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

After keeping the testimony, and
their i;:Gvcc,!!.!2s secret, as believe.
} from May TO December, more than six
months. 1 received a note from the
secretary OF the committee, dated
Ba"nwell. s. c.. Dec = 1903. hut mailed
in Columbia. illh December, giving Inc
an opportunity 10 appear before the
committee. il desired. Having heard
of the proceedings In May, at which
vas told. and believed. Col. Marshal'
| having counsel. that had best not
appear unless the committee desired my
/ presence, had been guilty OF abso'
~ no wrong or conscious neglect
any duty to the state. but had give
my best efforts 10 assist the can't
. commission in the discharge OF IT.
I ties and the proper expenditure
states money, hence ] had nothi.
explain away. But knowing that | h.
/ modified and detailed drawings in n
! office not on file in the State house.
l offered 10 place my office records at
! the disposal Of the committee. In thi,
! connection | see that my note to the
: committee has been termed curt"
WISH 10 disclaim amy such intention:
ana If it is, regret 1t. and plead in ex-
! tenuation. the fact that | 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 well as to myself
and family, l wish to say something in
regard to the specific findings Of the
| 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 elec-
! ton as architect, and was fully con-
sidered and passed upon bv the capitol
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
| money, secured by Il heavy 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 We're plain
| enough to make an intelligent bid. that
| the plans and specifications were fully
/ understood. and We're proper for good
| work. The opinion of such well known
contractors and builders as Guide &
| Walker, j. w. Bishop & Co, w. 3.
| Chesterman and Nicholas 1ttner, 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 compile ted portion OF
the building as the. standard.
This is not true There Is nothing in
the plans and specifications which
could he SO construed except. perhaps.
the word ''prOtotype," Gil one of the
general drawings, and this was intend
| ed to apply only to style, outline. form,
tr,l,< ~1xv
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
Il was not intended to make the stone
cornce in one piece, for instance. The
small appropriation for the whole work
necessitated great economy, and
was to be built UP of several members
HIS ii was done, instead OF the more ey-
pensive one-piece cornice.
Referring 20 sheet Of the general
drawings where the note before re-
ferred to is found. it will be seen tha:
the work is to be the same only when
it has it's prototype in the old building.
That 1t does not mean that the cornice
for instance. is to be Identical with the
old work, you HI; We 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-
rense, in the neighborhood OF $4,000
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 circular open
ing into the ceiling for the inner dome
When the ceiling was cut, and it was
thoroughly examined. 1t was found tC
be galvanized iron. in a bad condition
and difficult to work into shape, es-
pecially as 1t contained teiling lights
no longer Of use, The contractors said
it would require special workmen and
considerable loss of time to patch II
up. and would not then be as salts
4 be gotten In less time, and enable then
to be ready for the meeting of the
legislature. although the. new ceiling
would cost them more. After full in:
ditions, I decided that it was tc
the interest of the State to accept the
proposed change. and approved the
ceiling they used. which harmonizes
perfectly with the design of the cell
ing under the balcony around the nlair
lobby, which was placed there undel
Mr.. Niernsee's supervision. Az botf
/ ceilings are In the same lobby and art
I seen at the same time, harmony LIS es
sential. Neither the cornice nor cove
mouldings In this lobby were interferet
with, but the new ceiling was used only
in the Held or body Of the ceiling
through which the dome is cut. TIL,
contractors thought they ought to hav,
extra for this new ceiling, but would
not allow it, and the State got tn,
new ceilings without cost. X &. 573
This item shows the fearful mistak,
the Investigating committee made Ii
not examining farther into the }rea
facts instead OF giving SO much weigh
to that minority report. They .woult
> have the public believe that 1t was {
Z steel ceiling" costing in the neighbnr
hood OF $4,000. when the records in tn,
secretary Of states office show that al
the ceilings and cornices, steel beams
and skyl'ghts In the rotunda, or lnaii
q lobby, End the ceiling over the senat
lobby together, cost only $685., on tn;
{ I'd af May, 1889. "a Any well INFORMED
man VIII know that the cornice actual
| ly cost much more than the ceiling
THE public must In charity pllt sthi