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

Columbia to teach the officials and
citizens of this State the aesthetic as
well as architecture, who testifes i'm
reference, generally, to this work that
1t is "A parody Upon the science of
architecture and an insult to the fame
OF John II. Niernsee, and a disgrace to
the state of South Carolina.') Report,
p. 49,
Does this committee discredit the in
telligence of the people of this State
to such an extent as to believe tat
they VIII accept the statement that no
intention is herein expressed to reflect
upon the commission who was a party
to such an insult" to q distinguished
man. and to such n disgrace" to our
native state? If this model of lin
guistic inaccuracy was honestly in
tended to be simply n statement that
mechanical employees Il 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 p%icture?"
Again: In referring to the satisfac-
ton entered by the governor on the
bond given by the contractors, the lucid
composer of the report uses the follow
Ing language: This surrender and at
tempted discharge Of this bond, the
Ofs " WIG Nool lpgSto
sustained. was not the act of the COM
mission. as the governor alone, advised,
as 1t 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
n hln indeed 10 In ntA k.nt.A 40 ~,,, ,~,.
edy, civil or criminal, or both, to bring
these m~alefactors to justice. and to
some extent redress the wrongs of the
State OReport, p. 12.)
h 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 Gf in~telligently used by a man
of ordinary e~ducations is hat these
officers "attempted" and undertook"
ito destroy the only remedy that the
state had against the employees who
had committed n palpable and noto-
rious fraud and swindlc pom the COM
monwealth.
Laying aside expressions of indigna-
ton and using simply the language of
criticism, we feel that the words OF the
distinguished d of the report,
as he addresses the dome of the capitol,
justly describes these two paragraphs
in connection with the report:
This is the browning piece of this
work in more senses thar one. Taken
all in all it is simply infamous. To
start with, an uglier n n 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"
Report, p. o.
We feel that we arc unjustly reflected
upon: We knew that we had discharged
our duty faithfully and honestly. We
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 beer honorcd by the peo-
pie of South Carolina, and they feel that
their good names have been assailed
and that they owe 1t. not only to them
selves and their families but to their
people as we'll. that the greatest and
fullest flood of light should be thrown
upon the whole transaction.
HOW THE SO-CALLED INVESTI-
ELL.
That against which We most siren
uously protest is the manner in which
the joint mmitt conducted the in
vestigation. 1t was denied Upon the
floor of the house that n member of our
commission had asked for n 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.
q xstII 1A- ~A@ -A
was empowered to consider the several
reports of the commission for the com
pletion of the State house, to appoint
Il secretary. to employ an architect,
ana to summon witnesses. We contend
that the report of the majority OF the
commission. as well as the report of
the minority, should have received the
same consideration, n that witnesses
should have been impartially sum
moned to sustain or attack both.
the majority report is practically
with 81 quotation of less than
four lines, whereas the dissenting and
accusing report OF Mr.. Marshall, the
minority member. is set out at large in
IL specifications. and all of the testi-
mony k is directed against the
majority and i'm favor OF the minority
report; N the committee thercupon,
To use their ~ language. feel con-
strained to report generally hat the
minority report of Senator j. @. Mar
snail was fully sustained by the evil
dencc takcn 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,"
III VIII be remembered that both OF
these reports went officially to the leg
i~slathrc 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
that Mr.. Marshall attended the
sltiings OF the committee during the
taking OF the testimony herein, where.
as no member OF this commission was
present ut any time. (See testimony
OF ID. III. Means, exhibit E. and of j. Il.
Garfunkol, exhibit FL
1t Is an admitted fact that no sin
gle member OF n commission, with the
exception of Mr.. Marshall, was noti-
fled TINT he could be heard before the
committee or given notice as to tho
time or place of meeting of said COM
nittnn. NIn tnn1nt, tnotf.,,AA, a. -.