Newspaper Page Text
dition which must necessarly surroun
these closets as long as they were si
located. Realizing the importance o:
such conveniences, and being con
vinced that some -provision foi then
must be made before the permanen
work on the State house ras completed
the commission sought to provide
different, more-convenient and safel
locality in the bFdilding for thesi
closets. These new closets were no
contemplated. when the question o
completing the State house carne be
fore the general assehibly. nor wer
there any plans, specifications or con
tract relating thereto: but the commis
sion believing that out of the appro
priation enough had been saved to in
stall these necessaries. made such con
tract with reference to them as justi
fies us in courting the most rigid ip
vestigation. At the time the fixture!
were installed there was no sewerag4
system in the city of Columbia. and ni
municipal regulations covering detail.
which though adopted for the sake o:
uniformity and governmental regu
lation are but arbitrary. Since this in
stallation there has been no complain
of the presence or suspicion of the ex
istence of sewer gas, and the locatiot
of the closets is such that if the pres
ence did actually exist there could b
no detriment to the health or lives o:
the occupants of the State house.
This determination on the part of th(
conmite to maXe this arrangemeni
was mosc fortunate, as subsequen
events proved, for the discovery wa.
about that time made that the ok
water closets had been silently and un
suspectingly ven.ing their gase!
through secret and unknown flues ir
the brick walls of the building int<
the effices upon the lower floor ani
spreading disease and death among th4
State's employes. The commission ol
sanitary experts appointed by Gov
Heyward, while criticizing some de
ails of the new work, ordered the ol
closets peremptorily and inmediate3
removed from the building. and in thi!
demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary in
spector of Columbia, joined. The grate4
or fire places in several of the office
%-.ere directly connected with thes(
closets and had to be hernieticalI5
sealed until the old work was removed
from the building.
The condemned closets had been in
stalled at great expense to the Statt
under the direction of the commissior
which erected. the "splendid ten thous
and dollar steel ceiling" in the mair
lobby, nearly 15 years ago, largely un
der the supervision of Senator Mar
shall. whd was then secretay of state
We desire to impress upon you th(
fact that have not been put in pos
session of y evidence or statement as
to the appirent condition of the Stat(
house upon the day when the accept
ance was made and the final install
ment paid to the contractor. - We
therefore, inform you that when thf
work was accepted and the money paik
a personal inspection by special com
mittee of the commission was made
and the roof with all of its accessories
appeared in perfect condition, an
every stone laid under the contrac1
was free from cracks or apparent de
fects. and this notwithstanding a tesi
period of nearly or quite a month hai
elapsed from the date when the build
ing was tendered, during which perioi
we were satisfied that a sufficient tesl
had been made. During said perioc
there were esevpral precipitations o:
i-ain, notably on "the 12th day of May
1902. when the-rain.began to fall abou
2 o'clock in the morning and continue
until about 7 of the same morning
during which time nearly an inch o!
water, felL Rain followed again or
the 14th. falling--during the night. ani
on the 15th. when in 21 minutes 3-4 o:
an - inch of rainfall was registered
Under this 4 severe test the roof' ap
peared to be -perfect as far a- protec
tion from water is concerned. Thi!
statement is, made on official informa
tion given us by the United States au
We confess with the utmost cando
that in some respects, particularly at
to the roof and the floor lights, we have
not been altogether pleased with thi
result of the work. But these at. the
worst are not as serious as wotild havy
been blunders involving the construe
tion of the stone work, and other more
permanent portions of the building
which has come up to the full measur<
.of the expectation of the commission
It is well, to remember, however, tha
we are too prone to dwell upon tha
which has not come fully up to ou
expectations, while ignoring the fac
that this mani probably succeeded it
more important'matters where anothea
would have been subjected to jus1
We have scrupulously avoided, eithe1
in this comm'iunication or in any of th<
steps leading up to 'the opportunita
which has beern accorded us 'by youl
honorable body to set ourselves right
in making our cause common wit tha
of either the architect or contractor
and have endeavored to divorce our
selves insofar as possible from them
First of all, though out of office. we
atre in a measure servants of the peopl
and ot the general assembly, and i:
that tribunal deems the State to havy
suffered injury from either, our firsi
duty is to the State.
However, it is but justice to say tha
we have found the contractors,in a]
their dealings with us honorable busi
ness men, whom we believe to be above
suspicion of wrong doing, and wh<
sought to live up to the true intent anm
* meaning of their contract with th<
We desire it understood that' we d<
not claim that it is impossible that im
positions have been practiced upot
this commission by the architect, Ao
contractor, for if any vital defects ex
ist in t#e building or serious mistakes
can be shown to have been made, thes<
must have been the outcome of th<
commission having been misled, but wi
do assert in the most positive manne:
that the findings and, the conclusioni
contained in the report of the joint in
vestigating committee are not suts
tained by the evidence therein con
tained, and if they are ever sustainc
it must be by evidence prodtuc.ed befort
another tribunal. Whether this comn
mission or any of its merr.ters wert
ever designedly or unintentionally im
posed upon or deceived by either arch
itect or contractor, it can only b<
prov'ed out of the mouth or mouths o:
such member or members, -unless it be
conceded that the members would comn
mit perjury in order to hide the facts
We would remind your honorabi
body that this commission has no
de'emed it to be its duty to go into th
necwspapers to defend the course of th
inajority, and that as but one sid
has heretofe ben nr'esented to th
-.-public. i~Lh~4,s rt.aaura
that ~the conclusion shour
that there has been but one side to th
<iuPstion. If. with all the facts before
you, you should conclude that the on<
man has be 'n always right and the
nine men always wrong, we can bux
plead in extenuation that we have don<
the best we could for the State, "un
awed by influence, and ubribed b:
gain." In this report w"e have endeav
c,red to state the facts fully, candid.,
and fairly, "nothing extenuate ant
naught set down in malice."
