Newspaper Page Text
ditk>n which must necessarily surround
these closets HE loni aa they wer .
located. Realizing the Importanc ot
such conveniences; und being
vinced' thut some provision for oin
'^wist be made before the penni
Work on the State house was comp
the commission sought to prov' '
different, moro convenient and
locality In tho building for
closets. These new closets wet
contemplated when the ' questl- ?:
completing the State house can
fore the general assembly, nor wen.
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, mnde such con
tract with reference to them as justi
llos us In courting the most rigid In
vestigation. At the time the fixtures
wore installed there was no sewerage
system in the city ot Columbia, and no
municipal regulations covering details
which though adopted for tho sake of
uniformity and governmental regu
lation uro but arbitrary. Since this in
stallation there has been no complaint
ol' the presence or suspicion of the ex
istence of sewer gas, and the location
of tho closets is such that If the pres
ence did actually exist there could be
no detriment to the health or lives of
tho occupants of the State house.
This determination on the part of tho
committee to make this arrangement
was most fortunate, as subsequent
. .vents proved, for the discovery was
about that time made that the old
water closets had been silently and un-I
suspecting)}' venting their gases ?
through seer?t and unknown duos In I
the brick walls of the building Into j
the offices upon the lower door and
spreading disease and death among tho
Slate's employes. The commission of
sanitary experts appointed by Gov.
Hayward, while criticizing some de
ni's of the now work, ordered tho old
closets peremptorily and immediately I
r< moved ? rom tho building, and In this |
demand Mr. Edens, the sanitary in-j
spector of Columbia, Joined. The grates'
?ir lire places in several of thc otil?os ;
were directly connected with those;
?lc scls and had to bo hermetically'
sealed until tin- old work was removed1
fi om the building.
The condemned closets had hoon In
stalled ?it great expenso to tho State ,
nuder tho direction of tho commission
which creeled tho "splendid ten thous
mid dollar stool colling" In tho main j
lobby, nearly l.r> years ago, largely un- I
dor th" supervision of Senator Mar-!
shall, who was then secretary of state. !
Wo desire to impress upon you tho
fact that you have not boon put In pos
session of any evidence or statement as
to the apparent condition of the State
house upon tho day whoa tho accept
ance was made and the Anal Install
ment paid to tho contractor. AVo,
therefore. Inform you that when tho
wari, wes accepted and tho money paid
a personal Inspection by special com
mit leo of ile- commission was made
and the roof with all of its accessories,
appeared In perfect condition, nnd :
every stone laid under the contract;
was free from cracks br apparent de
fects', and titi*-- notwithstanding a test;
period of nearly or quit" u monti', had ?
clapped from the dute when the build
ing was tendered, during which period
we We're satisfied that a su Hielen t test
had boon made. During said period
there were several precipitations of
rain, notably on the 12th day of May.
I1.".', when tho rain began to fall about
?J o'clock in tho morning and continued
until about 7 of thc same morning,
during which time nearly an Inch of
water fell. Hain followed again on
Ihe 14th, tailing during thc night, and
on th" ir.ih. when In 21 minutes :i-4 of
?in Inch of rainfall was registered.
Under this severe test tho roof ap
peared to be perfect as far as protec
tion from water is concerned. This
statement is made on odlclal Informa
tion given us bv tho United States all
in manont portions of the building,
w iii I has como up to tin- full measure
of the expectation of Ihe commission.
It is w.-il to remember, however, that
we are too prone to dwell upon that
which has not como fully up to our
expectations, while ignoring the fact
that this man probably succeeded In
more important matters where another
would bave Peon subjected to just
ci it li ism.
Wo have scrupulously avoided, either
In thi; communication or in any of the
steps hading up to the opportunity
which has been accorded us by your
honorable body to Set ourselves right,
in making our cause common with that
of either the architect or contractor,
and have endeavored to divorce our
selves insofar as possible from thom.
First of all, though out of otllce, wc
ari hi ii measure servants of the people
and of the general assembly, and it"
that tribunal deems the Stat" to have
suffered injury from either, our first
duty ls to tho Stale.
However, lt ls but Justice to say that .
Wo have found the contractors in ?ill j
their dealings with us honorable busi- j
ness men, w hom we believe to be above
suspicion of wrong doing, and who
sought lo live up to the true intent and j
meaning of their contract with th?!
W" desire it understood that wo do
not claim Hint it is impossible that Im
positions have boon practiced upon '
this commission by tho architect or
contractor, for If any vital defects ox- ;
1st in the building or serious mistakes
?.an be shown to have been made, these
must have been the outcome of tho;
commission having been misled, but we ?
do assert in the most positive manner j
that the findings and tho conclusions
?.ont im. d In th" report of tho joint In
vestigating committee are not sus
tained h.? the evidence therein con
t (fined, nnd if they aro ever sustained
il must lu- by evidence produced before
another 11 i ! 111 n. 11. Whether this cum-i
mission or any of its members wore
over designedly or unintentionally im
posed upon or deco|ved by either arch-,
in o! oi contractor, il can only bo ;
proved bul of Ibo mouth or mouths of
such member or members, unless it be
conceded that tho members would corn
mil perjury in order to hide the facts.
