house. It is to i 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 j has not been embellished with Italian marble and with delicate carvings by j imported artists, it was not believed j by the commission that the people of ! South Carolina either desired or pur ! posed to have them now. When they j are willing and able to pay for these , things they can be placed there. But j this criticism can be made of the old i portions of the building, as well as the j new, and notwithstanding the so-called ?$10,000 galvanized ceiling liable, in the j words of this "architect, Hunt," to "rust out in a few years," which was ! placed there by the commission, of ! which Senator Marshall was a mem ; ber, fifteen years ago, the main cor j ridor of the building was unsightly I and unadorned by the beautiful marble ! with which John R. Niernsee designed ? to cover its walls. ! AS TO THE SELECTION OF THE ARCHITECT. In selecting an architect for the work j it was the sincere desire of the com I mission to put aside personal consid j erations and to secure for the State the services of the best and most experi ! enced man whom we could find. Two j plans were presented to the commis i sion, while numerous architects were : j suggested as thoroughly competent to I do the work. Six of the ten members j ! of the commission voted for Frank P. ! Milburn, whose plans seemed best j adapted for the work contemplated, i j Mr. Milburn had not only enjoyed wide j i experience in the erection of public ? ; buildings throughout the south, but ; j came with the prestige of employment j I by the -Southern railway for the erec- ! I tion of all its stations and buildings.: ! Besides, he had erected the Thompson i j auditorium at Charleston, the court I ! house at Anderson, and other build- ' j ings, which within the personal knowl ; edge of members of the commission : had proven satisfactory and he was i as well highly recommended to us by : ? all with whom we knew he had had dealings. It may be added that since ; : that 'hue, Mr. Milburn has been se-! leeter as the architect of both the : Florida and North Carolina State cap : itols. Consequently, the commission i thought they were justified in the se i lection they had made. If the report of the joint investigat ! ing committee, however, is followed to I its logical conclusion, it is evident that j it was the opinion of that committee that the commission made a mistake | in electing an architect at all, but that i we should have sent to Washington for ! a hanger-on around the national capi? 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 Carolina. AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PLANS. When Senator Marshall made the ob jection that'the plans for the work; were insufficient, we referred the mat- ; ter to the arc hitect with directions to \ show to our satisfaction if he could; that this objection was not well found- j ed. As the best evidence of the fact i that this complaint was not well I founded Mr. Milburn submitted to the commission statements from several contractors who had filed bids for the work, and who necessarily must have familiarized themselves with every fea? ture and detail of the plans in order to make an intelligent bid upon the work, in which they declared not onl that the plans were sufficient but tlui if the true intent and spirit of thei was carried out the Sta'te would se cure a good job. Not being ourselv? competent to pass upon a technics point of this nature, we knew no high, er or better authority to whom w could refer the matter. That we ha secured a most desirable contract ur der sufficient specifications we felt cor vinc-ed and satisfied when the othe bids submitted under them ranged u as high as $21X000, which seemed' t be the price nee ?sary to justify th? contractor in engaging to erect th work according to the accepted ri quirements. The difference in the lo"? est bid and the one next to it of nearl $10,000, absolutely precluded any ide of collusion in awarding the contrae There is a general impression foi tered by this report, if not create thereby, that the act creating the corr mission for the completion of the Stat house diredted that said commissio should require bond from the cor tractor. It will, therefore, be a sui i prise to most members of the genen ! assembly and the public to be informe I of the fact which is now stated, tha no such bond was required or sug ! ge st ed by the legislature when definin ; the duties of the commission. Thei being an utter absence of any mentio of a bond in connection therewith, ; is clear that the bond actually take was one required by the commissio solely upon its own motion and in ot der the better to aid them in enforc ing the performance of the contrae ? which they entered into with Mcllvair j Unkefer company. We take the pos: j tion that this bond was not at an time under the control of the legisla ture, and that it became, according t its terms, utterly null and void as soo as this commission, acting through majority of its members, expresse itself as satisfied with the performanc j of the contract which it secured. Th j commission having accepted the wor j of the contractor, the bond given t secure the performance of the contrae to the satisfaction of the commissio became ipso facto cancelled and ar nulled, when