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

Columbia to teach the officials and
citizens of this State the aesthetic as
we'll IS architecture, who testifies in
reference, generally, to this work that
it is "a parody upon the science of
architecture and an insult to the fame
Of John R. Niernsee, and disgrace to
the State of South Carolina (Report,
p. 13.}
Does this committee discredit the IN
telligence Of the people Of this State
to such an extent as to believe that
they Will accept the statement that no
intention is herein expressed to reject
upon the commission who was party
to such an insult to a distinguished
man, and to such a disgrace" to our
native State? If this model Of lin
guistic inaccuracy was honestly in
tended to be simply a statement that
mechanical employees had failed to
carry out their contract, why the bonn
bastic and grandiloquent language IN
which the report is dressed? When a
committee ascertains and reports that
an architect has failed to be efficient,
or a contractor has sighted his work,
does it reveal a dark picture?'
Again: In referring to the satlsfac-
ton entered by the governor on the
composer of the report uses the follow
ing language: This surrender and at
tempted discharge of this bond, the
States only security for the vast losses
sustained, was not the act Of the COM
mission, as the governor alone, advised,
as it is said, by the attorney general,
undertook to perform this act, and 1t
may be that the State may yet be able
to realize upon this security.
"Your committee do not consider that
it comes within the scope Of their
duties to determine questions of law
involved in the matters, embraced
herein, but would regard it remark
able indeed if there were not some rem
edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring
these malefactors to justice, and to
some extent redress the wrongs OF the
State" (Report, p. 10
The members of this commission
herein referred to by designation OF
office deem it proper to state that their
self-respect forces them to- treat this
language as if it does not express the
ideas or opinions Of the respective
members Of the investigating commit
tee; yet we have reason to know that
many intelligent people Of this State
believe 'the' malefactors" referred to
are the then governor and the then at
torney general, inasmuch as the only
inference to be drawn from such Ian
guage (if intelligently used by a man
Of ordinary education) is that these
officers attempted" and undertook
to destroy the only remedy that the
State had against the employees who
had committed a palpable and noto-
rious fraud and swindle upon the COM
monwealth.
Laying aside expressions Of indigna-
ton and using simply the language OF
criticism, we feel that the words Of the
distinguished composer Of the report,
as he addresses the dome Of the capitol,
justly describes these two paragraphs
in connection with the report:
''This is the crowning piece Of this
work in more senses than one. Taken
all in all it is simply Infamous. To
start with, an uglier and a more un-
slightly creation could not be devised
even had it been properly constructed
but our observation shows that it is
nothing short Of a miserable fraud y
Report, p. 81
we feel that we are unjustly reflected
upon. We knew that we had discharged
our duty faithfully and honestly. We
knew that the State had received full
value for every penny we had "ex-
pended, and we only asked an oppOr-
tunity to prove these facts.
The members of the State house COM
mission have been honored by the peo-
pie of South Carolina, and they feel that
their good names have been aSsalied
and that they owe it, not only to them
selves and their families but to their
people as well, that the greatest and
fullest food Of light should be thrown
upon the whole transaction.
HOW TIE SO-CALLED INVEST
CATION WAS CONDUCTED.
That against which we most siren
uously protest is the manner in which
the Joint committee conducted the in
vestigation. It was denied upon the
floor of the house that a member Of our
commission had asked for a hearing.
The attention Of your honorable body
is, therefore, especially asked to what
we consider to be undeniable facts in
connection with the report Of the joint
committee hereinbefore referred to.
It will be noted that said committee
was empowered to consider the several
reports Of the commission for the COM
pletion of the State house, to appoint
a secretary, to employ an architect,
and to summon witnesses. We contend
that the report of the majority OF the
commission, as we'll as the. report OF
the minority, should have received the
same considerable and that witnesses
should have been irnpartialiy sum-
rnoned to sustain or attack both.
The majority report is practically
dismissed with quotation of less than
four lines whereas the dissenting and
accusing report Of Mr.. Marshall, the
minority member, is set out at large in
II specifications, and all Of the testl-
mony taken is directed against the
majority and in favor of the minority
report; and the committee thereupon,
to use their own language, 'feel con-
strained to report generally that the
minority report Of Senator j. @. Mar
shall was fully sustained by the evil
dence taken and by the visible facts
for all to see for themselves who choose
to go over the building and make even
a casual examination of it.
1t will be remembered that both OF
these reports went officially to the leg
islature and both of them were re-
ferred to the joint investigating COM
mittee We contend that each should
have received the same consideration
as the other. We submit evidence to
show that Mr.. Marshall attended the
sittings of the committee during the
taking Of the testimony herein. where
as no member of this commission was
present at any time (See testimony
of D. H. Means, exhibit f. and of j. 3.
Garfunkel exhibit F)