We would remind your honorable
body that this commission lats not
dei ne d it to be Its duty to go into the
newspapers to defend tho course of tho
majority, and that as but om; side
has heretofore been presented lo tho
public, we realizo that it ls but natural
i hal the conclusion should he driiwn
thal there bas been but one side to tho
question. If. with all the facts before
you. you should conclude that the ono
man has boon always right and the
niai men always wrong, wo can hill
plead In ext emin lion that wu have done1
the be t w* ?ould tor the State, "uh- !
awed by influence, and unbrtbod by
gain." In this report wo have ondonV-j
ored to state tho facts fully, candidly
and fairly, "nothing extenuate and
naught sot down in malice."
All of which i.s respectfully sub
M. H. Mcsweeney.
? ;. I ninon n Hellinger.
rt. H. Jennings.
J. Harvey Wilson.
Robert J. Gantt.
W. J. Johnson.
Columbia, S. C., I-'eriinry 10. 1904.
Having taken lip Hie official duties
upon tho commission at the expira
tion ol' tin- terni ol' th" Hon. W. ll.
Tinimei'mun, my predecessor, I had
nothing to do with tho election of tho
architect or tin; awarding of Hie con
trae!, but as lo all tho facts relating
t? tho aetions of tho commission, and
Hie opinion'! expressed herein willi ref
erence I" those facts, expressed in tho
abu y e report i um iu hearty uccoid
Ith Jae report of the commission, and
the limitations above exprcsstd I
signed myself as a responsible
)or of the commission.
R. H. Jennings.
I .) 1er the resolution plussed by the
.al assembly of South Carolina,
lng the members of the State
? commission to 111c such stnto
.s ns they respectively desired to
e. 1 submit the following;
li?t lu the election of architect to
;e plans and specifications for the
._pletion of the work on the State
house I did not vote for Mr. Milburn
for reasons satisfactory to myself. In
the acceptance for the completion Mc
Ilvnln-Unkefor Co. WOK the only one
that came within the limits of the ap
propriation, and it resolyod Itself Into
the acceptance of the same or a post
ponement of the work until the pro
visions should be made by the State
legislature. When 1 went out of oillee
ns State treasurer my connection with
thc commission ceased, and I am In no
way responsible for the completion or
acceptance of thc work of the con
tractor. I did not pretend to have any
, knowledge of architecture, and could
I therefore have easily been imposed
I upon ns to the beauty and the finish of
i tho architecture.
Very respectfully submitted.
\V. H. Tlmmcrman.
Personally appeared (J. Duncan Del
linger, who being duly sworn, says:
That in tho late fall of the year 1S?03.
upon casually meeting the Hon. J. O.
Patterson, ii member of the Joint Iri
' vestlgatlng committee, und ascertain
ing accidentally from him that he badi
I just returned from Columbia where
he had been in attendance upon said
committee, 1 asked bim if tho com
mission would bo accorded a hearing
before bis committee. In reply to this
Mr. Patterson stated that Mr, Aldrich
was tho chairman of the committee
and advised mo that if snell request
\v:is made of tho chairman it would
be granted. Deponent referred to rea
sons mutually known to him and to
Mr. Patterson why such request would
be unpleasant io deponent, upon which
Mr. Patterson assured me that
bo would himself notify the ?hair-;
man of tho desire of the members pf
tho commission to bc beard. This con
versation occurred in tho town of;
Barnwell on a Saturday night, within1
:to feet of tho paling of Mr. Patterson's
Subseqiiently and before thc occas
ion next to be referred to in the same
town, and near thc same locality. 1
recalled to Mr. Patterson our previous
conversation and asked htm If the
right Wliicll we had demanded would
be accorded to vis, and he assured me
that it would, and that ho bad spoken
to the chairman on the subject and the
probability was that the illness from
which Mr. Aldrich was then suffering
was tho reason why I, and other mein- :
tiers bf the commission had not boen
notified. I again impressed upon him |
l'uni ibis request was made on behalf
ol' all of the members of the commis
Those are thc occasions lo which ll
referred In the communications which
1 recently published concerning this
request made upon Mr. Patterson, and
at that iliue I l.ad no reference lo any
other: hut his published statement,
said to ha v.- been in defense ol' bis
conduct, while explaining upon tho
Moor of the house of representatives,
the injustice don.- by bis committee
to members of our commission recalled
to me another and third occasion w hen
.this demand for justice was repeated.
In thc city of Columbia, on the night
I of the 17th of December, Just passed,
one of my partners, the Hon. L. W.
Haskell, who is a member of Ibo bouse
of representatives, and myself went by
appointment to the Columbia hotel lo
noel some clients from thc city of
thal a meeting of this committee had
been very recently held. Becoming
thus rouvin ed that the promised bear
ing was in II fair way never to bo ac
corded to us, I most earnestly attemp
ted to imp: ess hilll with tho deterniin
j litton on tho part ot some of us to
appeal to tho legislature were we so
unfairly treated as not to be accorded
an opportunity to be hearth Again I
received empty promises and vain as
surances. A very recent conversa i ion
with Mr. Haskell warrants mo in the
nssertlon thal he was present and re
calls that thc request was most enrn
. cst ly made
G. Duncan Bellinger.
Sworn io before me this. ISth day of
February, 1904. J. T. Gantt,
Notary Public, s. c.
