The Marlboro democrat. [volume] (Bennettsville, S.C.) 1882-1908, 1904-09-09
STATE BRINGS SUIT.
Sensational Charges Made in the State
House Matter.
THE COMPLAINT FILED TUESDAY
Mitchell 81 Smith, Representing Leg.
:s!at.sc's Appo:ntoss, Charge
Conspiracy Against ArohI-
tect and Contractors,

The summons in the matter of the
State of South Carolina against Frank
P. Milburn and others was filed Tues
county. The charges are very direct
in their wording and the plaintiff
asks for damages in the sum of $780,
600 for the unsatisfactory manner in
which the State house was completed
through the alleged fraudulent and
collusive agreement to cheat and de-
fraud the plaintiff"
The summons was drawn by Messrs.
Mitchell and Smith Of Charleston, at
torneys employed by committee con-
sisting Of Senator Aldrich and Repre-
sentative T. Y. Williams to prosecute
for damages under authorization of
recent act Of the legislature. Ap-
pended to the summons, is a copy of |
the contract between the State of |
South Carolina, through its commits
sioners, with Mr.. Milburn, and q
statement from Senator Aldrich In
regard to the findings of the legisla-
tive Investigating commission, of
which he was chairman.
The complaint AYERS that Edward
j. McIlvain, j. G. ,Unkefer, S. b.
Goucher and Jas. G. Johnston, form
ing the firm OF McIlvain, Unkefer &
Co., and Frank T. Milburn, architect,
are the defendants against whom the
suit is brought. The paper recites
that in February, 1900, the legisla-
ture set aside s175, 900 of the sinking
fund for the purpose of completing
the work on the State capitol and
that the commission, with Gov. M. b.
McSweeney as chairman, selected
Frank p. hilburn as architect, and on
the llth OF August, 1900, contracted
with the firm above named, the price
being Sl5S, S,3O6.
1t is charged that Mr.. Milburn
drew the contract and that upon his
certificate the contractor was paid
the whole of the contract price when
the contractors claimed to have per-
formed the work" required by the
contract.
GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT.
Failure to perform the contract is
charged in the following particulars:
Ihat the work done and the mate
rial furnished was not equal in any re-
sPect to work done and and material
furnished on the previously completed
portion OF the main building. marring
the eff ct of the iiae work upon tie
main building.
That the contractors removed the
fine steel ceiling of the rotunda, and
carried away the material, substitut-
Ing therefor ceiling of plain material
costing not over $500.
That the two granite columns in
the inner part Of the front portico
were not placed as required by con-
tract. These columns, it is alleged,
would have counteracted a tendency
OF the portico to pull away from the
main building.
That In lieu Of carving leaf work ON
the columns equal to the leaf work on
the capitals Of the old columns, "a
coarse, unsightly and unfit leaf work"
sas substituted.
That the columns in the rear por-
tico should have corresponded with
the columns in the front portico. This
was not done, no Intel stones were
placed there and sheet iron boxes to
represent granite were substituted
Detective glass flooring and cheap,
shoddy, stamped iron ceiling" was
used III the pOrticoS.
That the roof is Of tar and gravel
imperfect in quality, it Is alleged, and
with the gravel of improper sizos.
The roof is said to leak badly, II BOD
ing the main lobby. There ale no
ventilators to carry Off the air be-
tween the ceiling and the roof.
That the dome Is given lot of
space in the instrument. 1t is said to
have been constructed in a crude and
unWorkmanlike manner. full of crimps
and kinks. The inner dome is not
securely supported, according to this
complaint, and there are other alleged
deficiencies.
After numerous other specifications
in the complaint, all Of secondary i'm
portance, 1T Is alleged that no protec-
tlon was afforded for the interior OF
the building while the roof was being
removed and in consequence all OF the
galleries were flooded and the painting
and feorscoing was ruined.
CHARGES CONSPIRACY.
The plaintitf believes that MIR. Mil
burn and the firm of contractors
collusiyely and fraudulently agreed
together that the work to be done
under the aforesaid contract should
be lnslltliciently and improperly done"
and that said Frank p. Miluburn-
well knowing the same to be defec-
tlve, improper and insufficient falsely
and fraudulently certified in writing
that the payments for the same ..ad
become DUE And On this certificate
OF Architect Milburn the said contract
sum was procured to be paid to the
contracting firm and the plaintifr
claims to have enssdamaged to the
extent OF 100000.
The second cause OF action reviews
in formal way the matter of the ap-
prorriation and the making of the
contract. The complaint then states:
"Plaintili is informed and believes
that the said Frank p. Milburn in
tending and purpcsng to cheat and
defraud the said State of South
Carolina so prepared his specitica-
tlons and plans in the matter as
to leave the same open, general
and vague and ambiguous in many
respects so as to enable him by collu-
sion and confederacy with any contrac-
tor to cheat and defraud the State by
performing the same either well or iii |
as the said Frank p. Milburn might
decide " f. iS cbn runI