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

Columbia to teach the officials and
citizens Of this State the aesthetic as
well as architecture. who testl1ies IN
reference, generally, to this work that
Il is "A parody upon the science Of
architecture and an insult TO the fame
Of John Z. Niernset. and 8 disgrace to
the State Of South Caroiina.D CPeport,
p. 1877
Does this committee d;scredit 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 reflect
upon the commission who was a party
to such an insult" to a distinguished
man, and to such q disgrace" to our
native State? If this model Of lin
guistic inaccuracy was honestly in
tended to he simply 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 dark picture"
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
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 it
! 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. 12.)
The members of this commission
herein referred to by designation OF
office deem it proper to state that tneir
! self-respect forces them to treat this
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 1.-The nlalefactors" 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 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 more un-
: slightly creation could not be devised
even had it been properly constructed
! but our observation shows that 1t is
nothing short of miserable fraud"
! (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 asSailed
and that they owe it, not only to them
| selves and their families but to their
people as we'll. that the greatest and
-, fullest food of light should be thrown
upon the whole transaction.
HOW THE SO-CALLED INVEST"
CATION WAS CONDUCTED.
| That against which We most siren
uously protest is the manner in when
the Joint committee conducted the IN"
vestigation. It was denied upon the
! floor of the house that 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 III
/, connection with the report of the joint
committee hereinbefore referred to.
It will be noted that said COMMITTEES
was empowered to consider the several
reports of the commission for the COM
pletion Of the State house, to appoint
q secretary, to employ an archltect,
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 consideration, and that witnesses
should have been impartially sum-
moned 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 test!-
nony8 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. Q. 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
q casual examination Of it,
It will be remembered that both OF
these reports went officially to the leg
islature and both Of them We're re-
ferred to the joint investigating COM
mittee. We contend that each should
have received the same consideration
as the other. We submit evidence 10
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 e. and of j. 3.
Garfunkel, exhibit F.)
It is an admitted fact that no sim
gle member of the commission, with the
eycention of Mr. Marshall was noti-