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

referred to said, we are satisfied that
,he'e ~ !:n siueSt.o:i as 10 the strength
of this revised deSign." With this
change IL became necessary TO give
greater pitch to the roof than orjsi-
naliy intended, and to make numerous
modincatlons and changes in the spec
llicatloHS and detail drawings for the
work. For instance. the change in
pitch of the roof obviated the necessity
for the ventilators shown in the orig
innl plans. which would have been ull-
slightly thereon. The modified and re-
rised drawings for this portion OF the
work are stiii on file I'm my Office and
could have been seen by the inVesti-
eating committee and their expert"
had they so desired
/ IL is charged that the window frames
of the dome do not At. This appear
ance is no doubt caused by the fact
that some of them were blown IN dur
ing severe storm last summer.
i Again. that there are kinks and
Crimps in the galvanized iron of the
inner dome. But these are no doubt
! due to natural eapunsion ana contrac-
/ tion.
I Again that some stones on the out
side of the dome are too short and the
contractors hiled up the spaces. New,
the fact is, you cannot keep the water
out OF close Joint of stones; there
| must be space enough to calk and ce-
mcnt, and 1t is necessary at that point
| II must be understood that the little
water oozing past the cement swells
the oakum and this makes the joint
water proof.
But the great bulk of criticism
F.. of the work on the dome Is that
| II is not according to plans and
specifications, and that the nlans
| actually used are not what they
should be. 1t Is true that much OF ii
is not according to the drawings and
specifications seen by the committee
and their expert, but are 6. substantial
compliance with the modified drawings
and detailed working plans. AS to the
criticism by Mr.. Hunt and the commit
tee Of the plans as changed and actu-
this contractor nor this committee are
competent judges. Surely the members
Of the committee are no better able 20
judge Of the work, ut this time than
We're the members Of the capitol COM
mission, who saw the work as it pro-
gressed ara when it was completed and
accepted
Ninth. That the wood truss under
| the pOrtico roof, called for by the draw
| ngs, is absent.
I After the commission decided to
omit the two columns before referred
TO. the wood truss was no longer prop
er, the drawings We're changed and
steel truSsed peTlinS substituted, span
ming the portico the shortest way.
| And here again the committee under
takes. to criticise the use of built up
sections, as called for by the drawings,
| instead OF expensive solid stones In
deed, they criticise everything except
the contract price. which every body
knows was very low.
Tenth. That sheet of galvanized
iron 1-32 Of an inch thick is Ill there
is between the interior Of the building
hnd ihe wide, wide world"
These cutters are not galvanized iron,
but the best quality Of TX tin. which is
the best gutter lining that can be used.
Copper lasts longer, but the expansion
Is too great. These cutters. which are
Of the usual thickness for this class of
work, are painted on the under side
caulked with lead In the stone and the
gutter bed lays flat on the stone cor
nice
Eleventh. That one of the large lin
tel stones in the rear portico is cracked,
this being the last of the specific
charges which Is numbered.
| This stone showed no defect when
the work Was accepted, but mas bro
ken since then. 1 do not believe it is
likely to give away" Apparently per-
feet stones will sometimes crack in a
building and cannot be guarded
against. The committee could have
easily found evidence of this fact, had
! they desired it, in several large stones,
OH the cast side of the building, which
are cracked and broken. as is also a
tverN large stone on the south side
near the west corner.
! Next: That the contractors did not
protect the interior of the building dur
| ing the work.
1t is almost impossible to fully pro-
tect building during repairs and
changes and let the occupants remain
| inside-it is not like an unoccupied
building. / could not, and did not,
undertake to prescribe just how the
contractors should protect the old
work, and they claimed to the commits
| sion that they had done all they could
do to that end.
In this competition 1t must be remem-
bered that many Of the stains from
leaks In different parts of the building
were there before the work under in
vestigation begun. >
Next: AS to the cement floors and
water leaking from above.
Only one day last month I was sur
prised to see so much water in the
| passageway under the front portico,
as 1t had not raihed for several days,
and called the attention Of Mr.. Will |
liam Ranks Of The STATE 10 the cOndi- |
tons. Careful examination showed
| that the walls of the building We're
sweating all around, but where the dirt
was against the building It absorbed |
| the water, while 1t was not so absorbed
where the cement floors Joined the
walls The walls sweat regularly.
This would not have been the case had !
they been built hollow in the outset
they had enough thickness for air
space in the centre. This is one Of the
most serious defects in any part of the
/ State house. / had nothing to do with |
| IL. l.W ,r.a '{l I, 4.
!, Next AS to the defective water clos
] cts and plumbing. |
! This work was all done before the
! city had plumbing rules. or an inspec-'|
tor OF sewers and plumbing. or even a
sewerage system. These rules vary in !
| different cities, and in the absence OF
any prescribed rules each architecti
uses such plans and methods as seem
| best, considering location and SUR
sanitary rules. In all these matters
I there is constant Improvement. just as
I'VE have greatly improved on old rlos- |
cts in the basement. which were in
stalled when Col. Marshall was on the |
commission In charge OF the State
house improvements. II trust that the
State Is able to- get even more Sventi-
| lation, by electric fans. as suggested, or
| otherwise. MS the present location was