All of which is respe'ctfully sub
31. B. Si cSweeney.
- G. Duncan Bellinger.
R. H. Jennings.
J. Harvey Wilson.
Robert J1. Gantt.
W. J. Johnson.
Columbia, S. C., Feruary 19,. 1904.
Having taken up the official dutie:
upon the commission at the' expira
tion of the term of the Hon. W. H~
Timmerman. my predecessor. I has
n'.thing to do with the election of th<
ar'hitect or the awarding of the con
tr-act. but as to all the t'acts relatin,
to the actions of the commission, ani
the opinions express."d herein with ref
ere'nce. to those facts. express"d in th
I with the report of the commission, and
) ,with the limitations above expressed I
E have signed myself as a responsible
member of the commission.
I jR. H. Jennings.
L Under the resolution passed by the
' general assembly of South Carolina.
t allowing the members of the State
house commission to file such state
ments as they respectively desired to
t I make. I submit the following:
E That in the election of architect to
- make plans and specifications for the
completion of the work on the State
- house I did not vote fP-- Mr. Milburn
- for reasons satisfactory to myself. In
- the acceptance for the completion %I(
- Ilvain-Unkefer Co. was the only one
- that came within the limits of the ap
propriation. and it resolved itself into
- the acceptance of the same or a post
5:ponement of the work until the pro
visions should be made by the State
legislature. When I went out of office
as State treasurer my connection with
the cornmission ceased. and I am in no
- way responsible for the completion or
acceptance of the work of the con
t tractor. I did not pretend to have any
knowledge of architecture. and could
therefore have easily been imposed
upon as to the beauty and the finish of
Very respectfully submitted.
W. H. Timmerman.
Personally appeared G. Duncan Bel
linger. who being duly sworn, says:
-That in the late fall of the year 1903.
upon casually meeting the Hon; J. O.:
Patterson, a member of the joint in
vestigating committee. and ascertain
ing accidentally from him that he had
just returned from Columbi. where
he had been in attendance upon said
committee. I asked him if the com
mission would be accorded a hearing
before his committee. In reply to this
Mr. Patterson stated that Mr. Aldrich
was the chairman of the committee
and advised me that if such request
was made of the chairman it would
be granted. Deponent referred to rea
sons mutually known to him and to
Mr. Patterson why such request would
be unpleasant to deponent. upon which
Mr. Patterson assured me that
he would himself notify the chair
man of the desire of the members of
the commission to be heard. This con
versation occurred in the town of
Barnweil on a Saturday night. within
30 feet of the paling of Mr. Pattersan's
Subsequently and before the occas
ion next to be referred to in the same
town. and near the same lomality. I
recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous
conversation and asked him if the
right which we had demanded would
be accorded to us. and he assured me
that it would, and that he had spoken
to the chairman on the subject and the
probability was that the illness from
which Mr. Aldrich was then suffering
was the reason why I. and other mem
1 bers of the commission had not been
notified. I again impressed upon him
that this request was made on behalf
of all of the members of the commis
These are,the occasions to which I
referred in the, communications which
I recently published concerning this
request made upon Mr. Patterson. and
at tsat time I had no reference to any
rIother: but his published statement.
said to have been in defense of his
enduct. while explaining upon the I
floor of the house of representatives.
the . injustice done by his committee
to members of our commission recalled
to me another and third occasion when
this demand for justice was repeate4.
r In the city of Columbia, on the night
of the 17th of December, just passed,
one of my partners. the Hon. L. W.
I Haskell, who is a member of the house
; of representatives, and myself went by
appointment to the Columbia hotel to
- meet some clients from - the city of
Augusta. with whom we conferred un
r til about 12 o'clock. After this confer
; ence and when about to leave the hotel
I wxe met Mr. J. 0. Pattersoh, who re-,
quested us to go to his room, as he
would have to sit up to catch a late
Strain. While in this gentleman's room!
-the subject of the investigating corn
m iittee arose and I learned accidentally
that a meeting of this committee had
been very recently held. Becoming
-thus convinced that the promised hear-I
tintg was in a fair way never to be ac
tcorded to us. I most earnestly attemp
rted to impress him with the determin
t ation on the part of some of us to
i appeal to the legislature were we so
ufailtreated as got to be accorded
,an opportunity to be heard. Again I
received empty promises and vain as-I
Ssurances. A very recent conversation
with Mr. Haskell warrants me in the
assertion that he was present and re
Icalls that the request was most earn-I
tG. Duncan Bellinger.
