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

After keeping the testimony, ana
their proceedings secret, as / believe,
from May to December. more than six
months I received Il note from the
secretary Of the committee. dated
Barnweli. s. G.. Dec. T. 1903 but mailed
in Columbia. l1th December. giving me
an opportunity to appear before the
committee. il [ desired. Having heard
Of the proceedings IN May, at which [
was told. and believed, Col. Marshall
had been present, / decided, without
having counsel, that I had best not
appear unless the committee desired my
presence, had been guilty Of absolute
" 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 i had nothing to
explain away. But knowing that I had
modified and detailed drawings in my
Office not on file in the State house.
l offered to place my office records al
the disposal Of the committee. In this
connection l see that my note to the
committee has been termed curt" l
wish 20 disciaim any such intention;
ana if it is, l regret it, and plead in ex-
tenuation the fact that I 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.
1 believe this was the first objection
made by Col Marshall after my cleo
ton as architect, and was' fully con-
sidered and 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 Of the most prominent con-
tractors and builders Of this section
Of the country, who, after studying
those plans carefully to base upon
chem bids for a very large sum OF
money, secured by a heay.y bond, had
bid upon this work. Some Of 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 bid. that
the plans and specifications were fully
understood. and were proper for good
work. The opinion Of such well known
contractors and builders as Gude &
Walker. J. w. Bishop & 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 OF
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, anc
the scale detail drawings show that 1t
was to be built UP Of several members,
as it was done, instead Of the more e1-
pensive one-piece cornice.
Referring to sheet 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
if has it's prototype in the old building.
That it does not mean that the cornlce,
for instance. is to be Identical With the
old work, you have only to see sheet
Of those same drawings, where the
cornice is distinctly shown to be built
up of several pieces.
Third. That the State at a great eX-
pense in the neighborhood Of $4,000
had splendid steel ceiling in the nam
lobby, which the contractors TOOK
and converted to their own use, where
by the State lost in the neighborhood
of $4,000.
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 to
be galvanized iron, in a bad condition
and difficult to work into shape, es-
pecially as it contained ceiling lights
no longer of USE The contractors said
it would require special workmen ana
considerable loss Of time to patch II
I'd, and would not then be as saus-
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 celiinS
would cost them more. After full IN
yestigation of all the facts and con-
ditions, I decided that it was to
the interest Of the State to accept the
proposed change, and I approved the
ceiling they used, which harmoaizes
perfectly with the design OF the cell
ing under the balcony around the nam
lobby, which was placed there under
Mr.. Niernsee's supervision. AS both
ceilings are in the same lobby and are
seen at the same time, harmony is es-
sential. Neither the cornice noF cove
mouldings' in this lobby were interfered
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 would
not allow it, and the State got the
new ceilings without cost.
This item shows the fearful mistake
the investigating committee MADE IN
not examining farther into the real
| facts instead of giving so much Welght
/ to that minority report. They would
have the public believe that it was a
steel ceiling" costing in the neighbor-
bood Of S10 non when the records IN the