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

or matters OF personal knowledge IN |
connection with the work on the State |
house, Will be fully and frankly given
under oath to any attorney or attorneys
that the legislature, governor or any
other properly constituted authority
may appoint to prosecute suits In the
interest Of the State. This commits
sion, under the provisions Of the law
constituting it, elected an architect and
paid him the usual fees to design and
superintend the work Of completion Of
the capitol. The commission, under
the provision of the law, let the work
to the lowest bidder. II there has
been any collusion between the archi-
tect and the contractor it is fact alb
Solutely unknown and nnsuspected by
the State house commission, and there
has not been published or produced a !
scintilla Of evidence TO prove that any
such collusion existed
CAN WE AFFORD TO PAY FOR
MAGNIFTCENCE?
When the commission was appointed
to complete the State house the scope
Of its duty was clearly marked out in
the act creating 1t. It was required
by the law to complete the State house
within the appropriation Of $4,000.
When the fact is considered that the
State house as it stood in its incomplete
condition had cost the State of South
Carolina over $1,000, 900, it would have
been the height Of folly for our COM
mission to attempt with the limited
sign Of the original architect, who de-
signed and contemplated a s5,000,O00
building. The act further stipulated
that not one dollar Of the money ap-
propriated should be expended until
a contract for the completion OF the
building within the amount stipulated
was made, and this contract we were
directed to make and did make. It
has been the purpose Of the commits
sion in the expending of the limited sum
at our disposal to make all permanent
work good and substantial. to conform
as near as possible to the original
building, and if there has been, as al
legged, cheap and shoddy work" put
upon the building, an investigation will
reveal that such work can be easily re-
moved at any time, without marring
in any way the substantial portions
of the building, and that it can be re-
placed by as costly material as the
State cares to pay for. Only $1,000
was spent for the roof. This roof it
was believed, would be satisfactory;
ifit has not proven so it can be easily
replaced by as expensive a structure as
have served the purpose. The COM
mission in this matter, as IN many
others involving questions Of the re-
lative quality Of materials and meth
DDS of construction, relied to a large
extent upon the judgment Of the archi.
tect. AS business men they felt that
the wide and varied experience of the
men whom they had entrusted with
the power and authority Of an archi-
tect, which must of necessity be extern
sive, justified them in deferring to
his judgment and advice. This arch
itect was necessarily governed by the
amount appropriated for the work.
and, of course, could use only such ma
for.
The limited funds placed at our dis
posal is the only reason that any part
of this work is inferior in character
to the best work on the old portions
Of this building. ::.-..
We do not wish, however, to be un-
derstood as apologizing for the present
condition Of the State house. 1t is to-
day an imposing and stately structure
and a credit and an honor to South
Carolina, and the new work, as well
as the old, will stand for centuries.
While the interior of the new work
marble and with delicate carvings by
imported artists, it was not believed
by the commission that the people Of
South Carolina either desired or pur-
posed to have them now. When they
are willing and able to pay for these
things they can be placed there. But
this criticism can be made Of the old
portions Of the building, as we'll as the
new, and notwithstanding the so-called
$4,000 galvanized ceiling liable, in the
words Of this architect, Hunt" to
rust out in few years." which was
placed there by the commission, Of
Der. fifteen years ago. the main cor
ridor Of the building was unsightly
and unadorned by the beautiful marble
with which John r. NiernSee designed
to cover its walls.
AS TO THE SELECTION OF
THE ARCHITECT.
In selecting an architect for the work
1t was the sincere desire Of the COM
mission to put aside personal consid-
erations and to secure for the State the
services Of the best and most expert
enced man whom we could find. Two
plans were presented to the commits
sion, while numerous architects were
suggested, as thoroughly competent to
do the work. Six Of the ten members
Of the commission voted for Frank P.
Milburn, whose plans seemed best
adapted for the work contemplated.
Mr.. Milburn had not only enjoyed wide
experience in the erection Of public
buildings throughout the south, but
came with the prestige Of employment
by the Southern railway for the erec-
tion Of all its stations and buildings.
Besides, he had erected the Thompson
auditorium at Charleston, the court
house at Anderson, and other build
ings, which within the personal knowl-
edge Of members of the commission
had proven satisfactory and he was
as we'll highly recommended to us by
all with whom We knew he had had
dealings. 1t may be added that since
that time, Mr.. Milburn has been Sc
lected as the architect of both the
Florida and North Carolina State cap
itols. Consequently, the commission
thought they were justified in the Sc
lection they had made.
If the report of the joint investigat-
ing committee, however, is followed to
it's logical conclusion, it is evident that
it was the opinion Of that committee
that the commission made a mistake
in electing an architect at all, but that
we should have sent to Washington for
hanger-on around the national CAPT.
tol, to instruct us not only how to erect
a building, but incidentally to show
how to-avoid insulting the memory Of
4 distinguished architect and imposing