The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1904-02-24

After keeping the testimony, and
their proceedings secret, as believe
from May to December, more than SIN
months. received o note from tne
secretary of the committee, dated
in Columbia. llth December, giving me
an opportunity tc appear before the
committee. if I desired Having heard
OF the proceedings in May, at which
was told. and believed. Col. Marshall
had been present. l decided. without
having counsel, that I had best not
appear unless the committee desired my
presence, had been guilty OF absolute
Iy; no wrong, or conscious neglect OF
any duty to the State, but had given
my best efforts to assist the capitol
commission In the discharge OF It's du-
ties and the proper expenditure OF the
States money, hence had nothing tc
explain away. But knowing that nae
modified and detailed drawings in my
Office not on file in the State house
I offered to place my Office records al
the disposal of the committee. In this
connection I see that my note to the
committee has been termed curt
wish 10 disclaim any such intention;
and if it is. Iregret it, and plead in ex-
tenuation the fact that began the
struggle for bread early in life, and hac
not the opportunities Of collegiate edu
cation enjoyed by some mem berS OF the
investigating committee.
But in justice to the capltol comH1ls-
sion, which with one exception ap-
proved my work, as we'll as to myself
and family, wish to say something IN
regard to the specific findings Of the
| investigating committee, in the order
stated.
First. AS to the charge that
the plans and specifications filed with
the secretary Of state were not suitable
and complete.
I believe this was the first objection
made by Col. Marshall after my cleo
ton as architect, and was fully con.
sidered and passed upon bv the capitol
commission in the year 1900, Mr.. Mar
shall alone dissenting. At that Tune
the commission had before 1t letters
from four of the most prominent con-
tractors and builders Of this section
Of the country. who, after studying
those plans carefully to base upon
them bids for a very large sum 0!
money, secured by heavy bond, mao
bid upon this work. Some OF tnese
gentlemen were personally known 70
members of the commission, and lnell
statements were to the effect that the
drawings and specifications were PLAIN
enough to make an Intelligent old' tnat
the plans and specifications were fully
understood. and were proper for gooo
work. The opinion Of such we'll known
contractors and builders as GUIDE &
Walker, J. W. Bishop & Co., W. a
Chesterman and Nicholas 1ttner, com
monty known as Honest Nick, must
outweigh the opinion Of Mr.. Marshall
and the Washington expert with any
impartial judge.
Second. That the contract fixed the
old work on the completed portion OF
the building as the standard.
This is not true. There is nothing IN
the plans and specifications which
could be so construed except, perhaps,
the word prototype" on one Of the
general drawings. and this was intend
ed to apply only to style, outline form,
shape; and was not intended to apply
to the classification Of the workman
ship. Under each Of the headings OF
the various classes Of work the same
was fully outlined, giving the number
Of cuts to the inch for the different
parts OF the work.
In this connection. I may say that
it was not intended to make the stone
cornice in one piece, for instance. The
small appropriation for the whole work
necessitated great economy, anc
the scale detail drawings show that IL
was to DE built up Of several members
as it was done, instead Of the more ex-
pensive one-piece cornice.
Referring to sheet 6 of the genera.
drawings where the note before re-
ferred to is found, it viii be seen that
the work is to be the same only When
it has it's prototype in the old building,
That it does not mean that the corrlce
for instance, is to be identical with the
old work, you have only to see sneet
of those same drawings, where the
cornice is distinctly shown to be built
up of several pieces.
Third. That the State at a great eX-
pense, in the neighborhood Of $4,000
had splendid steel ceiling in the main
lobby, which the contractors took
and converted to their own use. where
by the State lost in the neighborhooo
of $4,000.
The plans and specifications required
the contractors to cut circular open
ing into the ceiling for the inner dome
When the ceiling was cut, and 1t was
thoroughly examined, it was found tc
be galvanized iron. in bad CONDITION
and difficult to work into shape, es-
recially as it contained ceiling lights
no longer Of use The contractors said
it would require special workmen and
considerable loss Of time to patch II
I'd, and would not then be as salts
factory as new ceiling, which could
be gotten in less time, and enable them
to be ready for the meeting OF the
legislature, although the new ceiling
would cost them more. After full in
vestigation of ali the facts and con-
ditions, decided that it was to
the interest Of the State to accept the
proposed change. and I approved the
ceiling they used, which harmonlzes
perfectly with the design of the cell
ing under the balcony around the main
lobby, which was placed there under
Mr.. Niernsee's supervision. AS both
ceilings are in the same lobby and are
seen at the same time, harmony is eS-
sential. Neither the cOrnice nor cove
mouIdings in this lobby were interfereo
with, but the new ceiling was used only
in the neld or body Of the ceiling
through which the dome is cut. The
contractors thought they ought to have
extra for this new ceiling, but I would
not allow it, and the State got the
new ceilings without cost.
This item shows the fearful mistake
the investigating committee made IN
not examining farther into the real
facts instead of giving so much weight
to that minority report. They would
have the public believe that it was
steel ceiling costing in the nelgnbor-
hood of $4,000, when the records in the
secretary of states office show that al
the ceilings and cornices. steel beams