the commission expresse itself satisfied with the job; and th endorsement upon the bond was merel ? a ministerial duty done by the go\ j ernor and which we are convinced h i could have been mandamused to d 1 under the circumstances. We are in I formed by the members who belong t i the legal profession that if said bon were now in possession of the officer , of the State unmarred by any endorse j ment, the plaintiff in interest cou! ! not recover under the facts withou j alleging and proving fraudulent col I lusion as to acceptance of the work be ? tween the commission, the obligees an i the contractors, the obligors, and th \ members of the investigating commit ? tee have given public assurance tba j no such collusion is even suspect?e ! Furthermore, at a meeting held sub i sequent to the endorsement made b; ! the governor, the attorney general re j ported informally to the commissio: j .that the governor had satisfied th j bond upon his le'gal advice. ? THE OLD IRON AND OTHER JUNK j It was never the intention of th j commission, to reserve to the Stat : the old iron and other junk remove< j from the biulding. Not only did the: j believe that the contractor would al S low more for it in his bid than the: j could get for it otherwise, but ques I tions would.have been continually aris ing as to the expense, etc., of removing i this old material, and of getting it ou I of the way. It cost several hundree ! dollars to get the old iron alone dowi ? from the roof. Besides, the appropria' ; tion for the work was limited, and th< ! commission desired to put in the build j ing in value all that the funds a' i their disposal permitted. Not only die i the architect, as the agent of the com ; mission, inform the bidders personal^ j that the specifications would be so con I strued, (See opinion of the attornej ! general, exhibit H), but there is abun ? dant evidence that all who filed a bic ! for the work did so on the basis ol getting in partial payment the old ma? terial that was removed. Mr. J. B, Garfunkel, the man best qualified tc j know this fact, the man whom the i investigating committee itself sum : moned to testify in regard to this old I material, swears that he knows of his j own knowledge that the different bid I ders for the work filed their bids upon j the basis that the old material, all of i it, would go to the contractor. - (See \ affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel, exhibit J). [ If any further evidence of this fact was ; necessary the reply of W. A. Chester ; man, one of the bidders, and of J. E. 1 Burgess, another to the same effect, in response to a telegraphic inquiry that I ("In my capitol bid I figured on all old I material being my property." See tel ! egrams, exhibit G.) should do so. I No one doubted for an instant that ; not only as a matter of right but under 1 the strict letter of the law and the ! contract this old material went to the j contractor, until over a year after the j 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 material in their estimate sheets. Thereupon the attorney general gave to tue commission this opinion, which has been completely ignored by the in? vestigating committee, notwithstand? ing the fact that it was in their pos? session: that not only of right, but of law, this material, under the contract, was not the State's. (See opinion at? torney general, exhibit H.) Every member of the commission ex? eunt Senator Marshall believed had they attempted to claim this old ma? terial under all the circumstances, they would have been acting not only un? fairly, but dishonestly, with the con-, tractor. The contractor had actually I given the State val?e for this material, and the specifications had been so con- : strued and made absolutely plain be fore the bids were even filed. The peo- ; pie of the State do not ask their pub- j lie servants to do a dishonest deed. In j our opinion it would have been dis honest to have attempted to take from '. the contractor that for which he had ; 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 consid eration, this end must be obtained: through other official agencies than that of the members who compose this commission. AS TO THE BROKEN COLUMNS. Under the terms of the specifications for the work "all of the columns that are out and the five unfinished will] be completed and used by selecting the | perfect ones for the main front, and j using the ones wifh small defects in the rear." (Report, p. 4.V). In the! progress of the work, in attempting to raise one of the finished columns from ' its bed where it had remained for a number of years, the column broke of its own weigjpt along the line of a hid? den crack iii the stone. At the meet? ing ensuin?the contractor appeared before the^Hmmissloa and stated that it would be 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 the contract and there was no doubt in the minds of a ma? jority of the commission, after a 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 contractort reported that the column could be patched by putting in a section of new stone at a cost of about $500, and a delay in the work of 30 days. According to the plans there were to be two columns placed within what is now the open floor space on the front portico. These columns supported none of the weight of the walls of the struc? ture, and were located by the architect within this area because under the approved plans the State had on hand two columns that could be used for purely ornamental purposes. The con? 