University of South Carolina Libraries
- which must necessarily surroui tr?>?s ?Icsets ?s long as they 3/er? 1 iocated. Realizing the importance < sn?h conveniences, and being coi vinced that some provision for the inust be.made before the permanei wrk on the State house was complete the commission sought to provide different,, more convenient and saf< locality in the building for thef closets- These new closets were m contemplated when the question < completing the State house came b< fore the general assembly, nor wei there any plans, specifications Or coi tract relating thereto; but the comm?t sion believing that out of the appn priation enough had been saved to ix stall these necessaries, made such coi tract with reference to them asr just fi?s us m courting the most rigid ir vestigation. At the time the fixture were installed there was no sewera^ system in the city of Columbia, and r municipal regulations covering detai which though adopted for the sake < uniformity and governmental regt v lation are but arbitrary.. .Since this ir stallation there has been no complaii of the presence or suspicion of the ea ^ istence of sewer gas, and the iocatio of the closets is such that if the pres ence did actually exist there could t no. detriment to the health or lives c the occupants of the State house. This determination on the part of th committee to make this arrangemex: -tfas most fortunate., as subsequen events proved, for the discovery wa about that time made that the ol water closets had been silently and un suspectingly venting their gase through secret and unknown flues t the brick walls of the building int the offices upon the lower'floor an spreading disease and death among th State's employes. ' The commission o sanitary experts appointed by Go\ Heyward, while criticizing some de ails-of the new work, ordered the ol< closets peremptorily and" immediate!; removed from the building, and in thi demand .Mr. Edens, the sanitary m specter cf Columbia, joined. The grate or fire places in several of .the office were directly connected with thes closets sind had to. be hermetical!: sealed until the old work was remove< from the building. The condemned closets had been in stalled at great expense to the Stat" under the-direction of the commissioi which erected the "Splendid ten thous ? and dollar steel ceiling*' in the mah lobby, nearly 15 years ago7 largely: un der Ihe supervision of Senator Mar shall, who was then secretary of state We desire, to impress upon' you th< fact, that you have not been put in pos? session of any evidence or statement ai to " the ?pparent condition x?t the Stat* house upon the day when the accept? ance was made and the final install? ment paid to the contractor. We 'therefore, rinfonn you that , when .th* work was accepted and the monc \ paie a personal inspection by special com? mittee of the commission was made and the. roof, with all of its accessories appeared in perfect condition, , anc every stone laid under the coutraci was free from cracks or apparent de? fects, and this notwithstanding a test period of nearly or quite a month hac elapsed from tbe date when the build? ing was tendered, during which peri oe we were satisfied that a* sufficient tesl - -had been made. During' -said period th?re^ were. several precipitations ol rain, notably on the 12th day of May, 1902, when the rain began to fall about 2 o'clock in'the morning and continu?e until about - 7 of the same morning, during which, time nearly an inch o? wat jr felL Rain followed again on the 14th. falling during the night and on the 15th, when in 21 minutes 2-4 oi an inch of rainxaH was registered. Under this severe test the roof ap . peared to 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. ; We confess with the utmost candor thatizi some respects, particularly as --~-^"**5s%?oof- and the floor lights, we have not - bel^altogether pleased with the result ofr!rV^rorl?. But 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 the expectation of the commission. It is well to remember, however, that . we are too prone t?^ctwel? upon that which has not come fully up to - our expectations, while ignoring the fact that this man probably succeeded in .more important matters where another would have been subjected to just criticism. - We have scrupulously avoided, either in this communication or in any of the <fe steps le?cimg up to the opportunity x-which has been accorded us by your ?,?V honorable body to set ourselves right, in mal?pg^6m>^ause common with that of either the architect or contractor, and have endeaVored to divorce our " selves insofar as possible from them. First of all, tholigh out of office, we are in a measure servants of the people and of the genefal assembly, and if that tribunal deeffes the' State to have suffered injury fsom either, our first duty is to the State. However; it is hilt justice to say that we have found, the contractors in all their dealings with us honorable busi? ness men, whom We believe to be above suspicion of .wrong doing, and who sought to live up to the true intent and meaning of thfeir contract with the State. ft: We- desire it-understood that we do not claim that it is impossible that im? positions have been practiced upon this commission by the architect or contractor, for if any vital defects ex? ist in the building or serious mistakes ; jean be shown to have been made, these must have been the outcome of the commission having been misled, but we do assert in the most positive manner 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 can 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. We would remind your honorable body that this commission has not deemed it