State of South Carolina-County of
Personally appeared W. J. Johnson,
who heilig 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 thc State house wore going to
be severely criticised by the committee
appointed to Investigate the several
reports of the commission. That the
deponent immediately looked up Repre
sentative Rawlinson, who was a mom
bo r of the investigating committee, and
informed him of what deponent had
heard, and further informed him that
ii th.- reports of severe arraignment
or criticism were true that the com
mission had ll right to be bearii, and
that au opportunity should be given
them. That Representative Rawlin
son assured deponent Hutt lhere was
nothing in tho rumor and that the com
mission would not bo harshly criticis
ed and thai his committee had not
fully mad- up its report; that they
would hiivo another meeting and nil
the members of the old commission
could bo leard: further stated that il
was his impression thai all tho mom
bo s oi' tho ..Immission had been in- 1
vi teil to attend their '.meetings; de
ponent informed him that none of the
member* ol tho commission had been
invited i<i ano Of ibo meetings so far as
deponent hm-w. certainly deponent
had not h,.,
W. J. Johnson.
Sworn i., before m.- (his, 18th dav of
I., .vis W. Haskell,
Notary Public for S. t".
KN IIIBIT <\
?f South Carolina--County of
_ Persona Hy appeared before me A. H.
.-?.air. who being duly sworn, says:
That lc i> a reponer for Tho Daily
^???".l. 1 newspaper published at Co
limo.M; that in company of Lewis
Koh'i, at thai timo reporter for The
Nows mid Courier, ho applied at Un-,
agricultural committee rrv.nr. la (fee
Stale house, where he heard the legis
lative committee investigating the
work on the State house was in ses
sion, foi- permission to report the evi
dence and proceedings; that depon
ent was told by on,, nf tho members of
th" committee that the meetings were
. not public.
A. H. Seats.
j Sworn to and subscribed before me
this loth day of February, 1904.
Ai C. DePass.
Lewis fi. Wood. Peing lilly sworn.
Fays: Thai ho went io tho agricultu
ral committee room where tho investi
gating committee was in session, an?
inquired it there was any neus ?if tho
?gallon In be published al that
lime, und that hu was told by a mern
ber of tUr' ?ommltte? Hui (her* wi
Lewis <?. Wood, Jr.,
Sworn to before nie this lGtli day of
E, O. DePass, (Li. S.)
Notary Public for South Carolina.
State of South Carolina,
Personally appeared before me D. H.
Means, who being duly sworn says
that he was summoned to produce cer
tain records of the commission for tho
completion of the State hou^e and to
testify before the "Joint committee to
consider the several reports of thu
commission on the completion of the
Stute house and facts r?latins there
to." which committee waa meeting in
the agricultural committee room of
the house. That ho entered *he room
ami wns about to be examined when
another witness was announced as
present whereupon deponent was In
formed that bc was excused until the
said committee had finished with said
other witness. That deponent then
withdrew and waited in another otilce
in the State house until after the de
parture of said other witness when
deponent was again summoned to ap
pear and teatlfy. That during his.ex
amin?t hm by said committee while de
ponent was endeavoring to put In what
lie considered necessary or proper qual
ifications of "yea" ami "no" answers
d?ponent was interrupted by the chair
man with the statements "answer tho
question," md "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
examination by said committee.
That during deponent's examination
by said committee Senator J. Q. Mar
shall was present. I
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. linnean Bellin
ger to ex-GoV. M. li. .Mcsweeney, dated
Dec. 2?. 11)03, of which the following
is a copy:
Columbia, s. C., Dec. 1903.
Hon. M. Ti. Mcsweeney J Hampton C.!
H., S. C.
Dear Sir: In reply to your communi
cation I write lo say that I recollect ,
than on May SI; 1902, when you were
governor and 1 attorney general of
South Carolina, I received from you a ,
htier of date May iii; 1902. n carbon
copy of which is to be found at pages I
14? and lt! of vohimi of "Public Land
Letter Cook, New Series, No. 1 to 2lH>."
of which letter the following is a cop}*,
to wit :
"Columbia, S. C., May 31, IDOL'.
"Hon. Ci. Duncan Hell Inger, Attorney
General, Columbia, s. C.
"Dear Sir: You are familiar with the j
action of the commission for the com
pletion of the Stale house at meeting I
May Xi. 11*02, to-wit: 'Resolved that it
appears ti? the commission for the com
pletion of thc State house, that the
work ia satisfactory and that the con
tract has been substantially perform
ed.' The above resolution was upon
the question as to whether Mcllvalu
Unkefer company has performed their
contracts for the completion of the
Slate house, and subsequently the com
mission ordered the balance due Mi II
valn-tlnkefer eompnnv on their said
contracts to be paid. Mctlvaln-TJnke
fcr company now desire that the surety
bond for $50,000 given by them t.>
the commission for the faithful per
formance of their said contract he by
tuc surrendered to them the said con
tractors. No action wu's by said com
mission taken authorizing or directing
tia? surrender of ssiid surety bond. Is
such act ion necessary or am I author
ized, upon the action already taken by
the commission lo ?mrtnrsp anon said
"Governor and Chairman."
