The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-02-24

er statement in writing that the said
nemorialists may have to submit WALL
be received and considered by the
general assembly whenever presented.
Whereupon Your honorable body saw
fit to refuse the request for the salo
full. free and fair investigation. but
instead adopted 4 resolution permit
ting the commission for the compile
ton OF the building TO represent to
your honorable body such statement
as they saw fit.
WHY CONCEAL THE FACTS?
When Louis the XVI was led upon
the guillotine and began an address IN
his defense. Sanleere. q butcher who
had been given command OF the lnu-
nicipal guard around the scaffold. or
dered the drums 10 De beaten. The
words Of the French king We're thus
silenced.
Neither the lives nor the property OF
the members Of this commission are
threatened. but that which IS as dear
to us as life and property-our repu-
tation and good NameS-has been as
sailed, and Cur respectful request thal
Your body appoint q committee to hear
both sides OF the matter. and lay all
the facts before the people. has been
denied. You have. however, accord
ment in writing. which We will now
proceed to do. and endeavor TO make
this report in as parliamentary Ian
guage as our justly outraged feelings
Will permit. and the facts will justify
But. gentlemen. what we asked and
demanded Of Your body which we
feel we had a right TO demand. was
that all the evidence in this matter be
brought to light. that the committee
De empowered to summon witnesses
and have them examined under oath
and not to confine the investigation 10
such evidence as could be secured from
voluntary testimony.
Many witnesses to important facts
refuse to make aftidavits. but they
could be compelled to testify at such
hearing.
THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN
REFLECTED UPON AND TIE
PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF ITS
REPORT.
This contention is made notwith-
standing the disclaimer Of the members
Of the committee made upon the floor
Of the legislature TO the contrary ana
without any assertion on our part that
such reflection was Intentional. That
the impression that such a reflection
was made is abundantly proven by
reference 10 every daily paper pub
lished in the State. wherein the ac-
ton Of the commission is character
lied as an "infamy." a scandal. etc.
If the committee was innocent of any
intention to attack the characters OF
those constituting the commission 1t
was most unfortunate in its use OF the
English language. The members OF
IL. <rSX-
it to be understood that their vicious
attack was directed against the archi-
tect and the contractors and charitably
suggest that this commission was dup
ed and bambeozled by these employees.
and that We were 20 be forgiven for our
weakness. and that the charge against
us Of being fools must not be serious
II taken as rejecting upon US.
If the committee did not mean to re-
feet upon this commission. why does
it refer to us in its report as follows:
(These references being taken at ran
dom from the report.)
The contractors broke one of the
columns into two pieces. and rather
than put the contractors to the expense
Of replacing the broken column they
were generously excused (hy the COM
rission) from putting them in at all.
they paying the State $500. leaving
them 3,400 profit on that transaction"
(Report, p y
Surely. the honorable gentlemen Of
the investigating committee would
not dare to say that any one filing a
| fduciary position could be generous
with the States money, or intentionally
excuse any one from performing duty
delegated through an agent of the
State to another party.
Again: "A fine slate roof. bought by
the State at heavy expense and which
afforded perfect protection for years.
! was taken off and appropriated by the
contractors" Report. p. So
The inference necessarily drawn from
| this statement is that this "appropria-
ton" (Which. had the committee used
the proper word to convey its meaning,
| would have been ''mis-appropriation }
was With the knowledge and consent
of this commission. whose duty 1t was
10 protect the interests and the prop
erty Of the State. The investigating
committee called before them the sec
retary Of the commission and had be-
| fore them for inspection the minute
book and all the records of this COM
mission. That committee knew. or
| ought to have known. and We believe
did know. that before the contract was
| awarded il was agreed that the sue
cessful bidder should become the owner
OF all the material torn out OF. or off
Of. the State house. and that the taking
| possession OF the material OF this roof
was simply exercising the right OF
! ownership. both under the general law
and under the special contract.
Again: We feel With what we have
reporxed. and the testimony taken. re-
reals a dark picture. it is true. but
nothing short OF an actual inspection
| Of The Work can convey an adequate
! idea of that monstrous swindie OF
which the State is the victim. appro-
priataly portrayed in' the closing words
of capt. Hunts testimony" (ThiS
worthy, imported from the District Of