to<be its duty to go into the newspapers to defend the course of the majority, and that as but one side has- heretofore been presented to the public, we realize that it is but natural that the conclusion should be drawn that there has been but one side to the question. If, with all the facts before you, you should conclude that the one man has been always right and the nine men always wrong, we can but pf?ad is extenuation that we have done the best we could for the State, "un awed by influence, and unbribed by gain." In this report we have endeav? ored to state the facts fully, candidly and fairly, "nothing extenuate and naught set down in malice." All of which is respectfully sub? mitted. M. B. Mcsweeney. G. Duncan Bellinger. R. H. Jennings. J. Harvey Wilson. Robert J. Gantt. \ W. J. Johnson. Co?umbia, S. C., Feruary 19, 1904. Having taken up the official duties upon the commission at the expira? tion of the term of the Hon. W. H. Timmerman. my predecessor. I had nothing to do with the election of the architect or the awarding of the con? tract, but as to all the facts relating ^ to the. actions of the commission, aui m tho opinions c-xpressed herein with ref ? er?nce to those facts, expressed in the / #&c?fi report I ara ia aearty accord with the report of the commission, with the limitations above expr?s? have signed myself as a respons member of the commission. R. H. Jennins Under the resolution passed by general ass?mbly of South Carol allowing the members of the S house commission to file such st merits as they respectively desiree make; I submit the following: - That ia the election of architeci make plans and specifications for completion of the work on the Si house I did not vote for Mr. Milb for reasons satisfactory to myself, the acceptance for the completion : Ilvain-Unkefer Co. was the only that came within the limit? of the propr?at?on, and it resolved itself i the acceptance of the same or a p< ponement of the work until the % visions should be! made by the St legislature. When I went out of of as State treasurer my connection w the commission ceased, and I am in way responsible for the completion acceptance of the work of the c tractor. ? did not pretend to have ? knowledge of architecture, and co therefore have easily been impo upon as to the beauty and the finish the architecture. Very respectfully submitted, W. H. Timmermar EXHIBIT A. Personally appeared G. Duncan B nnger, who being duly sworn, sa; That in the late "fell of the year li upon casually meeting the Hon. J. Patterson, a'member of the joint vestigating committee, and ascerta ing accidentally from him that he h just returned from Columbia win he had been in attendance upon & committee, I asked him if the co mission .would be .accorded a heari before his committee. In reply to tl Mr Patterson stated that Mr. Aldri was the chairman of the commitl and advised me that if such requ< was made OL. the chairman it wot be granted. Deponent referred to re sons mutually known to him and Mr. Patterson why such request wot be unpleasant to deponent, upon whi Mr. Patterson assured me th he would himself notify the cha: man of the desire of the members the commission to be heard. This co versation occurredN in the town Barnwell on a Saturday, night, with 20 feet .of the paling of Mr. Pattersoi front yard. - Subsequently and before the occa ion next to be referred to in the sar town, and near ' the same locality, recalled to Mr. Patterson our previo conversation and asked him if tl right which we had demanded ww be accorded to us, and he assured' r that it would, and that he had. spok? to the chairman on the subject and ti probability was that, the illness fro which Mr. Aldrich was then suffern was the reason why I, and other mer hers o? the commission had hot be< notified. I again- impressed upon hi that this request was made on bena of all of the members of the commi sion. These are the occasions to which referred in the communications whit I recently published concerning . th request made upon Mr. Patterson, ar af that time I had no reference to ar other; but his published statemen said to have been?in defense of h conduct, while explaining upon tl floor of the house of representative the injustice done by his commits to members of our commission recalk to me another and third occasion whe this demand for justice was repeate In the city of Cdiumbia, on the nigl of the 17th of December, just passei one of my partners,. the Hon. L. V Haskell, who is a member of the nous of representatives, and myself went t appointment to the Columbia hotel t meet some clients from the City ( Augusta, with whom we. conferred ur til about 12 o'clock. After this comm? ence and when about, to leave the hot? we met Mr- J. O. Patterson, who r< quested us to go to his room, as h would have to sit up to catch a lat train. While in this gentleman's rooi the subject of the investigating coir mittee arose and I learned accidentan that a meeting of this committee ha ;been very recently held. Becomin 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 t appeal to the legislature were we s unfairly treated as not to be accorde an opportunity- to be heard. Again received empty-promises and vain as surances. A very recent conversatio: with Mr. Haskell warrants me in th assertion that he was present and re calls that the request was most earn estiy made G. Duncan- Bellinger. Sworn to before me this, 18th day o February; 1904. J. T. Gantt, Notary "Public. S. C. EXHIBIT B. State of South. Carolina-County o Richland. Personally appeared W. J. Johnson who being duly sworn, says that dur ing the present session of the legisla ture the deponent had an intimatioi that the commission for