"P. S.Mr. Unkefer informs me
thai until surrendered his surety bond
is costing bim 125.00 per month."
Upon receipt of this letter from you
1 recoiled that i gave you orally my
otlicial opinion, us attorney general,
that as said action of said commission
was llrial and conclusive as to said con
tractors having performed their con
tract no secure the performance of
which said surety bond had been given
to you as chairman of said commis
sion), said contractors were entitled to
the return of the bond; and further
action by thc commission being un
necessary. I advised you to surrender
sahl bond to the contractors with an
endorsement thereon signed by you
which I dictated.
ci. Duncan Bellinger.
That at the requist of said ex-Gover
nor M. li. Mcsweeney deponent pasted
the original of the foregoing lotter,
written |>y ex-Attorney General *v
Duncan Hetlinger to ex-G?v?r'nor M.
It. Mcsweeney, in the back of the min
ute book of the commission for the
completion of the state house. so as to
preserve In writing the evidence of the
reasons and circumstances hilder
which said M. B. Mcsweeney while
governor surrendered said bond to said
contractors, Mcllvain, Unkefer ? ">>.
That subsequent to deponent's said
examination the secretary or steno
grapher of said committee requested de
ponent to give him access io the rec
ords of the commission, for the com
pletion of the State boase, for the mil
pose of said secretary's comparing and
verifying with said, original records
said secretary's coplea ol' portions
thereof, io be used in said Joint com
mittee report. Thal at this time de
ponent called the attention of said clerk
or stenographer lo said original letter
from ex-Attorney-Gcneral Hellinger to
ex-Governor M. l:. Mcsweeney, pasted
us before stated, in the hack of said
minnie book, and requested said clerk
of said committee to take a copy ot" saul
lette,- and show it io the chairman
of said joint committee, thinking that
said chairman might desire to use said
letter, as it contained a statement by
ex-Attorney General Bollinger of Im
portant facts in reference lo thc sur
render of the said bonds to the said
cont ra. t..rs iq M. lt. Mi-Sweeney, up
on which matter deponent bad been ex
That said secretary or stenographer
oi sahl joint committee did make and
take with bim a copy of said letter,
which letter did not appear in said
joint committee's report to the legis
D. ll. Means.
Sworn lo before ni'- this ICth day of
I .eu ts Wi Haskell,
Notary Public for South Carolina.
Slate of south Carolina-County of
Pees.ir/?.|jy ?iyp.-ar.-d before me. .Toe
1;. Garfunkel, who. being ?v'v sworn,
says that bc was summoned <lfl A wit
tie:;.-, by ila- committee Investigating
the work upon the Stale house, and
that when he appeared and gave his
testimony Senator J. Q. Marshall was
present in the room. Deponen! fur
ther swears thal he was present in the
Shite bous,- when the contract for the
work on the State house was let, and
knows that It was tho general under
standing among the bidders that the
junk removed from the building in
doing the work provided in the plans
nml specifications of Frank P. Milburn
would go tn the contractors; deponent
is peculiarly qualified to know this
fact horans* be wished I? buy this
Junk, and talked about il io every one
of the bidders whom be met.
Deponent furl her swears that prior
to thu le i tum of the contract J or the
but was inf
to Hie conti
dealer in, ai
value of oh
that he ms
fered the h
old iron it
less for ar.
and had 1
would hay? ?
that the cc
and lu tur
c auu junk,
' : must apply
er told the
days' after the
tat the com
tm the appli
0 to buy the
1 that he ls a
. h the market
aer junk, und !
e of and of- I
price for the 1
to remove in |
Udlding: that j
iron worth- I
se than junk I
ne he would '
i*U it off us !
irs secured a !
parties for a !
.a that be ex- I
ved from the '?
house, while |
State house I
g was gal va- ?
. even as junk : I
. it to the de-I
it haul lt olT, :
. n? asylum for i
to the facts
led before the
In my ci
Hobt. .1. G
all old st.
on the pr?
sion ?if tl
have th.- I
upon a oil'
E><ru i lye
tract for t
I not" th
ls 15th day of :
Feb., 4,- , 190-1.
ired ou. ?JJ old
\ 1 1
.?. contract on I
was to have j
ither material j
Aug. 9, 1901.
.ger. Attorney !
o the pennis- I
Stute house, I
: your opinion
s ariser, about
.-' paper hero- !
consist ol' a
of tho com- '
o loller from
contract and i
sase upon tho ?
ership of tho
ir in the con- '
Office of the
Ug. "ti. 19'H.
tairmaii. eti .. :
mo your )ot
1 Of 111-' olvn- !
as the fold
villi tho <ion- j
of tho slate
the comlnlt- !
A Kt ur
To the l'l
I will bo
j reply io s
to tlc leg
at ibis iii
In the .
' Ibo people
: in their d'
; of th?- mil
i ber of t ho
i gone beyoi
' acted. H;
1 directed l?
