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

referred to said. We are satisfied that
there is no question as 20 the strength
of this revised design. With this
change il became necessary to give
greater piJc:1 - the Eoof than orisi-
E! nallS Intended. and 10 make numerous
notifications ana changes in the spec
i:cat:onS and detail drawings for Tie
work For Instance. the change III
pitch OF ,he rooe ooviated 1he necessity
for the ventiiatorS shown III the orig
;::al plans. Which would have been un-
slightly thereon. The modified and re-
viSet drawings for this portion o; the
work are still on file in my Office ;t!r!
could have been seen by the inTeSi!-
! eating committee and their expert
/ haG they so desired.
It IS charged thai :he window franz
! Of the dome Go not fit. This appeal
ance is no doubt caused BY the tact
! that some OF them were blown III duE-
ing 4 severe storm last summer
! Again. that there ar@ kiakS iti!a
crirnDS in the galvanized IRON ol tEe
inner dome. But these are 40 DOUBT
due to natural expansion ai!" eoii''>'e-
. ton.
Again that some stones on the out
: side of The dome arg 100 shN't. and the
I CONTRACTORS filed up the spaces NON,
TIE fact IS. YOU cannot keep the water
oI,t o! & close joint OF stones: there
must, be space enough 10 calk and ce-
.nent. and it is necessary at that point.
II must be understood that the little
j water oozinS past the cement swels
! the oakun and this makes the Joint
water proof.
But the great bulk of criticism
OF the work on the dome is that
!; is not according to plans and
specifications. and that the nlans
actually used are not what they
should be. II is true that much Of ii
is not according TO the drawings ana
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 aDle 10
judge of the work, at this time, than
We're the mem bers OF the capitol COM
mission, who saw the work as II pro-
greSsed and when i was completed ana
accepted.
Ninth. That the wood truss under
the portico roof, called toc by the draw
inss. is absent.
After the commission decided 70
! omit the two columns before referred
TO. rhe wood truss was 10 longer prop
; er. the drawings We're changed ana
steel trussed perlins substituted. span
! ming the por;ico the shortest way
And here again the committee unoef-
takes to criricise the use OF built up
sections. as called for by the drawings,
c.. ~
deed. they criticise everything except
the contract price. which every oouS
knows was very low.
Tenth. That sheet OF galvanized
iron 1-32 of an inch thick is all there
; is between the interior o. the buudlnS
and the wide. wide world.
These cutters are not galvanized lron
but the best quality OF IN tin. which is
the best gutter lining that can be used.
Copper 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 iin-
tel stones in the rear portico is cracked.
this being the last Of the speclfc
charges which is numbered.
This stone showed no defect when
the work was accepted. but has bro
ken since then. I do not believe IL is
likely TO give away" Apparently per-
feet stones Will sometimes crack in a
building and cannot be guarded
against. The committee could nave
easily found evidence Of this fact. mad
they desired it. in several large stones,
on the east side Of the building, which
n
, very large stone on the South Sloe
near the west corner.
Next: That the contractors did not
protect the interior ot the building dur
ing the work.
Il is almost impossible to fully pro
tect a building during repairs ana
changes and let the occupants remain
inside-it is not like an uaoccupled
building. could not. and did not.
undertake to prescribe just how the
contractors should protect the oto
work. and they claimed TO the commits
sion that they had done all they could
do to that end.
In this connection il must be reuem-
bered that many Of the stains from
leaks in different parts Of the building
were there before the work under IN
vestigation begun.
Next: AS to the cement floors ana
water leaking from above.
Only one day last month was sur
/ o.;sed to see so much water in the
! passa geway under the front portlco.
as i, had not rained for several Gays.
and I called the attention Of Mr.. VII
liam Banks Of The State 20 the condi-
1ions. Careful examination showed
that the walls Of the building were
sweating all around, but where the dirt
was against the building 1t 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 an
space in the centre. This is one OF the
most serious defects in any part OF the
State house had nothing TO Go 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 lnspec-
tor of sewers and plumbing. or even a
sewerage system. These rules vary IN
different cities. and in the absence OF
any prescribed rules each aScnltect
uses such plans and methods as seem
best. considering location and sur
rounGings, general appearance and
sanitary rules. In all these matters
there is constant improvement. Just as
we have greatly improved on Old CLOS
cts in the basement. which were IN
c+,1laS U-han Col Marshall vas On the