the comple tion of the State house were going t< be severely criticised .by the commi tte? appointed to .investigate the severa reports of the commission. That th< deponent immediately looked up Repre^ sentative Rawlinson, who was a mern ber of the investigating committee, am irifdnned him of what deponent hac heard, and further informed him thai if the reports of severe arraignmen: or criticism were true that the com? mission had a right to be heard, anc that an opportunity should be giver them. That Representative Rawlin? son assured deponent that there wai nothing in the" rumor and that the com? mission would not be harshly criticis? ed and that his committee had nol fully made up its report: that thej would have another meeting and ai: the members of the old commissior could be heard: further stated that il was his impression that all the mem? bers of the commission had T.een in? vited to attend their ' meetings; de? ponent informed him that none of the members <?f th?* commission had been invited to any of the meetings so far as deponent knew, certainly deponent had not been. W. J. Johnson. Sworn tr? before me this, 18th day ol February. lf>04. Lewis W. Haskell, Notary Public for S, C. EXHIBIT C. State of South Carolina-County of ?iohland. ' Personally appeared before me A. H. Seats, who being duly sworn, savs: That he is a reporter for The Daily Record, a newspaper published at Co? lumbia: that in company of Lewis ivmn, at that time reporter for The New* and Courier, he "inplied at the agricultural committee room in tts State house, where he heard the legis? lative committee investigating the work on 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 the committee that the meetings were not public. A. H. Seats. Sworn to and subscribed before me, this 16th day of February, 1904. A. C. DePass. Notary Pu 1)1 ie. KXHFRTT T>. I Lewis G. Wood, being duly sworn. I says: That he went to' the agricultu i ral committee room where the investi ! gating committee was in session, and inquired if there was an* news of the I investigation to be pubmhed at that ' time, and that he was toft by a mern ? bei .of th? committee that lhere I none. Lewis G. Wood, Jr., j The Stat Sworn to before me this 16th da: j February, 1904. E. O. DePass. (L. S.) ' Notary Public for South Carolin Exhibit E. ; State of South Carolina, Richland county, j Personally appeared before me D. . Means, who being duly sworn s ] that he was summoned to produce < .' tain records of the commission for ? completion of the State house and j testify before the "joint committee ; consider the several reports of . commission on ;he completion of i State house and facts relating th? j to.'* which committee was meeting j the agricultural committee room ! the house. That he entered the rc i and was about to be examined w h another witness was announced i present whereupon deponent was formed that he was excused until I said committee had finished with s j other witness. That deponent tl I withdrew and waited in another of j in the State house until after the i parture of said other witness wi I deponent was again summoned to pear and testify. That during his i amination by said committee while ponent was endeavoring to put in wi i he considered necessary or proper qu ifications of "yes" and "no" answ deponent was interrupted by the cha man with the statements "answer 1 question," and "you need not go in that at all." That just after the examination \N completed the chairman of the co mittee requested deponent to say nol ing-of what had transpired during ] examination by said committee. That during deponent's examin?t] by said committee Senator J. Q. Mi shall was present. That some time subsequent to dej nent's examination by said joint coi mittee ex-Attorney General G. Dunc Bellinger, handed to deponent a 1< ter written by said G. Duncan Belli ger to ex-Gov. M. B. Mcsweeney, dat Dec. 22, 1903, of which the followi is a copy: Columbia. S. C., Dec. 22, 1903 Hon. M. B. Mcsweeney, Hampton H., S. C. Dear Sir: In reply to your commui cation I write to say that I r?colte than on May 31, 19t)2, when you we governor and I attorney general South Carolina, I received from you letter of date May 3L 1902, a carb< copy of which is to be found at pag 140 and 141 of volume of "Public Lai Letter Book, New Series, No. 1 to 2W of which letter the following is a cop to wit: "Columbia, S. C., May 31, 1902. "Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorn* General, Columbia, S. C. "Dear Sir: You are familiar with tl action of the commission fdr the cor pletion of the State house at meetii May 23, 1902, to-wit: 'Resolved that appears to the commission for the cor pletion of the State house, that tl work is satisfactory and that the coi tract has been substantially" perfora edJ The above resolution was urx the question as to whether. Mcllvaii Unkefer company has performed the contracts for the completion of tl State house, and subsequently the con mission ordered- the balance due Mci yain-Unkefer companv on their sa contracts to be paid. Mcllvain-TJnki fer company now desire that the surel bond for $50,000. given by them 1 the commission for the faithful pe: formance of their said contract be t me surrendered to them the said coi tractors. No action was by said con mission taken authorizing or directir. the surrender of said surety bond, such action necessary or am I authoi ized, upon the action already taken t the commission to endorse upon sai surety bond the resolution of commii sion as to contractors' complianc with, or performance of contract, an surrender said surety bond to the sai contractors? * x "Kindly give me your official opir ion upon this i matter and oblige, "Respectfully, "M. B. Mcsweeney, "Governor and Chairman. "P. S.