The times and democrat. [volume] (Orangeburg, S.C.) 1881-current, 1904-02-24

After keeping the testimony, and
their proceedings secret, as I believe,
from May to December, more than six
months, I received note from the
secretary of the committee. dated
Barnwell. S. c., Dec. {, 1908, but mailed
in Columbia, l1th December, giving me
all opportunity to appear before the
committee, il 1 desired. Having heard
Of the proceedings in May, at which l
was told, and believed Col. Marshall
had been present, decided, without
having counsel, that 1 had best not
appear unless the committee -.esired my
presence, had been guilty of absolute
ly no wrong, or conscious neglect Of
any duty to the State, but had 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 l had nothing to
explain away. But knowing that l had
modified and detailed drawings in my
office not on file in the State house,
I offered to place my office records at
the disposal of the committee. In this
connection l see that my note to the
committee has been termed curt
wish to diSclaim any such intention;
and if it is, l regret it, and plead in eX-
tenuatiOn the fact that l began the
struggle for bread early in life, and had
not the opportunities Of collegiate edu-
cation enjoyed by some members Of the
investigating committee.
But In justice to the capitol commits
sion, which with one exception ap-
proved my work. as we'll as to myself
and family, wish to say something in
regard to the specific findings Of the
investigating committee, in the order
stated.
First. AS to the charge that
the plans and specifications filed with
the secretary Of state were not suitable
and complete.
I believe this was the first objection
made by Col. Marshall after my elec-
ton as architect, and was fully con-
sidered and passed upon bv the capitol
commission in the year 1900, MIR. Mar
shall alone dissenting. AT that time
the commission had before it letters
from four Of the most prominent con-
tractors and 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 heavy bond, had
bid upon this work. Some or these
gentlemen were personally known to
members of the commission, and their
statements were to the effect that the
drawings and specifications were PLAIN
enough to make an intelligent blG. tnat
the plans and specifications were fully
understood. and were proper for good
work. The opinion Of such well known
contractors and builders as Guide &
Walker, ]. w. Bishop e. Co., w. A.
Chesterman and Nicholas Ittner, COM
monty known as Honest Nick must
outweigh the opinion OF Mr.. Marshall
and the Washington expert with any
impartial judge.
Second. That the contract fixed the
old work on the completed portion OIL
the building as the standard.
This is not true. There Is nothing IN
the plans and specifications which
could be so construed except, perhaps,
the word prototype" on one of the
general drawings, and this was intend
ed to apply only to style, outline, form,
shape; and 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 the inch for the different
parts Of the work.
In this connection, I may say that
it was not Intended to make the stone
cornice in one piece, for instance. The
small appropriation for the whole Work
necessitated great economy, ana
the scale detail drawings show that II
was to be built up of several members,
as it was done, instead OF the more e%-
pensive one-piece cornice.
Referring to sheet 6 Of the general
drawings where the note before re-
ferred to is found, it will be seen that
the work is to be the same only when
il has its prototype in the old building.
That it does not mean that the cornice,
for instance is to be Identical with the
old work, you have only to see sheet
Of those same drawings, where the
cornlce is distinctly shown to be built
up Of several pieces.
Third. That the State at a great eX-
pense, in the neighborhood of Sl0,OoO
had a splendid steel ceiling In the main
lobby, which the contractors tooS
and converted to their own use, where
by the State lost in the neighborhood
of $4,000. a.
The plans and specifications required
the contractors to cut a circular open
ing into the ceiling for the inner dome
When the ceiling was cut, and 1t was
thoroughly examined it was found tC
be galvanized iron, in bad condition
and difficult to work into shape, es-
pecially as it contained ceiling lights
no longer of use. The contractors Salo
IL would require special workmen ano
considerable loss Of time to patch II
I'D. and would not then be as salts
factory as new ceiling, which could
be gotten in less time, and enable them
to be ready for the meeting OF the
legislature, although the new ceiling
would cost them more. After full IN
yestigation of all the facts and con-
ditons, l decided that it was "a
the interest of the State to accept thd
proposed change, and 1 approved III.
ceiling they used, which harmoniZes
perfectly with the design Of the cell
| ing under the balcony around the man
lobby, which was placed there undel
Mr.. Niernsee's supervision, AS botf
ceilings are in the same lobby and are
| seen at the same time, harmony is es'
sential. Neither the cornice nor cove
mouIdings in this lobby were interfereo
with, but the new ceiling was used only
| in the field or body Of the ceiling
through which the dome is cut. The
contractors thought they ought to have
extra for this new ceiling, but l woulc
! not allow it, and the State got the
new ceilings without cost.
! This item shows the fearful mistake
! the investigating committee made II
not examining farther into the rea
| facts instead Of giving so much weight
| to that minority report. They woulC
have the public believe that it was
steel ceiling" costing in the netghbor'
! hood Of $4,000 when the records in the
cacratorv of etate'S office show that al