! of the gem
as they i
i yet these
! out of th
I report iv
! on mimer
? sonia tivos
! st rous Si
j false as l
; But, th:
! bent on v
; that tliey
tect." as v
' ty given
but paid :
. ports of t
I plotion of
thor I ty t
, one mirica
. a singlo v
, port and a
, zens and o
as Wide tu
St.ii" as li?
vost iga l ino
' always dei
lu this Sta
Ililli ty aro
than a I
. tb.- federa
I doubt n?\
, But lei
' this invc
' t hey solot
, tO l '01111111
i pla ns and
cont t act oi
I work : bu
?ni? ?di fica tl
?ORT <?K IN
; CTEE, RE
IRK ON Tl I IO
o consider my
report of tho
ate tho author?
of ?me njem
n m i ss ion, have ?
.y given hy the
der Which they
?OM they wore j
.ie next session
'such facts ami
'..rom .! thereto I
gentlemen" no j
iject into t heir '
inted and Irn
ich are initiier
??.rs and repre
e architect and
fra ml," "mon
sions aro as
led for hy the
Hoe was more
estions of tho
1 by the fact
ploy an arclil
by tho niitbori
ir a "contract
of tin; United
.o "several r?
ti tor tho coti
iuse," with nu
lidered only tho
Senator .1. Q.
.miry, 190.".. and
y lu support of
port ?if tho ro
il honored <iti
Stato. who dif
1. and who ore
nterests of the
hers <n" this Irl
and who have
iding ami criid
ein i? rsonally,
talion who is
i poi Intendcnt of
ng, and was no
td of In South
io procedure of
mit too. When
ho is brought
to bid for tho
s showing tho
>Uns. specifications or written contract
i of tli?? usc or ownership of the ."old ma
terial" in question Is to be found in
i tho specifications, in the following
wonls: "The successful contractor will
be permitted to use all old material
. that ls now cn the ground, and such
parts of the present roof that conform
to these piting and specifications; but it
? ls understood that the marble now on
j the grounds Is not included. This only
covers thc granite col ii pms, balusters,
; old iron, bracing, granite, etc.. in thc
roof that is suitable, and the proper
size that is called for. If in doubt con
sult the architect on this subject be
I fore making u bid."'
1 liefere bidding on the work Mc
Ilvaln-Unkefer company, as well as
other competitive contractors, culled
I upon the architect, F. P. .Milburn, roi
an interprete timi of thc clause quoted,
concerning which they were in doubt.
:i. The architect informed the con
tractors 'that the contractors bidding
for thc work would get such 'old ma
terial,' and would bc permitted to use
such old parts as would conform with
the new plans and specifications."
(See Milburn'!* letter, July 31, mot.)
4. Acting upon the interpretation
given hy the architect, Mcllv'aln-Unke
fer company, after making allowances
for what was conceived to be the
value of the "old material'* to them,
pul tn their bid for thc contract, und
was duly iioccpted hy the commission.
fi. One Mr. Garfunkel, a junk dealer,
submitted to the commission a proposi
tion to buy thc copper and old iron
then in the old roof, and the commis
sion, upon accepting Mcllvaln-Unkcfer
company's bid, ordered that '.be com
munication ol' Mr. Garfunkel be turned
over to the successful bidding con
tractor, upon the ground that tile sai l
"old material" was at the disposal of
The clause quoted "ir tho specifica
tions bears internal evidence of con
scious ambiguity, and the coull leting
interest is susceptible of various In
terpretations. It is easy to conceive
that tin- bidding contractors could
claim with a show of nason, the title1
to the "old material" in question, and
Inasmuch as the paper containing the
clause WUK prepared for and in behalf
of the commission, and the law would,
as 1 understand lt. construe the con
trad strictly against the commission
and in favor of the bidder, for one rea
son, among others, that in easer, of
doubt, tin- construction hy the con
tractors must be given tie- benefit of
the doubt. Inasmuch as the commis
sion, MS tie- author of tn,- specifica
tions, uni suffer, il" either parly must,
un account ni ambiguity.
Hut 1 think that up toa very recent
? 'ate ii ha i )>.i tie- understanding on
.'??.?es i;,.-.t the contra., lois should be
the owners of the old material, and
the fa? ts as found seem to me to pre
clude any other conclusion.
'I'la- statement of Milburn, the archi
tect, speaking <>n behalf of tin- commis
sion, tin- known conduct oi the con
tractors, based upon Mllburn's Inter
pretation, thc acceptai!.d" the bid
based upon the suppose.I ownership by
the contractors of th.- . old nuttcrlul,"
and thc declination to treat with a pro
posed jul! chaser for Ile- sale of the old
material, and tin- reference of his bid
to Mcllvnlne-Hnkefcr company, all
?slop, tin- commission from claiming
tie- "old material" in question.
Hoping that this will med with your
approval, I am.
Very truly yours.
(Signed) nuncan Bellinger,
At teiney General.
Upon motion of Mr. Mower the opin
ion <d" the attorney general was ap
proved by a vote takeil viva voce, Mi.
Marshall voling against ii.
i::: nt PIT i.
? '. lumbla. S. ' '.. Feb, 115,1904.
'i bis certifies that in the f;ill of 1901
' <.#-I? . I !. < ?;i .'f.ii>l.-,.l IVvr t?>..