-Mr. Unkefer informs m that until surrendered his surety bon is costing him $25.00 per month." Upon receipt of this letter from yo I recollect that i gave you orally m official opinion, as attorney genera that as said action of said commissio was final and conclusive as to said con tractors having performed their con tract (to secure the performance c which said surety bond had been give to you as chairman of said commis sion), said contractors were entitled t the return of the bond; and fur the action by the commission being un necessary, I advised you to murrende said bond tc the contractors with a: endorsement thereon signed by yoi which I dictated.. Very respectfully. G. Duncan Bellinger. That at the request of said ex-Gover nor M. B. Mcsweeney deponent paste? the original of the foregoing letter written by ex-Attorney General G Duncan Bellinger to ex-Governor M B. Mcsweeney, in the back of the min ute book of the commission for th< completion bf the State house, so as t< pr?serve in writing the evidence of th< reasons and circumstances undei which said M. B. Mcsweeney whih governor surrendered said bond to saic contractors, Mcllvain, Unkefer Co. That subsequent to deponent's saic ! examination 'the secretary or steno ; grapher of said committee requested de ! ponent to give him access to the rec? ords of the commission, for the com : pletion of the State house, for the uur pose of said secretary's comparing and ; verifying "with said original records said secretary's copies of portions thereof, to be used in said joint com j mittee report. That at this time de I ponent called the attention of said clerk j or stenographer to said original letter j from ex-At\orney-General Bellinger to I ex-Governor M. B. Mcsweeney, pasted j as before stated, in the back of said i minute book, and requested said clerk i of said committee'to take a copy of said ! letter and show it to the'chairman ; of said joint committee, thinking that ! said chairman might desire to use said j letter, as it contained a statement by ex-Attorney General Bellinger of im? portant facts in reference to the sur? render of the said bonds to the said contractors to M. B. Mcsweeney, up? on which matter deponent had been ex? amined. That said secretary or stenographer of said joint committee did make 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 j February, 1904. Lewis W. Haskell, Notary Public for South Carolina. EXHIBIT F. , State of Soul li Carolina -County of I Richland. % Persor?'ly appeared before me. Joe ; B. Garfunkel, who, being dv'v sworn, , says that he was summoned aa di Wit? ness by the committee investigating the work upon the State house, and i that when he appeared and gave his ! testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall was j present in the room. Deponent fur ; ther swears that he was present in the State house when the contract for the ; work on the State house was let, and i knows that it was the general under? standing among the bidders that the ' junk removed from the building in doing the work provided in the plans I and specifications of Frank P. Milburn ; would go to the contractors: deponent I :1s peculiarly qualified to know this ! :!act because he wished f buy this I junk, and tnlked about it to every one of the bidders whom he met. Deponent further swears that prior vtQ. the letting of the contract fur the J- . I work he had flied with the commissio ; an application tn hoy th*? said jun! j but was informed t?at he must appl I to the contractors for the purchase c : same. That Mr. tnkefer told th .deponen-, two or three days after th j contract was awarded that the com mission had referred to him the appli ration deponent had made to buy th junk. Deponent further swears that he is ; ! dealer in, and familiar with the marke I value of old iron and other junk, an< I that he made an estimate of and of j fered the highest market price for th j old iron it was necessary to remove ii j placing the dome on the building: tha . he regarded the* said old iron worth less for any other purpose than junl and had he secured same he woul< have immediately shipped it off a: ?such: that the contractors secured i higher price from other Darties for ; portion of this old iron than deponen would have paid for.it. Deponent further swears that he ex amined the ceiling removed from th< main lobby of the State house, whilt it remained on the State hous< grounds: that said feiling was galva? nized iron, and worthless, even as junk that the contractors gave it to the de? ponent, but he wou'.d not haul it off and in turn gave it to the asylum foi the insane. That he did not testify to the facts above when being examined before the j investigating committee because the I questions were not asked him. J. B. Garfunkel. Sworn to before me this 15th day o? { February, 1904. D. W. McLaurin, Notary Public. EXHIBIT G. Richmond, Va... Feb. 4, 1904. Robert J. Gantt. Capitol Building: i In my capitol bid I figured on all old I material being my property. W. A. Chesterman. ! . Savannah, 5a., Feb. 19,1904. Robt. J. Gantt: I In making up bid for contract on I capitol therev- contractor was to have all old stone, iron and other material on the premises. J. E. Burgess, (Of Stewart Contracting Company.) EXHIBIT H. REQUEST FOR OPINION. Newberry, S. C., Aug. 9, 1901. Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger, Attorney General, Columbia, S. C.: Dear Sir: Pursuant to the permis? sion of the commission charged with the completion of the State house, I hhve 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 contains the statement of Mr. Unkefer, one of 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 _on tractors or the State. Awaiting your reply, I am, Very truly yours. Geo. S. Mower, Chairman. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. Executive Department, Office of the Attorney Generals Columbia, S. C., Aug. 26, 1901. Hon. Geo. S. Mower, Chairman, etc., Newberiy, S. C. Dear Sir: I have before me your let? ter relating to the question of the own? ership pf what is itnown as the "old material" in connection with the con? tract for the completion- of the State house. I note that you say that the commit tee desires my "opinion under the terms of the contract and the circum- j I stances of the case upon the i ! question where the ownership of the ; old material rests, whether in the con ' tractors or the State." I I have the honor to reply as follows: J : As I gather them the admitted facts j are: 1 The only pertinent reference in the plans, specifications or written contrae ol' ?hf us?-* >r ownership of rh*? "o?d ma terial" in question is to he found i the specifications, in the folio win words: "The sue? essful contractor wi be permitted tu use all old materii that is now on rh.- ground, and sue parts of the present roof that conlon to these plans and specifications: bur i is understood that the marble now o the grounds is not included. This onl covers the granite columns, baluster! old iron, bracing, granite." etc.. in th roof that is suitable, and the pr-ope size that if; ? ailed for. If in doubt con suit the architect on this subject be? fore making a bid." Before bidding on t he work Mc Ilvain-Unkefer company, as well a orher competitive contractors, call?? upon th- architect. F. P. Milburn, fo an interpretation vi" the clause quoted concerning which they were in doubt. ?. The architect informed the con tractors "that the contractors biddin; for the work would get such "old ma terial.' and would be permitted to us such old parts as would conform witl the new plans and specifications.' (See Wilburn's letter. July 31, 1901.) 4. Acting upon the interpretation given by the architect. Mcllvain-Unke fer company, after making allowance; for what was conceived to be th value of the "old material" to them put in their bid for the Contract, anc was duly accepted by the commission 5. One Mr. Garfunkel, a junk dealer submitted to the commission a proposi? tion to buy the copper and old iror then in the old roof, and the commis? sion, upon accepting Mcllvain-Unkefei company's bid, ordered that the com? munication of Mr. Garfunkel be turnee over to the successful bidding con? tractor, upon the ground that the sab; "old material" was at the disposal ol the latter. The clause quoted fer the specifica? tions bears internal evidence of con? scious ambiguity, and the conflicting interest is susceptible of various in? terpretations. It is easy to conceive that the bidding contractors could claim with a show of reason, the title to the "cid material" in question, and inasmuch as the paper containing the clause was prepared for and in behalf of the commission, and the law would, as I understand it. construe the con? tract strictly against the commission and in favor of the bidder, for one rea? son, among others, that in cases of doubt, the construction by the con? tractors must be given the benefit of the doubt, inasmuch as the commis? sion, as the author of the specifica? tions, must suffer, if either party must, on account of ambiguity. But I think that up to a very recent date it had been the understanding on all sides that the contractors should be the owners of the old material, and the facts as found seem to me to pre? clude any other conclusion. ^The statement of Milburn, the archi? tect, speaking on behalf of the commis? sion, the known conduct of the con? tractors, based upon Milburn's inter? pretation, the acceptance of the bid based upon the supposed ownership by the contractors of the "old material," and the declination to treat with a pro? posed purchaser for the sale of the old material, and the reference of his bid to Mc?lvaine-Unkefer company, all estop the commission from claiming the "old material" in question Hoping that this will meet with your approval, I am, Very truly 3rours, (Signed) G. Duncan Bellinger, . Attorney General. Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin? ion of the attorney general was ap? proved by a vote taken viva voce, Mr. j Marshall voting against it. EXHIBIT I. Columbia, S. C.. Feb. 15.1904. j This certifies that in the fall of 1901 \ I bought from J. B. Garfunkel, for the use of the State hospital for the insane, ; tor the amount of $6.00 a lot of gal- j vanized iron railing and that he j threw ia* as worthless, a lot of metal ceiling, which he said we might have i for hauling off.' The ceiling is now ly- . ing in a rubbish heap in th? back yard j of the hospital. J. W. Babcock. ? _____ I THE ANSWER OF ARCHITECT FRANK P. MILBURN. ?In Detail the Man Against Whom Charges Were Made Replies to His Accusers in the General i , Assembly. REPLY OF FRANK P. MILBURN, building in the light of these original, ! \? ARCHITECT, TO REPORT OF IN- general plans and specifications. VESTIGATING COMMITTEE, RE- And yet no one of the seven gentle LATING TO THE WORK ON THE men of the Capitol commission, who STATEHOUSE. honestly differed ' with Col. Marshall, TO the Public: was called, nor was I asked to show T ".