The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1904-02-18
l. That the architect. Frank P. Mil

/. That the architect, Frank P. Mil
burn, employed by the commission un'
der the act for the completion Of the
State house, did not furnish suitable
plans and specifications for such
work. notably in failing to specify IN
detail what the contractors were re.
quired to do In many instances, but
leaving the same to be decided by the
architect, thereby vesting large discre.
tionary powers in himself. which could
and we are constrained to say. were
exercised to the States injury. Said
plans and specifications, and the con-
tract under which the work was done,
are on file in the Office Of the secretary
Of state. copies Of which are hereto an
nexed. and sample of what are pro-
per plans and specifications as used by
the report .and are filed with the clerk
Of the Senate.
9. The contract requires that all Of
the work was to have been done with
the old work upon the completed por-
tion Of the building as standard. 1t
has not been done so, but a mean. crude
and cheap quality Of work has been
| uoAC, AuS IAC tuSSl vi Tic uuS
work upon the main building. and dis
appointing every one who hoped to see
the State house completed in accord
ance with its original design.
3. Prior to the commencement of this
new work. the State had at a great
expense, in the neighborheod of $1O,-
600. caused to be put in the main
lobby splendid steel ceiling. which
was work of art. as well AS Of a
durable lasting nature, highly orna.
mental and delight to the eye Of
every observer; by the terms of the
contract this ceiling was to have re-
mained. and where injured in the
progress of the work. was to have
been repaired. The contractors bodi-
ly took and carried away and con-
verted to their own use this valuable
and beautiful part of the old build.
ing, and in lis place put cheap
stamped metal ceiling, costing about
$500. and which is a blot upon the
face Of this great building. On this
item the State has lost In the neigh.
borhoods Of $4,000.
4. The plans and the specifications
and the drawings call for two inner
granite columns on the front portico.
They are not there. The absence OF
them Is explained by the fact that
| in attempting to elevate them into
position the contractors broke one
of them in two pieces. and rather
than put the contractors to the ex-
pense Of replacing the broken column
| they were generously excused from
putting them in at all. they paying
| the State 5000, leaving them $1.400
profit on that transaction. The Office
these columns were to perform was
an important one. namely, to support
the front pediment Of the portico as
bond and tie to the main building.
| in other words, to carry large Intel
stone securing the portico to the main
building and thus preventing ii from
falling away, which it has tendency
to do. The estimated loss to the
building in all respects on account
Of the absence of these columns and
the accompanying parts they were to
support. is $3.50. There are two
massive square piers under the porti-
co. They were designed to support
these missing columns, and now per-
form no duty at all. On page 81 OF
the report of the commission, is a
letter from Architect Milburn on this
subject, in which he says: I'VE can
take these out without in any way
marring the appearance from the ex-
terror. without in any way interfering
with the strength of the structure.
Capt. Hunt was asked by Senator
Mann for his opinion on this point.
and he answered as follows: II con-
slider that an insult to the intelligence
of your committee" Explaining. he
said: THE practical effect Of leaving
out those columns is TO weaken the
structure. The stone Intel and brick
work on top Of these columns was In
tended to bond in the brick wall OF
the pediment and make solid and
rigid piece Of work. 1t IS important
that this should have been done. for
the pediment cornice naturally gives
it tendency to pull off or away from
the building, and the bond OF this
work over the capitals is what is al
ways carried out to counteract the
tendency to pull away from the build
lug. ne ONelSduic lIllS us DttIihS .NS
pediment to the main building with
iron rods in the form Of what we
term buckles" To the question. DO
you regard that az sufficient" he re-
piled: well, il the bracing and an
choring Of these rods has been done
as carelessly as greater portion of
construction throughout this build
ing. / certainly should question its
safety"
5. The beautiful leaf work upon
the capitals OF the old columns will
stand for all time as a monument to
the skill and taste OF the artist who
carved them: that upon the new col
umns, furnished by these contractors.
required to be and designed to We
modelled after them, is coarse. un-
slightly. and unfit TO stand beside the
old ones.
6. The columns at the rear OF the
portico, joining the main building.
should have to correspond with the
front columns, Intel stones extend
ing from one to another. They have
none, and to fill UP the space between
the capitals and the ceiling they
have nut in tin or sheet iron boxes.