"EGT FRANK P. MILBURN.
Whom Charges V. ere Made
jsers in the General
building in the light of these original,
general plans and specifications.
And yet no on<- of the seven gentle
men of th-- capitol commission, who
honestly differed with liol. Murshall,
was called, nw was 1 asked to show
him the modified and complete speci
fications ami detail drawings under
w hich .the w ork was actually done.
11 appears thai on a Friday in May,
l'.'u:'., heil.re this investigating commit
tee was KI take testimony, as remem
bered by the chairman, the chairman
of tlie committee called at my office,
.luring my absence from the cite and
left a verbal message willi one of my
draughtsmen about the meet ir.!;, at
which the expert from Washington
would give his testimony, and thal I
could be present, OJ- send any com
munication ii I desired. M?t l never
received tin- message, and. in fact,
never heard ot the incident until last
Friday, the Ut li inst. In this connec -
tion I bec tn submit the following
"To Whom it May Concern:
.This is tu certify that I am in the
employment of Krank 1'. Milburn, ar
chitect, in thc capacity of engineer and
draughtsman, ami was during the last
"Thal once winn Mr. Milburn and
Mr. Heister were out of the
office, .Mr. Milburn being out of the
city, a gentleman ?ailed, and renre
scntlng himself io i.c a member of
the State house Investigntlrifi commit
tee, stai.-d in effect that said commit
tee would shortly tar: i understood, the
next day) have a session, and asked
thal 1 Iel Mr. Milburn know, and also
nd word to McTlvnin, Unkefer com
pany. I promised to iel Mr. Milburn
know, and also Mcllvain, Unkefer com
pany if we could; that I thought wo
had their address in ihe office.
' That Upon the return of Mr. Heister,
who is chief draughtsman and assist
ant to Mr. Milburn. 1 told bini of what
had taken place, ami supposed In- would
communicate with them, but I never
mentioned tho matter to Mr. Milburn
until K.l.. 112, 1904.
"(Signed) "Geb. F. Kepler."
"To whom it May Concern:
"l hereby certify timi I am now,
and was lost year chief draughtsman
and assistant to Mr. Frank I*. Milburn,
"That I have read the foregoing cer
tificate of Mr. George F. Kepler, but
have no recoiled ion of ever hearing of
the conversa I ion therein referred to,
before Feb. 1.'. 1901. If Mr. Kepler is
correct in his recollection of stating the
.nailer to ir > l di.I not lake lt in suffi
. lently lo l>..,?\.J!; ly mind, and f am
sure thal I never mentioned the mat
ter tb Mr. Milburn.
"(Signed) "Mi? hae| Heister."
After tills hearing, at which ls now
appears thal several witnesses were ex
amined, I lcii ned of it from the news
papers and common rumor; bul never
knew anything of the purport of the
testimony, although I heard thai Col.
Marshall was prosent, and that the
sessions were behind closed doors. 1'n
til my return to this city ln?t Friday,
whet, 1 coi hold of n copy of the report
-tlie committee having never honored
me with a copy-] never knew nuthi ri?
tatively of the rulleciioua on thc work.
After kerning th? testimony, and
their proceedings secret, as I believe,
from May to December, more thun six
months, I received a note from the
? secretary of the committee, dated
; Barnwell, S. C.. Dec. 7, 1V03. ?mt malled
in Columbia, 11th December, giving me
j an opportunity to appear before thc
?' committee, if 1 desired. Having heard
I of the proceedings in iMay, at which I
was told, and believed, Col. Marshall
had been present, I decided, without
I having counsel, that 1 had best not
! appear unless the committee desired my
' presence, I had been guilty of absolute
ly no wrong, or conscious neglect of
any duty to the Stute, but hud given
my best efforts to assist the capitol
commission in the discharge of its du
ties and the proper expenditure of the
States money, hence 1 had nothing to
explain away. But knowing that I had
modilicd and detailed drawings In my
office not on lile In the State house,
1 offered to place my office records at
the disposal of the committee. In this
? connection I sec that my note to the
; commit lee hus been termed "curt." I
I wish to disclaim any such Intention;
i and if lt is, 1 .egret lt. and plead In ex
? temiutlon thc fact that I began the
I struggle for bread early In life, and had
I not the opportunities of collegiate edu
. cation enjoyed by some members of the
But in justice to the capitol commis
sion, which with one exception up
proved my work, as well as to myself
j and family, 1 wish to say something in
j regard to the specific findings of the
j investigating committee, in the order
First. As tu the charge that
i the plans and .specifications tiled with
j the secretary of state wei?' not suitable
I and complete.
1 believe this was the lb st objection
mude by Col. Marshall after my elec
? lion as architect, and was fully con
> sldered ami passed upon bv the capitol
commission in the year 1900, .Mr. Mar
shall alone dissenting. At that time
? the commission had before it letters
from four ol' the most prominent con
1 tractors ami builders of this section
: of the country, who, after studying
those plans carefully to base upon
them bids for a very large sum of
money, secured by ti heavy bond, had
bbl upon this work. Some of these
\ gentlemen were personally known to
members of the commission, ?rid their
statements were to the effect that the
drawings ami specifications were plain
! enough to make an intelligent bld.; that
the plans an?! specifications were fully
understood, and were proper for good
work. The opinion of such well known
contractors ami builders us Ilude ?\i
Walker, J. W. Bishop & Co., \V. A.
j Chesterman an?'. Nicholas Itt uer. com
monly known as "Honest Nick." must
outweigh the opinion of Mr. Marshall
and the Washington "expert" with any
Second. That the contrai t fixed the
??lil work ?rn th" completed portion of
tn- building; as the standard.