-n ^ '* -j him the modified and complete speci I will oe glad for you to consider my fications and detai] drawings under reply to so muon of the report of the h? h th k was actualIy done. investigating committee, recently made R appears that on a Friday in May to the legislature, as seems necessary im, before this investigating commit- ! at tms time. tee was t0 take testimony, as remem- : In the first place, the committee, bered by the chairman, the chairman : composed of chosen representatives of 0f the committee called at my office. ! the people, "all honorable gentlemen," during rav absence from the citv. and 1 in their desire to vindicate the author left a verbal message with one of my of the minority report of one mern- draughtsmen about the meeting, at ; ber of the old capitol commission, have which the expert frpm Washington j gone beyond the authority given by the would give his testimony, and that I concurrent resolution under which they could be present, or send any com-' acted. By that resolution they were munication if I desired. But i never ! directed to report to the next session received the message, and, in fact, of the general assembly "such facts and never heard of the incident until lalt ? recommendations in reference thereto Friday, the 12th inst. In this connec- ! as they may d?em advisable." And tion I beg to submit the following yet these "honorable gentlemen" go ' statements: out of their way to inject into their "To Whom it Mav Concern: report wholly unwarranted and im- ?This is to certify that I am in the : proper conclusions, which are neither employment of Frank P. Milburn, ar '-'facts" nor "recommendations," but chitect, in the capacitv of engineer and libellous and indiscriminate reflections draughtsman, and was during the last j on numerous' State officers and repre- year. sentatives, as well as the architect and "That once when Mr. Milburn and ! contractors. "Miserable fraud," "mon i?T. Heister were out of the ! strous swindle" and "malefactors!" office, Mr. Milburn being out of the i Such gratuitous expressions are as City> a gentleman called, and renre- j false as they are uncalled for by the senting himself to be a member of concurrent resolution. the State house -investigating commit But, that this committee, was more tee, stated in effect that said commit- : bent on vindicating the one dissenting tee would shortly (as I understood, the i member of the capitol commission than next day) have a session, and asked ? carrying out the suggestions of the that I let Mr. .Milburn know, and also . legislature, is evidenced by the fact get word to Mcllvain. Unkefer com- j that they did not "employ an archi- pa ny. I promised to let Mr. Milburn j tect."*as was suggested by the authori- know, and also Mcllvain. Unkefer com- ? ty given in the concurrent resolution, 1 pany if we eould; that I thought we but paid $15.00 a day for a "contract- ? had their address in the office. I or," who says he has been "superin- "That upon the return of Mr. Heister, j tendent of constructing of the United who is chief draughtsman and assist- : ! States capitol for four years." ant to Mr. Milburn, I told him of what ! But further still, this committee was hilf? taken place, and supposed ne would ! directed to consider the "several re- communicate with them, but I never ports of the commission for .the con- mentioned the matter to Mr. Milburn j pletion of the State house," with au- until Feb. 12, 1004. _ _ , " thority to summon witnesses, etc. "(Signed) -Geo. F. Kepler. They seem to have considered only the "To whom it May Concern: , one minority report of Senator J. Q. "I hereby certify that I am now, ! Marshall, made in February, 1903, and and was last year chief draughtsman examined witnesses only in support of and assistant to Mr. Frank I*. Milburn, that minority report, without calling architect. Sa single witness in support of the re- -That I nave read the foregoing cer 1 port and action of seven honored citi- tificate of Mr. George F. Kepler, but zens and officers of the State, who dif- nave n0 recollection of ever heating of : fered with roi. Marshall, and who are tne conversation therein referred to. as wide awak x> ?>* interests of the before Feb. 12. 1904. If Mr. Kepler is Stan- ns he or va?* timbers of this in- correct jn his recollection of stating the vestigating committee, and who have matter t0 ? ??(i not take it in suffi. always depended more upon witnesses v-ievl]v t0 f_ ^A lv mind> and { an) in this State, whoso standing and crea- suro ?hat , ?ever ,n?ntioned tho mat> ibility arc known to thom personally. ter to -?.. yj?inurn than a foreign importation who is "(Signed)* "Michael Heister." recommended bv the superintendent of ??*?.. i . . u- i the federal capitol building, and was no After ^ hearing, at which is now doubt never before heard of in South appears that several wunesses were ex Carolina amined, i learned ol it trom the news j papers and common rumor: bur never But let us -laur?at the procedure of knew anvthIng o? tne purport of the this investigating committee. When testimonv. although 1 heard that roi. they select their expert he is brought Marsha 11 was present, and that thc to Columbia and shown tao general ? seSsions were behind closed doors. Un-I plans and specifications upon which tiI mv return to ihis city ]a?t Friday, contractors were invited to bid for the wnen T ?ol h51d of a ?opy of th(X report work: but not the plans showing the comrnjtteo having never honored modifications nor the detail drawings me with a copv-I never knew authori? al actual work. He examiuea the tatively of the reflections on the work.1 t After keeping the testimony, th^ir proceedings secret, as I bel from May to December, more thar months, f received a not'.- from secretary of the committee, d Barnwell, S. C.. Dec. 7. 