The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1904-02-24


torney general gave his official opinion
that the general opinion had been that
the contractors owned the old mate
tial, and the commission could NOT
claim II; that the opinion OF the attor-
ney general was approved by the com
mission, excepting only Mr.. Marshall:
and the commission referred Mr. Gar
tunkeis proposition 10 IL to buy the
Old material from the contractors
repeat that ] cannot believe that
inns investigating committee consid-
cred the report. or knew OF these facts
III they did, 1 think discriminating
public can see that they are determined
10 uphold Col. Marshal's minority re-
port, even If suppression u cold
facts is necessary.
Generally.
AS an evidence that | gave the State
good and honest service in the cNDeud-
,ture of It's money on the State house
ana i'll refutation of many charges
made, but not sustained, by the in
FesGsatinS committee. ] desire to sub
NIT the following statements Of l.on-
or;lDle, 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 10 be-
smirch and inpugn any Uf and all wit
nesses who dared to speak the truth
If not in support of his report:
Nicholas lttner, Contractor. +. Q. Box
COG. Atlanta, Ga.
Atlanta, Ga, March 22190l.
Mr.. Frank z. Milburn. Columbia, S. G..
Dear Sir: Your favor OF the 10Th to
hand. ] examined the material ana
workmanship 1T capitol building. and
flnd 1t first class job. l consider IL u
good, substantial piece OF work.
Yours truly,
(SignedD Nicholas Ittner,
Contractor
savannah, Ga, Aug. II. 1908
Mr.; Frank p. Milburn. Columbia. S.
Dear Sir: In reply to your inquiry
of August 'tii in regard to the work re-
Gently done on the State house. | will
say that | have had considerable eX-
perience in large wori., and have had
quite number of contracts from the
United States government | was one
of the firm of the Stewart Contracting
company. who bid for the contract in
Columbia. l WAS in Columbia Aug
l4tl, and while there inspected the
state house work. AS I, whole, 1 think
the work very satisfactory. There may
be some minor things that / would have
done different II / had been award
ed the contract Anyone looking TO
lind 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 we'll be proud OF.
This is my honest and unprecedented
opinion. Yours truly.
(Signed)
j. E. Burgess, Manager,
savannah Contracting Company.
Note. Mr. Burgess remodeled interior
OF postofiice building in Columbia, in
1908
Augusta, Ga, Sept2. 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 1t as good a job as 1t is pos
sible to make out of a remodelng job,
and being familiar with the price paid
1or the work, l consider the State Sc
cured regular excursion price ON that
building.
We have had considerable experience
in remodeling work, and know how
difficult 1t is to make everything per-
fectly satisfactory, as there is Some-
thing always III the way that cannot
be moved. You would have no trouble
to prove up values il the matter was
as you know from ex-
perience that it is much easier to crit
icise than 1t is to execute.
Yours very truly,
(SiGned) j. II. Mckenzie & Sons,
CIeneFaI contractors.
BY Charles +. Mckenzie.
Johnson City. Tenn, Sept. 26. 1903
Mr.. Frank p. Milburn, Columbia, S.
: Dear Sir: Replying to your inquiry
OF Aug. 26th, asking my opinion of the
work recently done on the South Caro-
lima, State house, l will say that con-
stdered the same we'll executed and full
~ up to the standard for such work
nave had experience in remodeling old
capitols, and have found it hard TO
please every one, as they do not un-
derstand the many troubles that we
nave to contend with. l am surprised
that any objections are raised in re-
gard to the job. as thought the quail
ity OF the work done, considering the
quantity, was we'll worth the price
paid for 1t. I should think 1t would be
worth fully s211GG, GGGGG 10 duplicate the
same work now under the present con-
ditions of markets. etc.
Yours truly,
Slgned) j. l.. Parrish,
contractor and Builder, .Lynchburg.
Columbia. S. c. Feb. 8, 1904.
Mr.. Frank p. Miiburn, Columbia, S.
Dear Sir: Replying to your favor of
regent date, in which, you request JUS to
inspect the work done on the State
capitol building at Columbia, S. c., we
beg to advise as follows:
After n careful inspection of the
work, we are prepared to say that in
our opinion, that the work seems to
have been performed in substantial
and workmanlike. manner. In our opin-
ion, the appropriation was entirely too
small for the amount of work under
taken. Very truly yours.
(SiGned) w. T.. Hadlow Co.
u. BY G. II. Hadlow,
General Contractors. Jacksonville,
Tia.
!. Columbia, S. c.. Feb. Is, 1904
Mr. Frank p. Mfilburn
Dear Sir: I have this day been
through the capitol building at CO.
lumbia, s.. c.. and after looking over
I he work am satisfied that the work
done by the contractor is a faithful
performance Of the spirit and Intent
OF the plans and specifications. as the
work done is worth a great deal more
than his contract price.
i also read Mr.. Hunts report as to
steel ceiling and floor light and am
satisfied that he lis entirely too high in
q IA f0v1 ,f