This is not true. There Is nothing in
the plans ami specifications which
could be so construed except, perhaps, ,
tie- woid ''prototype," on on?' of th?:
general drawings, and this was intend
ed to apply only to styl?', outline, form, ,
shape; ami was not intended to apply
to the classification of the workman
ship. Under each of the headings of
the various classes of work the same
was fully outlined, giving the number
of cuts to th.- inch for the different
parts of the work.
In tins connection, I may say that
it was not intended i?> make the stone
. oralee in om- piece, for instance. The
smell appropriation for the whole work
necessitated great economy, and
the scale detail drawings show that it
was to bc built up ot several members,
as it was done, instead of the more ex
penslv? one-piece cornice.
Referring to sheet <: of the g?nerai
drawings where the note before re
ferred io is found, it will be seen that!
pens.-, in th.' neighborhood ol' $10,000,
had a spleudl '. steel culling in the main
lol.by, which the contractors took
and converted to their own uso. where
by the State lost in tb?, neighborhood
The plans and specifications required
! the contractors to cut u circular open- i
lng Into the ceiling for the inner dome.
When the celling was cut, and it was
thoroughly examined, it was found to
be galvanized iron, in a bad condition
ami ditlieult to work into shape, es
pcclally as it contained celling lights
no lunger ol' use. Th" contractors said
it would require special workmen an?!
considerable loss .if time to patch it
e.p. and would not then bo as satis
factory as a now ceiling, which could
j be gotten in less time, and enable them
to lu? ready for the meeting of tho
legislature, although the new celling
would cost them more. After full in
vestigation ?if all the facts and con
ditions, 1 decided that it was I??
the interest of thc Stat., to accept the !
proposed change, and I approve.) Hie
' ceiling they used, which harmonizes
perfectly with the design of tho cell
ing under the balcony around Hie main
bibby, which was placed there under
Mr. Nlenisee's supervision. As both
?.?.?lings ar?- In the same lobby und are
seen at the same time, harmony ls es
sential. Neither tb?- cornice nor cove
mouldings lu this lobby were interfered ?
with, but the new coiling was used only .
in the field or body of tie- ceiling
through which the dome is cut. The
contractors thought they ought io have
extra for this now ceiling, but 1 would
not allow ii. ami the Stale got the
i new ceilings without cost.
This iii in shows lia- fearful mistake
thc investigating committee made in
not examining farther into the real
facts Instead of giving so much weight
to that minority report. They would
hliv? th?- public believe that it was a
''steel celling," costing in the neighbor
hood of $10.(iii0. when the records in the
secretary of state's office show that all
the ceilings and cornices, si?-?-l beams,
1 ainI skylights in thc rotunda, or main
; lobby, and the celling over the schale
lobby together; <<>st only $7.SDS, on the
j 2d of May. ISSI). Any well informed
man will know that the cornice actual
ly cost much moie than 'ho celling.
Tho public must in charity put this
blunder of the committee down lo
neglect and ignorance, or convict them
pf deliberate misrepresentation in
j making the .statement that "on this
I item th?- State lost in tin- neighbor
hood of $10,000.'!
Let th?- public guess why Mr. Tl ?m t
advanced the Iden that the contractors
removed this ceiling thai th?>y might,
hoist into position the larne Steel box
girders that support the doine! The
fact is. these heavy sto?'l beams lind
girders wera raised from the outside
wall, and not through ibo main lobby.
Hut not content with trying lo nrdtisc
public indigna linn over the alleged loss
to tho stat?-, they attempt t" InjiiVe
character by charging that "tin' con
tractors bodily took an?l carried away
ami converted i" their own use this
valuable and beautiful part of ibo obi
: buddinu." The cold fad is. and they
?Miller knew P. or ? mild have learned ii
by reasonable, fair and impartial In
quiry, thal tiiis old celling timt was
removed from Ihe rotund* l?d>l?y was
never sold or used t>y th?. if tors,
but was given to Mr. Oarrtiifke. if he
would remove it from the grounds,
land he In turn gave ii lo Dr. Rabcock
j on Hie same condition, and this "val
uable nml beautiful/' ibis, ''splendid
steel coiling. " now lies in a rubbish
heap in tho back yard of Hie State lu
natic asylum, a silent but unimpeach
able witness of tho outrageous libel
which lins investigating committee has
spread upon Hie records of the legisla
Fourth, That by the omission of two
Inner columns from the front *? li? >
the contractors made a profit of 93,400,
ami thc estimated IOBK to lhe State is
That the public may fully understand
this? matter, I wish to call attention to
the fact, that when called to this work
1 found U partially completed building,
much valuable stone and marble on
band, ami an appropriation wholly and
admittedly insufficient to complete the
building ns originally designed. "When
I made the plans, it was to utilize all .
the very expensive columns then lying
on the ground, ami considered flt for
use, that largely induced me to pro
vide for tw> inner columns on the front
portico, lt turned out with tills work,
us is generally the case in remodeling
old, or partially completed buildings,
that ninny modifications and chunges
became necessary, and were mude with
the consent and approval of the com
mission, as a rule Co). 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 tn the stone, which then showed
nn old crack about two thirds of the
way through. It was generully 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 Bil '
changes (omitting a wood truss a
substituting steel trussed perlins) .
strength of the structure would
he Impaired in the least; because it
would save much time in coniph
the work, and because lt would oave
rather than cost the State anything.