1903, but m; in Columbia, ll iii December, giving an opportunity to appear before" committee, if 1 desired. Having h of the proceedings in -May. at whi was told, and believed, Col. Man had been present,' I decided, wit having counsel, that 1 had best appear unless the committee desirer presence, i had been guilty of absol ly no wrong, or conscious neglec any duty to the State, but had g my best efforts tu assist the ca; commission in the discharge of its t:es and the proper expenditure of State's money, hence i had nothin; explain away. But knowing that I modified and detailed drawings in office not on file in the State he I offered to place my.office record: the disposal of the committee. In connection I see that my note to committee has been termed "curt wish to disclaim any such intent and if it is, [ regret it, and plead in tenuation the fact that I began struggle for bread early in life, and not the opportunities of collegiate i cation enjoyed by some members of investigating committee. But in justice to the capitol corni sion, which with one exception proved my work, as well as to my and family, I wish to say something regard to the specific findings of investigating committee, in the oi stated. First. As to the charge t the plans and specifications filed v the secretary of state were not suits and complete. I believe this was the first objed made by Col. Marshall after my ? tien as architect, and was? fully c sidered and passed upon by the cap commission in the year 1900, Mr. M shall alone dissenting. At that t: the commission had before it letl from four of the most prominent c tractors and builders of this sect of the country, who, after study those plans carefully to base u] them bids for a very large sum money, secured by a heavy bond, 1 bid upon this work. Some of th gentlemen were personally known members of the commission, and th statements were to the effect that drawings and specifications were pl enough to make an intelligent bid. tl the plans and specifications were fe understood, and were proper for g< work. - The opinion of such well kno contractors and builders as Gude Walker. J. W. Bishop & Co., W. Chesterman, and Nicholas Inner, co monly known as* "Honest Nick," mi outweigh the opinion of Mr. Marsh and the Washington '"expert" with a impartial judge. Second. That the contract fixed t old work on the completed portion the building as the standard. This is not true. There is nothing the plans and specifications whi could oe so construed, except, perha; the word ''prototype," on one of t general drawings, and this was inter ed to apply only to style, outline, for shape; and was not intended to apt to the classification of the workma ship. Under each of the headings the various classes of work the sat was fully outlined, giving the numt of cuts to the inch for the diff?re parts of the work. In this connection, I may say th it was not intended to make the sto cornice in' one piece, for instance. T small appropriation for the whole wo necessitated great economy, a: the scale detail drawings show that was to be built up of several membei as it was done, instead of the more e: pensive one-piece cornice. Referring to sheet 6 of the gener drawings where the note before r ferred to is found, it will be seen tb the work is to be the same only whf it has its prototype in the old 'buildin That it does not mean that the cornie for instance, is to be identical with tl old work, you have only to see sheet of those same drawings, where t? cornice is distinctly shown to be bui up of several pieces. Third. That the State at a great e: pense, in the neighborhood of $10,00 had a splendid steel ceiling in the ma: lobby, which the contractors toe and converted to their own use, when by the State lost in the neighborhoc of $10,000. The plans and Specifications require the contractors to cut a circular oper ing into the ceiling for the inner dom When the ceiling was cut, and it Wc thoroughly examined, it was found t be galvanized iron, in a bad conditio and difficult to work into shape, es pecially as it contained ceiling light no longer of use. The contractors sai it would require special workmen an considerable loss of time to patch : up, and would not then be as satis factory as a new ceiling, which ccul be gotten in, less time, and enable ther to be ready for the meeting of th legislature, although the new ceilin; would cost them more. After full in vestigation of all the facts and con ditions, I decided that it was t the interest of the State to accept th proposed change, and I approved th ceiling they used, which harmonize perfectly with the design of the ceil ing under the balcony around the mai] lobby, which was placed there unde Mr. Niernsee's supervision. As botl ceilings are in the same lobby and ar seen at the same time, harmony is es sential. Neither the cornice nor cov< mouldings'in this lobby were interfere* with, but the iie\v ceiling was used oui: in the field or body of the ceiling through which the dome is cut. Th? contractors thought they ought to hav< extra for this new ceiling, but I wonk not allow it, and the State got th< new ceilings without cost. This item shows the fearful mistake the investigating committee made ir not examining farther into the rea facts instead of giving so much weighi to that minority report. They woulo have the public believe that it was a "steel ceiling," costing in the neighbor? hood of $10.000, when the records in th<= secretary of state's office show that al! the ceilings and cornices, steel beams, and skylights in the rotunda, or main lobby, and the ceiling over the senate lobby together, cost only $7,S9S, on the 2d of May. 1SS9. Any well informed man will know that the cornice actual? ly cost much more than the ceiling. The public must in charity put this blunder of the committee 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? hood of $10.000." Let the public