The watchman and southron. (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, February 25, 1904, SUPPLEMENT, Image 2
- 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