The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1904-02-25

eferred to said We are satisfied that
there is no question as to the strength
of this revised design With this
change it became necessary to give
greater pitch TO the roof than origi-
nally intended, and to make numerous
notifications and changes in the spec
ifications and detail drawings for the
work. For instance, the change IN
pitch of the roof obviateG the necessity
( for the ventilators shown in the orig
iaal plans which would have been un-
slightly thereon. The modified and re-
vise6 drawings for this portion Of the
work are still on file in my Office and
could have been seen by the inyestl-
eating committee and their expert"
had they so desired.
It is charged that the window frames
of the dome do not fit This appear
ance is no doubt caused by the fact
that some Of them were blown in dur
ing a severe storm last simmer.
Again. that there are kinks and
crinps in the galvanized iron Of the
inner dome. But these are no doubt
due to natural expansion and contrac-
ton.
Again that some stones on the out
side of the dome are too short, and the
contractors filed up the spaces Now,
the fact is, you cannot keep the water
out Of a close joint Of stones; there
must be space enough to calk and ce-
mene, and it is necessary at that point
It must be understood that the little
water oozing past the cement swells
the oakum and this makes the joint
water proof
But the great bulk of criticism
it is not according to plans and
Specifications, and that the plans
actually used are noe what they
should be. It is true that much OF It
is not according to the drawings and
Specifications seen by the committee
and their expert, but are 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-
ally carried out, I insist. that neither
this contractor nor this committee are
competent judges. Surely the members
Of the committee are no better able 10
Judge of the work, at this time, than
were the members Of the capitol COM
mission. who saw the work as It pro-
gressed and when it was completed and
accepted.
Ninth. That the wood truss under
the portico roof, called for by the draw
ings, is absent.
After the commission decided to
omit the two columns before referred
to. the wood truss was no longer prop
er. the drawings We're changed and
steel trussed perlins substituted, span
ming the portice the shortest way.
And here again the committee under
takes to criticise the use OF built up
sections, as called for by the drawings,
instead of expensive solid stones. IN.
deed, they eritieise everything except
the contract price, which every BODY
knows was very low y
Tenth. That sheet Of galvanized
IRON l. of an inch thick is all there
is between the interior Of the BUILDING
and the wide, wide world.
These cutters are not galvanized IRON,
but the best quality Of TX tin, which is
the best gutter lining that canspe used.
Cooper 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 side.
caulked with lead in the stone and the
gutter bed lays fiat 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 Nspeclhc
charges which is nunpered.
This stone showed no defect when
the work was accepted, but has bro
ken since then. I do not believe 1t IS
likely to ..give away" Apparently per-
feet stones Will sometimes crack IN a
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 Of the building, which
are cracked and broken, as is also a
very large stone on the south side
near the west corner.
Next: That the contractors did not
protect the interior Of the building dur
ing the work.
1t is almost impossible to fully pro-
tect a building during repairs and:
changes and let the occupants remain
inside-it is not like an unoccupleq
building. could not, and did not,
undertake TO prescribe just how the
contractors should protect the Old
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 remen-
bered that many Of the stains from
leaks IN C1UerenI parts OI LIE OoiiolhS
were there before the work under in
yestigation begun.
Next: As to the cement floors and
water leaking from above.
Only one day last month was sur.
prised to see so much water IN the
passageway under the front portieo,
as it had not rained for several days,
and I called the attention Of Mr.. Will
liam Banks Of The State to the condi-
tons. Careful examination showed
that the walls of the building We're
sweating all around, but where the dirt
was against the building it absorbed
the water, while it was not so absorbed
where the cement floors joined the
walls. The walls sweat regularly.
This would not 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
most serious defects in any part OF the
State house. 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 mspec-
tor Of sewers and plumbing. or even a
sewerage system. These rules vary in
different cities, and in the absence OF
oh,