guess why Mr. Hunt advanced the idea that the contractors removed this ceiling that they might hoist into position the large steel box girders that support the dome! Thc fact is, these heavy steel beams und girders were raised from the outside wall, and not through the main lobby. But not content with trying to arouse public indignation over the alleged loss to the State, they attempt 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 they either knew it. or could have learned it by reasonable, fair and impartial in? quiry, that this old ceiling that was removed from the rotund" lobby was never sold or used by th?. >f "*"' tors, but was given to Mr. Garrarikei it he would remove it from the grounds, and he in turu gave it to Dr. Babcock on the same condition, and this "val? uable and beautiful." this "splendid steel ceiling." now lies in a rubbish heap in the back yard of the State lu? natic asylum, a silent but unimpeach? able witness of the outrageous libel which this investigating committee has spread upon the records of the I^risla- . turo. Fourth, That by the omission oil two j inner columns from the front portico the contractors made a profit of $3,400, and che estimated loss to the State is $4,500. Thar thp public may fully understand this matter. 1 wish to call attention to the fact, that when called to this work ? found a partially completed building, much valuable stone and marble en hand, and an appropriation wholly and admittedly insufficient to complete the building as originally designed. When ? made the plans, it was to utilize all th^ very expensive columns then lying on the ground, and considered fit for use. that largely induced me to pro? vide for two inner columns on the front portico, lt turned out with this work, as 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 the 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 floor space, be? cause the architectural features would be just as good, because with slight changes (omitting a wood truss" and substituting steel trussed perlins) the strength of the structure would not be impaired in the least; because it would save much time in completing the 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 coiumn for ?500, causing a de? lay of one month, or change the plans and omit the two columns,, causing no delay, and deduct from the contract price SSG0, 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 the 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 "a 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 the 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 the contractors, the only slight difference, and which is not appreciable, in the work on the capitals, is due to the fact that the Pacolet granite is a trifle softer and therefore not suceptible to quite so high a finish. Sixth. That lintel stones should ex? tend from columns at the rear.of the portico to corresponding front columns, where there are sheet iron boxes paint? ed to resemble granite. 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 r?f?rence 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. Unfortun?tely there is but little fall, and yet I gave it all I possibly could to connect with the granite -work and the height of the second floor 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 and was walked on and abused before the concrete and cement mate? rial set sufficiently. The natural con? sequence was that it was damaged and still presents a bad appearance. An inspection of the rear portico floor, which was not so used and abused, will substantiate this contention. As to the ceiling of the portico, I do not know; of any material mor? suit? able for such ceilings. It is m.i^e from the same class of material that was removed by the contractors from the main iobby, although not the same de? sign. I wonder if the gentlemen bf the investigating committee know that the portiooT ceiling in the main entrance, to the United States capitol 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 doubt about its answering the purpose for at ieast ten years, as the 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. D. C.: Atlantic Coast Line office building. Southern Railway office building, Iowa department house. Raleigh hotel. Bliss department house. United States Cen? sus building, government prmtmg house, and many others too numerous to mention. It is a matter of profound regret to me -that the roof leaks. I have done everything in my power from the first to remedy it. It is a well known fact that much more expensive roofs than ibis have proved unsatisfactory. The government postoffice at Savannah, which has a tile and copper roof leaked badly. The United States postoffice at Augusta, which also has an expensive roof leaked for years. In cns connection I submit the fol? lowing; ? -:. Columbia. S. C., Jan. IS. 1904. 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 tho Charlotte Roof and Paving company elegraphed me to go there and exam ine the roof and make the same satis? factory if 1 could. 1 went on top of the building and was somewhat surprised t-? rind that some one had torn the flashing loose at several places between the main roof and the base of the dome for seve;\:l feet, allowing the water (lowing off of the dome and the base co run down into the rotunda below. The work was well flashed around the [ome and counter flashing was put into the joints not in the way it is usually done, viz.: by putting the flash? ing into the joint and turning it up? 'mfr by cutting into the joint and ex tending the tin back into the joints ;in<l bolting it with rods, nuts and washers, and it was Impossible for it to get out unless some one had toni