-Sworn to before me this. 1Sth day of
February. 1904. 3. T. Gantt,
-Notary Public. S. C.
State of South Carolina-County of
Personally appeared W. 3. Johnson,
twho being duly sworn, says that dur
ing the present session of the legisla
ture the deponent had an Intimation
that the commission for the comple
tion of the State house were going to
be severely criticised by the committee
appointed to investigate the several
reports of the commnission. That the
ydeponent immediately looked up Repre
.sentative Rawlinson, who was a mem
Sber of the investigating committee, and'
einformed him of what deponent had!
.heard. and further informed him that'
Sif the reports of severe arraignment
Sor criticism were true that the comn-I
Smission had a right to be heard, and!
a that an opportunity should be given
r them. That Representative Rawlin
3 son assured d'eponent that there was
- nothing in the rumor and that the corn
- mission would not he harshly criticis
ed and that his committee had not
I fully made up its report: that they
would have another meeting and all
-the members of the old commission
could be heard: further stated that It
-was his impression that all the memn
-bers of the commission had been in-:
vited to attend himetns d
members of !i unh isoehdbe
invited to an of~metnssofra
deponent knew. trany dpnn
had not been.
tW. 3. Johnson.
- Sworn to before me this, 18th day of
SFebr u:iry 1904.
Lewis W. Haskell.
Notary Public for S. C.
Steof South CarofiiiMolmntY. of
Peranoi :y aippeared before me A. H.
SWais. who being duily sworn. says:
That he' is a reporter for The Daily
INod a newspaper published at Co
hImhiat: that in company o'f Lewis
Ko-i. at that time reporter for The
News aind Courier. he applied at the
avfricultural committeA roont. In the
State house. where he heard the legis
lativye commit tee 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
A. Hi. Seats.
Sworn to and subscribed before mie,
this 16thi day of Fehruary, 1904.
A. '. DePass.
FNvi EHTPlT r'.
CL LeVc.Wood. heinr.; -luly sworni.
- says: That he went to the agricultu
g al committee room where the investi
I gating committee was in session, and
iniuired if there was any news of the
investi;tation to he published at that
time, nnd that he was told by a mem
ber of :he committee that there was
Lewis G. Wood, Jr.,
Sworn to before me this 16th day of
February. 1904. -
E. 0. DePass. (L. S.)
NotarF Public for South Carolina.
State of South Carolina.
Personally appeared before me U. H.
Means, who being duly sworn says
that he was summondil to produce cer
tain records of t',e commission for the
completion of the- State house and to
testify before the "joint committee to
consider the several reports of' the
commission on i:. c,n:pletion of- the
state house and facts relating there
to." which committee was meeting in
the agricultural committee room of
the house. That he entered the room
and was about to be examined when
another witness was announced as
present whereupon deponent was in
formed that he was excused until the
said committee had finished with said
other witness. That deponent then
withdrew and waited in another office
in the State house until after the de
parture of said other witness when
deponent was again summoned to ap
pear and testify. That during his ex
amination by said committee while de
ponent was endeavoring to put in what
he considered necessary or nroper qual
ificatiocs of 'yes" and **no" answers
deponent was interrupted by the chair
man with the statements "answer the
question." and "you need not go in to
that at all."
That'just after the examination was
completed the chairman of the com
mittee requested deponent to say noth
ing of what had transpired during his
exnmination by said committee.
That during deponent's examination
by sid committee Senator J. Q. Mar
shall was present.
That some time subsequent to depo
nent's examination by said joint com
mittee ex-Attorney General G. Duncan
Bellinger. handed to deponent a let
ter written by said G. Duncan Bellin
ger to ex-Gov. M. B. McSweeney. dated
Dee. 22. 1903. of which the following
is a copy:
Columbia, S. C.. Dec. 22, 1903.
Hon. M. R. MeSweeney. Hampton C.
H., S. C.
Dear Sir: In reply to your communi
cation I write to say that I recollect
than on May 31, 12., when you were
govemor and I attorney general of
South Carolina. I received from you a
letter of date May 31, 1902. a carbon
copy- of which is to be found at pages
140 and 141 of volume of "Public Land
Letter Book. New Series. No. 1 to 200."
of which letter the following is a copy.
"Columbia. S. C.. May 31. 1902.
"Hon. G. Duncan Bellinger. Attorney
General. Columbia. S. C.
"Dear Sir: You are familiar with the
action of the commission for the com
pletion of the State house at meeting
May 23, 1902, to-wit: 'Resolved that it
appears to the commission for the com
pletion of the State house, that the
work is satisfactory and that the con
tract- has been substantially perform
ed.'-. The above resolution was upon
the question as to whether McIlvain
Unkefer company has performed their
contraits for the completion of the
State House, and subsequently the com
mission ordered the balance due McIl
vain-Vinkefer company on their said
contraits to be paid. Mcllvain-Unke
fer eo4pany now desire that the surety.
bond Jor $50.000 given by them to
the mission for the faithful per
foce of their said contract be by:
me endered to them the said con
tractr. No action was by said com
missio taken authorizing or directing'
the .. nder of said surety bond. Is
such tion necessary or am I author
ized, n the action alreadi taken by
the .mission to endorse upon said
surety bond the resolution of commis
sion s to contractors' compliance:
with, r pgrformance of contract, and:
surren er said surety bond to the said
- ..Kinjdly give me your official opin
ion uippn this matter -and oblige.
