The herald and news. [volume] (Newberry S.C.) 1903-1937, 1904-02-23

referred to said. We are satisfied that
there is no question as 10 the strength
OF this revised design" With this
change it became necessary 10 give
greater pitch 10 the roof than orisi-
naily Intended. and TO make numerous
. nodiEcat tons and changes in the spec
, ifications and detail drawings for the
work. For Instance. the change Ill
pitch of the roof ohviatad the necessity
for the ven,ilators shown in the orig
in;l plans. which would have been un-
slightly thereon. The modified and re-
vised drawings icr This PORTION of the
! work are S;iii OH tile i'll my office and
could have been Seen by thu inveSi.-
! satin" committee and their expert
haG they So desired.
: II IS charged that tie window frames
of the dome 10 NOT iii. This appear
! ance is no doubt caused by the fact
that some OF them We're blown in dur
iu:: Il severe storm last summer.
again. that there are kinks and
c-imrs in the galvanized iron Of the
inner dome. But these are 10 doubt
due to natural expansion and cOntrar-
ton.
Again that some stones on the out
side OF The dome are too Short. and the
contractors filled up the spaces. Now.
the fact is. you cannot keep the water
out OF 4 close joint Of stones: there
must be space enough to calk and ce-
meut, and il is necessary at that point.
II must be understood that the little
! water ooZing past the cement swe.!s
;hc oakum and thiA makes the joint
water proof.
But the great bulk of criticism
OF the work on the dome IS lhat
il is not according to plans and
specifications. and that the plans
actually used are not what they
should be. II is true that much OF II
I is not according 10 the drawings and
specifications seen by the committee
and their expert. but are 4 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-
allv carried out. ! insist that neither
; this contractor nor this committee are
competent judges. Surely the members
Of the committee are 70 better able TO
Judge Of the work, al this time. than
were the members Of the caplto! COM
mission, who sawithe work as Il pro-
:,ressed and when il WAS completed and
accepted.
Ninth. That the wood truss under
,he uor1jco roof, called for by the draw
ings. is absent.
/ After the commission decided to
/ omit the two columns before reierred
! 10, the wood truss was no longer prop
! or, the drawings We're changed ana
steel tlussed perlins substituted. span
ning the poctico the shortest way
! And here again the committee under
takes 20 criticise the use of built up
sections, as called for by IN" drawings.
! instead OF expensive solid stones. m
deed. they criticise everything except
! the contract price. Wllcn every pouS
knows was very low.
Tenth. That a sheet Of. galvanized
iron 1-32 of an inch thick is al there
is between the interior OF the building
and the wide. wide world.
These cutters are not galvanized iron.
but the best quality of IN tin. which is
the best gutter lining that can be used.
Copper lasts longer. but the expansion
is 100 great. These cutters. which are
OF the usual thickness for this class Oh
work. are painted on the under side.
caulked with lead in the stone and the
gutter bed lays fat 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 SpeclHc
charges which is numbered.
This stone showed no defect wren
the work was accepted. but has Ero-
ken since then. ] do not believe 1t is
; likely 10 give away" Apparently per-
: feet stones will sometimes crack in q
; building and cannot be guarded
against. The committee could have
easily found evidence Of this fact. had
! they desired it. in several large stones.
on the east side o. the building, when
are cracked and broken, as IS also Il
\ q
near the west corner.
Next: That the contractors dlQ not
protect the interior of the building dur
ing the work.
+, II 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. I could not. and did not.
undertake to prescribe just now the
! contractors should protect the OLD
work. and they claimed to the commits
! sion that they mad done all they could
! do to that end.
! In t. : connection II must be Temem-
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 10 the cement nNorS ana
! water leaking from above.
: Only one day last month l was sur
prised 10 see SO much water in the
. passageway under the front poruco,
! rs it had not rained for several days,
and called the attention of Mr.. Will
liam Banks Of The State to the condi-
tionS. Careful examination showed
! that the walls Of the building We're
swea ting al! around. but where the dirt
was against the building it absorbed
! the water. while it was not so absorbed
where the cement floors joined me
walls The walls sweat regularly.
. This would net 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
I most seSious 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 ALI done before the
city had plumbing rules. or IN lEspec-
tor Of sewers and plumbing. or even 4
. sewerage system. These rules vary IN
! different cities. and in the absence OF
any prescribed rules each architect
! uses such plans and methods as Seem
best. considering location and sur
roundiags. general appearance ana
sanitary rules. In ali these matters
there is constant Improvement. just rs
we have greatly improved on Old cos
els in the basement. which We're in
,,.oc on fbp