The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1904-02-25

referred to said. I'VE are satisfied that
tierc is TO question rs 20 the strength
OF this revised design With this
change il became necessary to give
Sreale: pitch 20 the coof than orlgi-
najiE Intended. aud 10 make numerous
notifications and changes in the spec
il:catlonS ard d%taii drawings for the
work. For instance. Tie Nh%n&" L!
nitci uf he roof 0hNiat"t The necessity
for th,. .a,iiaio:s shown il the Org
ina! D,ai.S. which UUUii have been Ni!-
siehI;y thereon. The modified ant re-
yis,,i drawings t3i' t!i:s portion oE the
woin az S;!:! en- Ills. in rNE cf;ice ~!
could have '@vI, seen by the lENeSi!-
Satia. committee ana their "eXpest
naG taey 50 desired.
II j. charged that he window frames
ot IT,. come DO not tt. This appear
an,e is 10 duuh: caused By the 1att
that some Of them Were blown III dur
i:.3 :? severe storm las, summer.
Again. that there are kinks aHd
cr::nrs in the galvanized iron Of the
! inner dome. Eut these are no donbt
dl:.- 20 natural expansion and contl;tc-
ton.
Again that some stones on the out
side of The come are too ShCTt. and tie
+ contractors filled up the spaces. NOW
the feet is. YOU cannot keep the water
out OF close joint Of stones; there
must be space enough to calk ana ce-
,nen,. and it is necessary al that poll!'.
: 1t must be understood that the httie
! water ooZins past the cement sWelS
the oakum and this makes the joint
water proof.
! But the great bulk OF criticism
of the work on the dome is that
! i is not according to plans and
specifications, and that the nlals
! actually used are not what tneS
should be. 1t is true that much OF 1t
is not according 20 the drawings anu
! specifications seen By the committee
and their expert, but are substantl''
! compliance with the modified drawings
and detailed working plans. AS 10 tne
criticism by Mr.. Hunt and the commit
! tee of the plans as changed and actu-
ally carried out. I insist that neither
this contractor nor this committee are
competent judges. Surely the members
nT tCa committee are no better abie 10
iu6ge of the work. at this time. than
were the members Of the capitol COM
mission, who saw the work as 1t pro-
! sressaG and when il was completed ana
accepted.
Ninth. That the wood truss under
the portico roof, called Icr by the draw
ingS, is absent.
sftar the commission decided 20
omit the two columns before referred
"a the wood truss was no longer prop
or. the drawings were changed ana
/ steel trussed perlins substituted, SPAN
ming the portico the shortest way.
And here again the committee under
tikes to crit!cise 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 1-3a of an inch thick is all there
! is between the interior Of the building
and the wide. wide world.
These cutters are not galvanized ron
hnt the best quality of * 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 sloe.
| csulked with lead in the stone and the
gutter bed lays fat on the stone cor
nice.
Eleventh. That one Of the large lin.
rel stones in the rear portico is cracked,
! this being the last OF the specll!c
! charges which is numbered. :.
This stone showed no defect Whea
the work was accepted. but has bro
ken since then. I do not believe it IS
likely to give away" Apparently per-
feet stones will sometimes crack IN a
building and cannot be Eualded
against The committee could nave
easily found evidence Of this fact, hao
they desired it, in several large stones,
on the east side of the building, which
very large stone on the south Sioc
near the west corner.
Next: That the contractors did not
protect the interior Of the building DUR
ing the work.
It is almost impossible to fully pro-
tect a building during repairs anu
changes and let the occupants remain
inside-it is rot like an Cnoccupled
building. I could not. and did not,
undertake 10 prescribe just how the
contractors should protect the ola
work. and they claimed to the commls-
sion that they had done all they could
do to that end.
In this connection it must be Te1nem-
bered that many OF the stains from
, leaks in different parts of the building
we're there before the work under IN
vestigation begun.
! Next: AS to the cement hocrs ana
water leaking from above.
! Only one day last month I was sur
r,.ised TO see so much water IN the
| passagewav under the front poruco'
as it had not rained for several DAYS,
and + called the attention OF MIR. Will
liam Banks of The State to the condl-
tjons. Careful examination showed
that the walls of the building were
sweating al around, but where the clrt
I was against the building it ABSORBED
the water, while it was not so aoSorpeo
where the cement floors Jolned the
, walls. The walls sweat regularly.
! This would not have been the case had
thev been built hollow in the outset
: thew had enough thickness for ar
space in the centre. This is one OF the
/ most serious defects in any part OF the
State house. l had nothing to do with
/ it.
Next: AS to the defective water clos
cts and plumbing.
This work was all done before the
city had plumbing rules. or an inspec-
toy of sewers and plumbing. or even q
sewerage system. These rules vary IN
] different cities. and in the absence Oh
anv prescribed rules each aTchltect
uses such plans and methods as seem
best, considering location and SUI.
roundings, general appearance ana
sanitary rules. In all these matters
; there is constant Improvement. Jus! as
we have greatly improved on old CLOS
cts in the basement. which were N
stalled when Col. Marshall was on the
commission in charge OF the state