'-M. B. McSweene"'.
"P. .-Mr. Unkefer informs me
that til surrendered his surety bond
is cos him $25.00 per month."
Upo receipt of this letter from you:
I r lect that .x gave you orally my
oficial, opinion, as attorney general,
that as said action of said commission
was final and conclusive as to said con
tractors having performed their con-.
tract (to secure the performance of
which said surety bond had been given
to. you as chairmane of said c'ommis
sion). said contractors were entitled to
the return of -the bond: and further:
action, by the commission being un
necessary. I advised you to surrender
said bond .to the contractors with an
endorsemlen't thereon signed by you
which I dictated.
'F Very. respectfully.
. G. Duncan Bellinger.
Taiat the requ'ast of said ex-Gover
nor MI B. McSweeney deponent pasted
the otilginal 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 the
completion of the State house. so as to
nresere in writing the evidence of the
rasons and circumstances under
which; said M. B. McSweeneY while
governor surrendered said bond to said
contrqctors, McUlvain. Unkiefer C.
That subsequ1ent to deponent's said
exalination the secretary or steno-.
graper of said committee requested de-,
poneiit to give him access to the ree
ords 'of the commission, for the corn
pletin of the State house. f'or the uur-,
pose jof said secretary's comparing and
verifying with said original records~
said 5 scretary's copies ,of portions
teref, to be used in said joint com-:
mittee report. That at this time de
ponent called the attention of said clerk
or stenographer to said original letter
from ex-Ettorney-General Bellinger to
ex-Goernor M. B. McSwveeney, pasted
as before stated. in the back of said
minut? book, and requested said clerk
of said committee to take a copy of said
lettei and show it to the chairman
of sadjoint committee, thinking that
said airman might desire to use said
letteu as it contained a statement by
ex- orney General Bellinger of im
rend. of the said bonds to the said
cont ctors to M. B. McSweeney, up-.
on a ich matter deponent had been ex
Tht said secretary or stenographer.
og si3 joint committee did make and
tak.,ith him a copy of said letter.
TitTir dTrF not appear in said
A-I ID. H. Means.
Swrn to be'for"' me this I'th d:ty of
Fe~Ir.10.Lewvis W. Haskell.
~otary Public for South ,iar'linia.
. EXHiBIT F.
State of South Carolina-Couinty of
p.so5eiy a.ppeared before me. Joe
B .a-rfunkl,l who. being dv'y sworn,
sa" that he was summoned a a Wit
nes~ by the committee investigating
the vork upon the State house, and
that when he appeared and gave his
test ony Senator J. Q. Marshall was
pr nt in the room. Deponent fur
the swears that he was present in the
St. house when the contract for the
woz~ on the State house was let, and
kno -s that it was the general under
standing among the bidders that the
inn!, removed from the building in
oig the w(ork Provided in the plans
nd specifications of Frank P. Milburn
would go to the contractors: deponent
is .eculialy qualified to know this
fact because he wished to buy this
un. and tailked about it to every one
of he biddlers whom he met.
Dypnent further swears that prior
a .he lttine of the contract for the
work he had filed with the commission
an application to buy the said. junk.
but was informed that he must apply
to the contractors for the purchase of
same. That Mr. Unkefer told the
deponent two or three days after the
contract was awarded that the com
mission had refeLed to him the appli
cation deponent had made to buy the
Deponent further swears that he is a
dealer in. and familiar with the market
value of old iron and other junk, and
that he made an estimate of and of
fered the highest market price for the
old iron it was necessary to remove in
placing the dome on the building: that
he reg-rded the said old iron worth
less for any other purpose than junk
and had lie secured same he would
have immediately shipped it off as
such: that the contractors secured a
higher price from other narties for a
portion of this old iron than deponent
would have paid for it.
Deponent further swears that he ex
amined the veiling removed from the
main lobby of the State house, while
it remained on the State house
grounds: that said ceiling was galva
nized iron, and worthless. even as junk:
that the contractors gave it to the de
ponent. but he would not haul it ot,
and in turn gave it to the asylum for
That he did not testifv to the facts
above when being examined before the
investigating committee because the
questions were not asked him.
J. D. Garfunkel.
Sworn to before me this 1ith day of
February. 1904. D. W. McLaurin.
Richmond. Va.. Feb. 4. 1904.
Robert J. Gantt. Capitol Building:
In my capitol bid I figured on all old
material being my property.
W. A. Chesterman.
Savannah. Ga.. Feb. 19.1904.
Robt. J. Gantt:
In making up bid for contract on
capitol there, contractor was to have
all old stone, iron and other material
on the premises.
J. E. Burgess.
(Of Stewa,rt Contracting Company.)
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
have the honor of asking your opinion
upon a question whichas arison about
the ownership of the pld material.
The facts appear in the pper here
with submitted. and the contracts and
The papers submitted consist of a
partial draft of a reptt of the com
mittee and a copy of the letter from
The minutes referrbd to contains the
statement of 'Mr. Unkefer, on.- of th
The committee desires your opinion
under the terms of the contract and
the circumstances of the case upon the
question where the ownership of the
old material rests, whether In the con
tractors or the State.
