The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-02-25

would get ali the old material, except
the marble; that the contractors al
lowed for the value Of this old material
in their bid: that the commission fully
investigated the matter; that the at
torney general gave his official opinion
that the general opinion had been that
the contractors owned the old mate
1ial and the commission could not
claim it; that the opinion Of the attor-
ney general was approved by the COM
mission, excepting only Mr.. MarSnau;
and the commission referred Mr.. Gar
funkel's proposition to it 10 buy the
old material from the contractors.
I repeat that I cannot believe that
this investiga ting committee consid-
cred the report, or knew OF these facts.
II they did, / think discriminating
public can see that they are determined
TO uphold Col. MarshalPs minority re-
port, even if a suppression OF cold
facts is necessary.
Generally:
AS an evidence that / gave the State
good and honest service in the eXpend-
iture Of its money on the State house,
and in refutation of many charges
made, but not sustained, by the in
restigating committee, 1 desire to SUD-
nit the following statements of hon
orable, widely known contractors, not
withstanding the chairman Of that
committee, on the floor OF the senate,
where he was secure from reply, de-
scended to the tactics Of trying to be-
smirch and impugn any Of and all wit
nesses who dared to speak the truth,
if not in support of his report:
Nicholas Ittner, Contractor, P. O. Box
eOS tlopfo Ga
Atlanta, Ca, March 22,1901.
Mr. Frank P. Milburn, Columbia, $. G.
Dear Sir: Your favor of the goth to
hand. I examined the material and
workmanship at capitol building, and
find it first. class JOB. I consider it a
good, substantial piece Of work.
Yours truly,
(Signed) Nicholas Ittner,
Contractor.
Savannah, Ca, Aug. II, 1908.
Mr. Frank P. Milburn, Columbia, S.
Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry
of August 7th in regard to the work re-
Gently done on the State house. will
say that have had considerable ex-
perience in large work, and have had
quite a number of contracts from the
United States government. l was one
Of the irn Of the Stewart Contracting
company, who bid for the contract in
Columbia. l was in Columbia Aug.
l4th, and while there inspected the
State house work. AS a whole, l tnlnk
the work very satisfactory. There may
be some minor things that | would have
done different if l had been award
ed the contract. Anyone looking to
find fault can always find it. There is
one thing certain, the State of South
Carolina, in my estimation, has re-
ceived full value for the money ex-
pended, and now has capitol that
any State might well be proud OF.
This is my honest and unprejudiced
opinion. Yours truly,
(SigneO
j. E. Burgess, Manager,
Savannah Contracting Company.
Note. Mr.. Burgess renodeled interior
of postofice building in Columbia, i'll
1903.
Augusta, Ca, Sept.2, 1903.
Mr.. Frank P. Milburn, Columbia, S.
Dear Sir: In reply to your favor OF
Aug. 25th, wanting an opinion from US
on the new State capitol in your city,
we beg to say the writer has frequent
ly gone over this building during con-
struction and since it was finished, and
consider it as good job as it is pos
sible to make out of a remodeling job,
and being familiar with the price paid
for the work, consider the State Sc
cured a regular excursion price on that
building.
We have had considerable experience
in re1nodeling work, and know how
difficult it is to make everything per-
fectly satisfactory, as there is some-
}6J ,lII-0v IN "a
be moved You would have no trouble
to prove up values if the matter was
investigated, as you know from eX-
perience that it is much easier to crit
icise than it is to execute.
Yours very truly,
(Signed} J. II. Mckenzie & Sons,
General Contractors.
By Charles F. Mckenzie.
Johnson CRY, Tenn, Sept. 26. 1903.
Mr.. Frank E. Milburn, Columbia, S.
Dear Sir: Replying to your inquiry
of Aug. 25th, asking my opinion of the
work recently done on the South Caro-
lima State house, Will say that I con-
sidered the same well executed and full
ly up to the standard for such work. I
have had experience in remodeling old
capitols, and have found it hard to
please every one, as they do not IN
derstand the many troubles that We
have TO contend with. l am surprised
that any objections are raised in re-
gard to the job, as l thought the quail
;ty Of the work done, considering the
quantity, was we'll worth the price
paid for it. I should think it would be
worth fully 100000 to duplicate the
same work now under the present con-
ditions Of markets, etc.
Yours truly.
Signed) j. E. Parrish,
Contractor and Builder, Lynchburg}
Va.
Columbia, S. c. Feb. 3, 1904
Mr.. Frank P. Milburn, Columbia, S.
c.
Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of
recent date, in which you request US to
inspect the work done on the State
capitol building at Columbia, S. c., we
beg TO advise as follows:
After careful inspection of the
work, we are prepared to say that in
our opinion, that the work seems to
have been performed In a substantial