The conti actors offered to furnish a
new column for $2.000, necessitating
several 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 $G()0, which it was shown hy an
Itemized statement would be saved to
the contractors by the change. With
ull tills information before the com
mission, after full consideration, it de
cided, by a vote of r> to 3, to change
the original plan and omit the two
columns, thus saving to the State $600,
without detriment td the work, and
giving these columns to the .State for
Mr, Hunt talks ?ibout "the stone Hu
tt:! and brick work on top of these col
umns." Thc specifications never called
for any such thing. And yet this will
ing witness, unable to condemn the
sufficiency of the "bracing and anchor
in:;," goes out of his way to suggest
carelessness in "a great portion of the v
construction throughout this building."
Again, this "government" witness
fays the two massive square pillars,
under the portico, "now perform no
duty :it 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
wns to get such a witness that the in
vest ig.-iilng committee passed over so
many southern architects and con
trat.Huns of known ability and Jnteg
Fifth. That the new leaf wor:
the capitals' ls not as fine as the
li being impracticable to get
stone for this new work from tin
quarry, n stone was selected v
matched it exactly, and the sanif .
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
Ph colet granite is a trifle softer ?hC
high a finish.
lenka In rain
does leak, ami ??regret it., in my ei
forl to give all the light possible to
the offices and passageways below, I
selected ibis style of lloor light, which
is suitable Cor the place. Unfortunately -
there is btu litt!?; fall, and yet I gaye
it all I possibly could to connect with
thc granite work and the height of the
second floor doorway entering the lob
by. This ls no faull of mine;
it is "lie of the troubles en
countered in remodeling or adding to
a building. The chief trouble, how
ever, with the portico lloor ls that
to accommodate lhe legislature, it was
laid just before the meeting of that
body nnd was walked on and abused
before the concrete and cement mate
rial sel sufficiently. The natural con
sequence vas that it was damaged and
still presents a bad apoeiirance. An
inspect ion of the rear portico floor,
which ivas hoi flo used and abused, will
substantiate this contention.
As io the coiling of the portico, 1 flo
not know of any material more suit
able for such ceilings, lt ls made from
the sanie elliss of material that was
removed by the contractors from the
main lobby, although not the same der
sign. 1 wonder If thc gentlemen pt the
investigating commlttci know that the
portico celling in the main entrance
to the United States capitol at Wush- j
ington was common plastering, and \
that leaks from the roof caused some I
of il to fall. 'S. ^f"f'
Seventh. Thai the roof Is a "tar and
gravel" roof, unsuitable, and leaks,
ll ls not a tar and gravel roof, but
ls of the very finest quality of asphalt
and crushed quartz, and there is no
doubt abolit its answering the purpose
for at least ten years, as thc roof con
tractors gave a guarantee for teri year?
against leaks and material wear and
tear. This same .-lass of roofing ir on
the following buildings tri the city of
Washington. D. C.:
Atlantic Const lane office building,
?southern Railway office building, Iowa
department house. Raleigh hotel, Illiss.
depart molli house. United States Cen
sus building, govornr
house. :i)nl many Othei'f
It is .; matter Of prof .
me thai the roof leaks,
everything In my power
to remedy it. lt ls il M
that much more expensive roofs than
this have proved unsatisfactory. Thc.
government ppstofllce nit Savannah,
which has a tile and copper roof leaked
badly. The United States postofllce at
Auausta. which also has an expensive
roof, leaked for years.
In this connection I submit the fol
Columbia, S. c.. .lan. IS, 1004.
Mr. frank P. Milburn, Architect. Co
lumbia. S. C.:
Dear sir: Referring to our conver
tit lon in regard to the State house,
will say that a short time after the
Hitit.- house work was finished the
Charlotte Roof and Paving company
telegraphed me to go there and exam
ine thc roof and make the same satis
factory if 1 could. I went on top of the
building and vas somewhat surprised
to lind that some one hail torn the
Hashing loose at several places between
the main roof and tho base of the dome
fur several feet, allowing the water
flowing off of the dome and the base
to run down Into the rotunda below.
Tile werk was well Hashed around the
Lune nnd counter Hashing was put
Into the joints not In the way it Is
usually done, viz.: by putting the flash
ing Into the joint and turning lt up,
but by cutting into thc Joint and <*x
I tending Ile' tin back Into the joints
land bolting it with rods, nuts and
washers, and it was Impossible for it
Ito get oui unless some cue had ton?