Awaiting your reply, I am.
Very truly yours.
Geo. S. Mower, Chairman.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION.
Executive Department. Office of the
Columbia. S. C., Aug. 26, 1901.
Hon. Geo. S. Mower. Chairman. etc.,
Newberry, S. C.
Dear Sir: I have before me your let
ter relating to the question of the own
erhip of what is known as the "old
material" in connection with the con
tract for the completion of the State
I note that you say that the commit
tee desires my "opinion under the
terms of the contract and the circum
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 have the honor to reply as followvs:
As I gather them the admitted facts
Thie only pertinent reference in the
HE ANSWER OF AR0Hi1
In Detail the Man Against
Replies to His Acci
REPLY OF FRANK P. MILBURN,
ARCHITECT. TO REPORT OF IN
VESTIGATING COMMITTEE. RE
LATING TO THE WORK ON THE
To the Ptublic:
I will be glad for you to consider my
reply to so much of the report of the
investigating committee, recently made
to the legislature, as seems necessary
at this timc.
In the first pa::.e the committee.
coposed of chosen representatives of
the people. "all honorable gentlemen."
in their desire to vindicate the author
of the minority report of one mem
ber of the old capitol commission, have
gone beyond the authority given by the
concurrent resolution under which they
acted. By that resolution they were
directed to report to the next session
of the general assembly "such facts and
recommendations in reference thereto
as they maty deem advisable." And
yet these "honorable gentlemen" go
out of thei.r way to inject into their
report wholly unwarranted and im
proper conclusions. wvhich are neither
"fats" nor "recomnmendations," but
ibellous and indiscriminate reflections
on numerous State officers and repre
sentatives. as wvell as the architect and
contractors. "Miserable fraud." "mon,
strous swindle" and "malefactors"
Such gratuitous expressions are as
false as they are uncalled for by the
But, that this committee was more
bent on -indicating the one dissenting
member 'i the capitol commission than
carrying out the suggestions of the
legislature. is evidenced by the fact
that they did not "employ an archt
tect" as wtas suggested by the authori
ty given in the concurrent resolution.
but paid $15.00 a day for a "contract
or," who says he has been "superin
tendent of constructing of the United
States capsitol for four years."
1t further still. '.his committee ca
dirt-'e~d t' c'osder thei. "'several 10
ports 0f ti- 'o mmissioni for thet cot:
llttion ofl the State' house.'' with au
t heity t' stiumion witnesses'. etc.
lhy ~se'em to have consh' red( only the
One minority report of Senator J. Q.
Marshall. madie in February. 190:1. andi
'xainemd witnessest' only in sup)port of
that minority report, without calling
a single witness in support of the _re
port and action of seven honored citi
zens and officers of the State. who dif
fered wtith Col. M1arshall. and wh'lo are
as wide awvalk 4 1. interests of the;
State as he or a R..,nbers of this in
vestigating committee, and who have
always depended more upon witnesses
in this State. whose standing and cred
ibility are known to them personally.
than a foreign importation who is
recommende(d by the superintendent of
the federal capitol building, and was no
doubt never before heard of in South
But let us glance at the procedu,re of
this inv'estigatinig tcommittee. W\hen
they select their expert he is brought
to Columbia and shown the general
plans and specifications upon which
contractors w"ere inv'ited to bid for the
work: hut not the plants showing the
modiications nor the .detail drawings
fo r on1a work. He examines lhe
plans. specifications or written contract
Of the use or ownership of the "od ta
te,rial" in question is to be found in
the specifications, in the following
words: "The successful contractor will
be permitted to use all old material
that is now on the ground. and such:
parts of the present roof that conform:
to these plans and specifications: hut it
is understoo-1 thatt the marb.1 now on
the grounds i'- not included. This only
covers the granite columns. balusters.
old iron. bracing, granite. t-*, in the
,roof that is suitable. and the proper
size tla,t is ,:lid for. If in dQubt con
suit the n+itolct on this suitjet be
fore making h d
:. Itefere biddin.g on the work Me
IlvainUnkefer compony. as well as
other comp,etitiv(- contrattors. ealled
upon the architPe:. F. P. Milburn. for
an i1terpri1:!tion if thV claus- quoted.
'oncer nin whiCh they wore in doubt.
The arihi:t-t informed the eon
tractc.rs "that the vontn.:vtors bidding
foi the work would get such 'old ma
terial.' and would be permitted to use
uh old parts as would conform with
the new plans and spevitivations."
(S ( Milburn's letter. July 311. 1901.)
4. Acting upon the interpretation
given by the architect. Mcllvain-Unke
fer company. after making allowances
for what was conceived to be the
value of the *old material" to them.
put in their bid for the contract, and
was duly aceepted by the commission.
