The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1904-02-26

reference, generally. to this work that
II is "a parody upon the science OF
architecture and an insult to the fame
or John r. Niernsee. and 2 disgrace TO
The state of South Carolina.~ (Report,
p. 13)
Does this committee discredit 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
TO such an insult to n distinguished
man, and to such Il Disgrace" to our
native State? If this model OF lin
guistic inaccuracy was honestly in
tended to be simply statement that
mechanical employees had failed to
carry out their contract, why the bonn
bastic and Erandilonuent language in
which the report is dressed? When n
committee ascertains and reports that
an architect has failed to be efficient
or contractor has sighted his work,
does ii reveal n dark picture?"
Again: In referring to the satisfac-
tion entered by the governor on the
bond given by the contractors. the lucid
composer OF the report uses the follow
Ing language: This surrender ana 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 ii 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
1t comes within the scope Of their
duties 10 determine questions or law
involved in the matters embraced
herein. but would regard ii 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" QReport, p. l2D
The members OF this commission
herein referred to by designation OF
office deem 1t proper to state that their
self-respcct forces them to treat this
language as If 1t does not express the
idenS 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 mnletactors" referred to
are the then governor and the then at
torney general. inasmuch as the only
inference to be drawn from such lam
guage Uf intclllGentlv 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 q palpablc and noto-
rious fraud and swindie 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
MI in all il Is simply infamous. 10
start with. an uglicr and n more un-
slightly creation could not he devised
even had IL been properly constructed
rN-.lfi S1ln fl,lt . ;s.
nothing short of II miserable fraud
(keport, 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 10 prove these facts.
The members of the State house COM
mission have been honorod by the pco-
pic of South Carolina. and they feel that
their good names have been assailcd
and that they owe it, not only to them
selves and their families hut to their
people as well, that the greatest ana
fullest flood OF light should be thrown
upon the whole transaction.
HOW THE SO-CALLED INVESTI-
CATION WAS CONDUCTED.
That against which we most siren
uouay protest is the manner in which
the joint committee conducted the in
VcStigation. 1t was denied upon the
floor OF the house that member of our
commission had asked for n hearing
the attention of your honorable body
is. therefore. especially asked to what
we consider 10 be undcniable facts in
connection with the report OF the Joint
committee hcreinbefore referred to-
II Will be noted that said committee
was empowered tn consider the several
reports Of the commission for the com
piction of the State house, to appoint
a secretary. to employ an architect
and To summon witnesses. We contend
that the report Of the majority of the
commission, as well as the rcnort of
the minority. should have received the
Same consideration and that witnesses
should have been impartially sum-
moncd To sustain or attack both.
The majority report is practically
dismissed with n quotation of less than
four lines, whereas the dissenting and
accusing report of Mr. Marshall. the
minority member, is set ont at large in
III specifications. and all of the teSti-
mony taken is directed against the
majority ana in favor Of the minority
report; and the committee thcrcupon,
To use their own language. feel con
strained To report generally that the
minority report Of Senator j. q. Mar
snail was fully sustained by the cvi-
dence taken and by the visible facts
Tor all to see for themselves who choose
~ ." "NcI INC bulltilnS ana make even
a casnal examination OF it,"
II will he remembered .nat both of
these reports went officially to the leg
stature ard both of them were re-
ferrcd 10 tho joint investigating COM
mittec. We contend that each should
nave received the same consideration
as the other. We submit evidence 10
show that Mr.. Marshall attended the
sittinSs Of the committee during the
taking of the testimony herein, where
as no member Of this commission was
present at any time. (Scc testimony
OF ID. H. Means. exhibit Il. and OF i. Il.
exhibit FD
II is an admitted fact That no sin
gle member of HE commission. with the
exception of Mr.. Marshall was noti-
fled that he could be heard before the
committee or given notice as To- the
time or place of meeting of said com
lmttee. We tender testimony 10 show