The Laurens advertiser. (Laurens, S.C.) 1885-1973, 1904-02-24

After keeping the testimony, and
their proceedings secret, as L believe
from May to December, more than six
months, | received a note from the
secretary of the committee, dated
Barnwell. S. c., Dec. Z, 1903, but mailed
in Columbia. nth December, giving me
committee, II L desired. Having heard
of the proceedings i'm May, at which l
vas told, and believed. Col. Marshall
had been present, L decided, without
having counsel, that j had best not
appear unless the committee desired my
presence. 1 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 it's du-
ties and the prope expenditure of the
States money, hence had nothing to
explain away. But knowing that / had
modified and detailed drawings in my
office not on file i'm the State house,
/ offered to place my office records at
the disposal of the committee. In this
connection / see hat my note to the
committee has been termed curt" L
wish TO disclaim any such intention;
n If 1t is, L regret it, n plead in eX-
tenuation the fact that | began the
struggle for bread early in life, and had
the opportunities of collegiate edu-
cation enjoyed by some members of the
investigating committee.
But lin Justice to the capitol commits
sion. which with one exception APP
proved my work, as well as to myself
and family, L 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 secretary OF state were not suitable
and complete.
l 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 ana builders of this section
of the country who, after studying
those plans carefully TO base upon
them bids for n very large sum of
money, secured by a heavy bond, had
bid upon this work. Some of these
gentlemen were personally known TO
members of the commission, and their
tatomen were to the effect that the
drawings and specifications We're plain
enough to make an intelligent bid. that
the plans and specifications We're fully
understood, and We're proper for good
work. The opinion of such well known
contractors and builders as Guide e.
Walker. j. w. Bishop & CO., w. "A.
Chesterman and Nicholas 1ttner, COM
monty known ms Honest Nick" u
outweigh the opinion of MIR. Marshall
and the Washington expert" with any
impartial judge.
Second. That the contract fxed the
old work on the completed portion of
tn" 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 ''prototypc," on one of the
general drawings, and this was intend
ed to apply only to style. outline, form,
shape; ana 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
neccssitated great economy, and
the scale detail drawings show that 1T
to be built up of several members,
as II was done, instead of the more eX-
pensiVe one-picce cornicc.
Referring to sheet Is OF the general
drawings where the note before re-
ferred to is found, 1t will be seen that
the work is to be the same only when
1t has its prototype in the old building.
it does not mean that the cornice,
for Instance, is to he Identical with the
old work, o have only to see sheet Z
of those same drawings, where the
cornice is distinctly shown to be built
up of several pieces.
Third. That the state at n great cX-
pensc. in thc ncighborhood of $40, 900,
had At splendid steel ceiling in the main
lobby, which the contractors took
and converted to their own use. where
by the state lost in the neighborhood
OF $40, 00C.
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 vas
thoroughly examined. it was found to
be galvanized iron. in n bad condition
and difficult to work into shape, es-
pccially az IL contained ceiling lights
no longer OF use. The contractors said
1t would require special workmen and
considerable loss OF time to patch it
UP, n would not then be as salts
factory as n new ceiling, which could
be gotten in less time, n enable them
TO be ready for the meeting of the
legislature, although the new ceiling
vestigation of all the facts and con-
ditions. 1 decided that it was ia
the interest of the state to accept N"
proposed change. n / approved the
ceiling they used. which harmonizes
perfectly with the design of the cell
ing under the balcony around the main
lobby, which was placed there under
MIR. Nicrnsee's supervision. AS both
are in the same lobby and are
seen at the same time, harmony is es-
scntial. Neither the cornice nor cove
mouldings in this lobby were interfered
with, but the new ceiling was used only
I'm 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 1 would
not allow 1t. and, the state opt tho
new ceilings without cost.
This item shows the fearful mistake
the investigating committee made I'm
not examining farther into the real
facts instead of giving so much weight
to that minority report. They would
have the public believe that 1t was n
steel ceiling" costing in the neighbour
hood of $4,000, when the records i'm the
secretary of states office show that all
the ceilings n cornices, steel beams.
and skylights i'm the %rotunda. or main
lobby, and the ceiling over the senate
lobby together, cost only S7.S9S. on the