. One Alr. Garfunkel. a junk dealer. I
submitted to the commission a propnsi
tion to buy the copper and old iron
then in the old roof. and the commis
sion. upon aceptin- McIlvain-Unkefer!:
complanys bid. ordered that the com
munitaion1 of Mr. Garfunkel be tutit.d
over to the sui-vessful bidding col
i ntrtor. upon the ground that the said
"od m; torial"\ was at the disposal of
The clause quoted for the specifica
tions- be-ars internal.1 evidence OfL Coll
-c-ous ambiguity. and t!:e 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 "old material" in qu-stion. and
inasmuiich as the paper contalning the
clause was prepared for and in behalf
of the conaniscion. and the law would.
as I unders:and it. construe the con
tract strictly against the commission
and in favor of the bidder. for one rea
son, among others. that in cas-s of
doubt. the construction by the con
t:actorz must he given the benefit of
the doubt. inasmuch as the commis- 1
sion. as the author of the specifica
ions. mws: suffer, if either party must,
on acco-.nt of ambiguity.
But I think that up to a very recent
date it had oepn the understanding on;
all sides that the contractors should be
the owners of the old material, and (
the facts as found seem to ine to pre-!
elude any other conclusion.
The statement of Milburn. the archi
tect. speaking on behalf of the commis
sion, the known conduct of the con
trtotors. 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 Ir the sale of the old
material, and she reference of his bid
to McIlvaine-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 yours.
(Signed) G. Duncan Bellinger,
Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin
ion of the attorney generatl was ap
proved by a vote taken viva voce, Mr.
Marshall voti.ig against it.
Columbia. S. C.. Feb. 15.1904.
This certifies that in the fall of 1901
I bought from J. B. Garfunkel, for the
use of the State hospital for the insane,
for the amount of $6.00 a lot of gal
vanized iron railing and that he
threw in as worthless, aWlot of metal 1
ceiling, which he said we might have
for hauling off. The ceiling is now ly
ing in a rubbish heap in the back yard
of the hospital. J .Bbok
J. . Baeok
'EC' FRANK P. MilURN.
'hom Charges WXere Made
isers in the General.
bui.ling in the light of these original,'1
general plans and specifications.
And yet no one of the seven gentle-:
men of the capitol commission, who
honestly differed with Col. Marshall,;
was called, no, was I asked to show
him the modified and complete speci
ications and detail drawings under
which the work was actually done.
It ap)pears that on a Friday in May,
1903, before this investigating commit
tee was to take testimony, as remem
bered by the chairman. the chairman
of the committee called att my office.
during my absence from the citv. andl
left a verbal message with one of my:
draughtsmen about the meeting. at
which the expert from Washington'
wvould give his testimony, and that I
could be present. or send any comn
municationi if I desired. But I never1
received the message. and, in fact.
never heard of the incident until last
Friday. the 12th inst. In this connec
tion I beg to submit the following
"To Whom it May Concern:
This is to certify that I am in the
employment of Frank P. Milburn, ar-'
chitect, in the capacity of engineer and
draughtsmani, and was during the last
-That once when Mr. Milburn and
Mr. Heister were out of the
office. Mr. Milburn being out of the
city, a gentleman called. and renre
sent ing himself to be a member of
the State house investigating commit
tee. stated in effect that said commit-;
tee would shortly (as I understood, the
next day) have a session, and asked
that I let Mr. Milburn know, and also
get wvord to McIivain. Unkefer corn
pan. I promised to let Mr. Milburn
know, and also McIlvain, Unakefer com
pany if we could: that I thought we
had their address in the office.
"That upon the return of Mr. Heister,
who is chief draughtsman and assist
ant to Mr.. Milburn, I told him of what
a takron place,. and supposed he would
mentind ih-- att to Mr'i . Milburn'vO
u nt il Fe. b. 1--. 190 .
''T whom it May~ ('Cncen:
''1 h.-r,'by' lrtify that I amt now.
anid was la st .t-'ar' c'hif' dr'augh tsman:
and( assistanlt to Mir. Frank P'. Milburn.
"That T have .read the foregoinig cer'
ttiicate of Mr. George F. Kepler. but
have no recollection of ever hear'ing of
the conv'ersamtioni therein referred to.
before Feb. 1-2, 1904. If Mr. Kepler is'
corc''t in his recollection o)f stating the
matter to r 1 did1 not -take it in sufli
'iently to i...A ty mind, and I ami
sure that I nev'er .nentionied the mat
er' to Mr. Milburn.1
"signed) "Michael Hleister."
After this hearing, at which is now
appears that several witnesses were ex
aminedl, 1 learned of it from the news-:
papers and comtmon rutmor: but never
knew anything of the pu.rport of the
testimony, although I heard that.('01.
Marshall was present. and that the
escsions were behind closed doors. Un
il my retturti to this city last Friday,
w~hen I got hold of a copy of the report
-the commatit tee having never honoren
e ith a copy'-- never knew authori- 1
..,.3'el. ur th reecionS on the work.
After keeping the testimony, and
their proceedings secret, as I believe,
from May to December. more than six
months. I received a note from the
secretary of the committee, dated
Barnwell. S. C.. Dec. 7. 1903. but mailed
in Columbia, 11th December. giving me
an opportunity to appear before the
2ominitee. if I desired. Having heard
f the proceedings in May. at which I
was told. and believed. Col. Marshall
had been present. I decided, without
having counsel, that I had best not
ippear uiness the committee desired my
presence. I had been guilt* of absolute
ly no w'rong. or conscious neglect of
iny duty to the State. but had given
my best efforts to assist the capitwl
LomMission in the discharge of its du
ties and the proper expenditure of the
S4te's money. hence I had nothing to
xplain away. But knouing that I had
modified and detailed drawings in my
office not on file in the State house,
offered to place my office records at
the disposal of the committee. In this
L:nnection I see that my note to the
:oinittee has been termed "curt." I
wish to diselaim any such intention;
nd if it is. I regret it. and plead in ex
tenuation the fact that I began the
struggle for bread early in life. and had
not the opportunities of collegiate edu
cation enjoyed by some members of the.