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 would be in no wise impaired, this solution of the problem was deemed the best and most expedient, inasmuch as the funds ir. the hands of the commission were limited, the work would rot be de? layed and no damage would be done the structure. At a subsequent meet? ing of the legislature the broken col? umns were appropriated and given by the State to Greenwood and Spartan burg. The question of utility having been settled to the satisfaction of a ma? jority of the commission it then be? came one purely of taste and ornament, and upon this issue we considered that the best interests of the State . were subserved by carrying to completion '? the front portico as it now stands. It may be added that in the final vote , ?s to leaving out these two centre col ! umns that Messrs. Gantt and Johnson voted with Mr. Marshall in the nega-~ I tive, the other members present con I stituting a majority, voting in the affirmative. I In addition to the $600 above men? tioned as a part of the consideration ; for relieving the contractor of the work I 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 ' tee related to the removal of ;&he ceil? ing in the main lobby and ??is is a typical illustration of their methods and of the value, of their conclusions, "Captain" Hunt in his tesi&nony (p. 17) swort tfi?T>* t, j^aja^had lost in his opinior $15,000 by the removal Of this ceiling, vhich was represented as "steel" ceiling and that "had cost in the neighborhood of $10,000." (p. 7.) Now, what are the facts?, The offi? cial records of the old State house commission show the awarding of the ' contract for this ceiling as follows: "Columbia, S. C., May 2nd, 1889. The commission met this day. Present: Hon. J. Q. Marshall, secretary of State; Hon. J. S. Verner, comptroller general. The bids were-presented, be? ing six in number, for putting in iron (galvanized) ceiling, beams, skylights, etc., in the main corridor on the second floor, together with the ceiling over J the senate lobby. * * * Mr. John. -. ?p Alexander's bid upon plan No. 1, for $7.898 was accepted." This record was accessible to the in? vestigating committee "and could have clearly shown them {hat this ceiling did not cost "in the neighborhood of $10,000," but that the ceiling of the senate lobby, which had not been re? moved, and the cornice of the main lobby, which was skill there, consti? tuted three-fourths of the work for which less than $8,000 had been paid, and that the ceiling that had been removed cost, 15 years ago, less than $2,000. It is a very plain piece of work with little ornamentation and cer? tainly net beautiful. Architect Wilson in his report stated that it could now be put back for about ?1,800. This ceiling, as the records show, was not only bought as galvanized iron, but an actual inspection of it will show that the ceiling taken out was nothing but galvanized iron. The committee found that "the contractors bodily took and carried away and converted to their own use this valuable and beauti? ful part of the old building," (p. 7) when one of the five witnesses whom they themselves put upon the stand certified and could have told them that it was galvanized iron, and when re? moved "worthless even as junk." (See affidavit of J. B. Garfunkel, Exhibit P). Dr. Babcock, superintendent of the Hospital for the Insane, certifies that the ceiling is now in his posses? sion as an officer of the State. (See certificate of J. W. Babcock, Exhibit I). The commission put back exactly the same material they took out, simply requiring the contractor to replace worthless and damaged material with new material of the same kind. The wanton misrepresentation which it was necessary for this so-called "architect" to make to show that the removal of a dozen squares of gal? vanized iron which was in bad shape, bent and rusted, and replacing it with other galvanized iron : ?f a pattern which better suited the ?und opening of the dome entailed a ,oss of $15,000 upon the State, certainly entitled him to the compensation of $15 a day, which he was paid and which he was evi? dently industriously endeavoring to earn. If the ceiling removed could be properly designated as "steel ceiling" that put in its place could be so desig? nated, as it is the same material. If one is pressed into form by a "stamp" and the other shaped by a soldering iron, that fact would add nothing to its beauty and would make it flimsier and easier to get out of shape. AS TO WATER CLOSETS. When we took charge of the com? pletion of the State house under this act there were as there had been for many years, two water closets of old and defective design placed consider? ably beneath the level of the surround? ing" grounds, and absolutely without ventilation. The use^of these by the occupants of the^*^ or ground floor necessitated t>^ -,cent of one flight of stairs, an<r^$*re removed another long flight of stairs from the legisla tive halls. Those members of the com- ? mission who were also State officers ^ fully realized and appreciated the in? tolerable, irremediable unsanitary oca- J_ .