But in justice to the capitol commis
sion. wnich with one exception ap
proved my work, as well as to myself
and family. I wish to say something in
regard to the -ipecific lindings of the
investigating committee, in the order
First. As to the charge that
the plans and specilications filed with
the secretary ef state were not suitable
I believe this was the fP.-t objection
made by Col. Marshall after my elec
tion as architect. and was fully con
sidered and passed upon by the capitol
.ommission in the year 1900. Mr. Mar
5hall alone dissenting. At that time
the commission had before it letters
from four of the most prominent con
tractors and builders of this section
o: the country. who, after studying
those plans carefully to base upon.
them bids for a very large sum of
money, secured by a heavy bond, had
bid upon this work. Some of these
entlemen were personally known to
members of the commission, and their
tatements were to the effect that the
Irawings and specilien&ions were plain
enoughl to make an intelligent bid. that
the plans and specitications were fully
mnderstood. and were proper :or good
work. The opinion of such w;ell known
:ontractors and builders as Gude &
Walker. J. W. Bishop & Co., W. A.
-hesternian and Nicholas Ittner. com
nonly known as "Honest Nick." must
)utweigh the opinion of Mr. -Marshall
tnd the Washington "expert" with any
Second. That the contract fixed the
ld work on the completed portion of
:h building as the standard.
This is not true. There is nothing in,
:he plans and specifications which
yould be so construed except. perhaps.
:he word "prototype," on one of the
Ieneral drawings, and this was intend
,d to apply only to style, outlin*-, form,
shape: and was not Intended to apply
:o the classification of the workman
hip. Under each of the headings of
:he various classes of work the same
was fully outlined. giving the number
)f cuts to the inch for the different
>arts of the work.
In this connection. I may say that
t was not intended to make the stone
:ornice in one piece. for instance. The
mall appropriation for the whole work
ecessitated great economy, and
he scale detail drawings show that it
,vas to be built up of several members,
is it was done, instead of the more ex
)ensive one-piece cornice.
Referring to sheet 6 of the general
rawings where the note before re
.erred to is found. it will be seen that
he work is to be the same only when
, has its prototype in the old building.
rhat it does not mean that the cornice.
,or instance, is to be identical with the
>ld work, you have only to see sheet 7
>f those same drawings. where the
:ornice is distinctly showvn to be built
tp of several pieces.
Third. That the State at a great ex
ense, in the neighborhood-of $10.00,
lad a splendid steel ceiling in the main
Lobby. wihich the contractors took
md converted to their ow"n use. where
ay the State lost in the neighborhood
The plans and specifications required
:he contractors to cut a circular open
ng into the ceiling for the inher dome.
When the ceiling was cut. and it was
:horoughly examined, it was found to
be galvanized iron, in a bad condition
and difficult to work into shape. es
'ecially as it contained ceiling lights
o longer of use. The contractors said
t would require special workmen and
~onsiderable loss of time to patch, It
:p. and would not then be as satis
actory as a new ceilinig, which could
e gotten in less time, and enable them
o be ready for the meeting of the~
egislature, although the inewv ceilingL
~vould cost them more. After full in
'estigation of all the - facts and con
itionh, I decided that it was ta
he interest of the State to aegept the
rposed change. and I approv.ed the
:eiling they used, which harmonizes
ierfectly with th~e design of the ceil
ng under the balcony around the maim
obby, which wtas placed there unpler
dr. Niernsee's supervision. As both'
meilings are in the same lobby and are
een at the same time, harmony is es
.ental. Neither the cornice nor cove
nouldings in this lobby were interfered
wtith, but the new eiling was used only
n the field or body of the ceiling
through which the dome is cut. The
montractors thought they ought to have
extra for this new ceiling. but I would
mot allowv it. and the State got the
ew" ceilings without cost.
This item shows the fearful mistake
.he investigating committee mlade in
lt examining farther into the real
acts instead of giving so mnuchl weight
that minority i'eport. They wvould
.xave the puici believe that it was a
'steel ceiling." costing in the neighbor
xood of $10,000, when the recorde in the
ecretary of state's office show that all
the ceilings and cornices, steel beams,
md skylights in the rotunda, or main:
lobby, and the ceiling over the senate
obby together, cost only $7.898, on the
d of May. 1889. Any well informed
man will know that the cornice actual
y cost much more than the ceiling.
he public must in chai'ity put this
blunder of the committee down ito
neglect and ignorance, or convict them
:f deliberate . misrepresentation in
naking 'the statement that ''on this'
itenm the State lost in the neighbor-!
hoodw f $lO.M."
Let the' 1ub!i' gtuess wihy t1:r. tin:
remioved, this veilinIg that th.'y might
LI' ist iit) pos5it ionl thle lar ge' ate-I hox
.tlrdrs thta ti upport the:. do mt' The'
fact is. thl'se. heavy. st."l beamis andl
irdr were iraised f'romi' the outside
Ivall. and no't throtugh the' imain lobby.
ut not content with tryingr tm arotise
pulic indiinat ion over th' allege-i loss
to the State, they attemp1It to injure
-aractr' by charging that ''tihe con
tractors bodily took and carried awray
and conv'erted to their own use this
'aluale and beautit'ul part of the old
building." The cold fact is. andl they
ither knew it. or could have learned it
ay r'easonable. fair andm impatial in
juiry that this old ceiling that was
'emoved from the rotund-' lobby was
lever sold oi' usedl by thK a : tor's.
ut was given to Mir. G;arruinKP af he
wvould remove it from tIhe grounds.
and he in turn gave it to Dr. Babcock
m the same condition. and this ''val
Liable aind beautiful." this ''splendid
toeel ceiling." nowt lies in a rubbish
leap in the b)ack yard of the State Iu
antic asylum, a silent but unimpeachl
tibe witness of the outrageous libel
wthich this inve-stigating committee has
pr.:-mi upo~n thle records of the legisla
orth. 'rhat bv the omission of LWO
inner columns from the frort portico
the contractors made a profit of $3.400,
and the estimated loss to the State is
That the public may fully understand
this matter. I wish to call attention to
the fact. that when called to this work
I found a partially completed building.
much valuable stone and marble on
hand, and an appropriation wholly and
admittedly insufficient to complete the
building as originally designed. When
I made the plans, it was to utilize all
the 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. It turned out with this- work,
as is generally the case in remodeling
old. or partially compieted buildings,
that many modifications and changes
became necessary. and were made with
the consen and approval of the com
mnis,Ion. as a rule Col.. Marshall being
the only one dissenting. In hoisting
these massive colunans 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 ani 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, bfcause
there would be more floor spade, 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 $:.000, necessitating
severai months' delay: or, piece the
broken column 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 $600. which it was shown by an
itemized statement would be saved to
the contractors by the change. With
all this information before the com
mission. after full consideration, it de
cided, by a vote of 5 to 3. to change
the original plan and omit the two
columns, thus saving to the State $600,
without detriment to the work, and
giving these columns to the State for
Mr. Hunt talks about "the stone lin
tel and brick work on top cs' these col
umns." The specifications never called
for any such thing. And yet this will
ing witness, unable to cor;,emn the.
sufficiency of the "bracing and anchor
ing," goes out of his vay 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 4irrself 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 thfat the in
vestigating committee passed dver so
many southern architects and con
tractions of known ability and integ
Fifth. That the new leaf work. on
the capitals is not as fine as the old.
It being impracticable to get the
storie for this new work from the old
quarry, a stone was selected which
matched it exactly, and the sa- -
cepted with the bid of the conti .3,
the only slight difference, an0 ich
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 th. plans
and specifications, first-class galvan
ized iron being used, which was as
good as could be afforded with the ap
pr'opriation, and answers every pur
In reference to the glass floor which
leaks in rainy weather, I beg tb 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, wvhich
is suitable for the plage. Unfortunately
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 ', as that it was damaged and
still presents a bad apuearance. An
inspection' of the rear portico floor,
which was not so used and abused, will
substantiate this contention.
As to '.he ceiling of the portico, I do
not 1:r.,w of any material more suit
aule for suc"h ceilings. It is made from
the same class of material that was
removed by the contractors from the
main lobby, although not the same de
sign. I wonder if the gentlemen of the
investigating committee knowv that the
portico 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
It is not a ta.r andl gravel roof, but
is of the very finest quality of asphalt
and (I'ushed quartz., and there is no
doubt about its answering the purpose
for at least 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, Iodwa
department house. Raleigh hotel, Bliss
department house. United States Cen
sus building. government printing
house, and many others too numerous
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
this have proved unsatisfactor~y. The
::tvrnm.nr p.oofive at isavamnn. ..~
n hita hi- a til.. and~ coppr roof leaiktd
l,ily. T!h.e I 'ited Stte p)ostorliCe ait
.\ugu~tsta. w.hich also ha.s ian ex:pensive
in this connmetion I submit the fol
:r. Fran:k P'. .\lilburn. .\rchitect. Co'
Dea'tr sir: IReferring to our conver
ston in rega.rd to the State house.
will .say that a~ short time after the
m:at' house work was fintished the
<'ht:rltotte Rtoof' and Paving company
telegratphed me to go there and exam
ine the roof and make the same satis
hactory if I could. I went on top of the
building and was somewhat surprised
t find that some one had torn the
!ashinmg loose at several places between
the main roof and the base of the dome
fi' several feet. allowing the wvater
il.wing off of the dome and the base
t. run down into the rotunda below
''Te w~ork was well hashed around the
0me and counter llashin.g wvas put
into the joints not in the way it is
arually dlone. viz.: by putting the flash
;g into the joint and turning it up.
but by cutting into the joint and ex
tending the tin hack into the joints
indl bolting i: with rods, nuts anti
washers. and it was impossib)le for' it
to ort out unless some one had tora