After hearing his obituary had been published in the New York Journal, Mark Twain wrote his classic line: "Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." Probably it was a fine obituary.

Your editorial ("The Full Cost of the Hunley") is a similar example of a logical editorial based on bad reporting. The news articles in question originated from one reporter (from another newspaper) who, in my judgment, got his facts wrong. From there, other articles and editorials were written reacting to reporting that was factually inaccurate.

Those original articles gave readers the impression that the Hunley project had cost taxpayers $100 million and that I had "secretly funneled" millions to the project. None of that is true. Here are the facts:

Actually, state appropriations have been about $4.5 million over the course of 10 years. If you include the additional $5.3 million in federal grants, the total of public funds is less than $10 million, a far cry from the $100 million published.

Advertisement

Also, there has been no secrecy involved. All state funds were debated and voted on in open session. And no funds at all for restoration of the submarine have been appropriated in the past five years.

To me personally, the most frustrating aspect is the absurd allegation that I secretly "funneled millions" to the project. All federal and state funds appropriated were dedicated to the Hunley. They could not have been spent for any other purpose.

As chairman of the Hunley Commission, it was my duty to review the paperwork submitted before funds that had already been appropriated were actually spent. Somehow, my efforts to protect taxpayers were twisted by the reporter and described as "funneling" funds to the project. I can only imagine the criticism I would have received if I had failed to review the paperwork before funds were released.

Also, in my judgment, the reporter grossly inflated the moneys that might be spent in the future. For example, the entire $30 million-plus budget for the Clemson University Restoration Institute was listed as a Hunley expense. To put it mildly, this method of accounting is ridiculous.

The proposed Restoration Institute has been part of Clemson's planning for years, long before the Hunley was part of the equation. Clemson has committed only $2.4 million to completing the conservation of the Hunley. In exchange, under a proposed agreement, Clemson would receive assets far exceeding its investment in the Hunley project.

Finally, the newspaper reported that nine members of the S.C. General Assembly spontaneously called for the Legislative Audit Council to conduct a financial review of the Hunley project. Actually, the newspaper's reporters lobbied senators, House members and even the governor, asking if they were willing to support a call for an audit.

Under the circumstances, I'm surprised only nine yielded to the pressure. One House member later asked that his name be removed because he felt he had been misled by the newspaper's reports.

As to the issue of financial management, comprehensive independent audits have been conducted every year since the project began. Those independent audits have found the project's books to be completely in order.

I have never opposed audits. The Hunley project has absolutely nothing to hide. But one reporter should not be able to manipulate the system merely to generate controversy, especially when the result is a needless expense to taxpayers for a redundant audit.

I don't have enough space here to correct every inaccuracy. So, please allow me to conclude with a positive statement about the Hunley: South Carolina is now the permanent home of the world's first successful combat submarine.

This amazing technological creation was hidden under a layer of sand on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean for 136 years, with the remains of her eight crewmembers resting inside. In just a few years, we have recovered her, carefully excavated the contents, buried her crew and made many dramatic discoveries reported around the world.

As a collateral benefit, our team has developed new technologies that it is hoped will help restore and preserve other artifacts and materials, especially metals used in the construction of bridges and ships. These discoveries will benefit the people of South Carolina for years to come.

Looking at the big picture, we have raised about 70 percent of the annual cost of the Hunley project from private sources. Once finished, the Hunley will serve as a national treasure, a triumph of human ingenuity and an asset that will bring monetary and cultural value to South Carolina for generations to come.

Certainly this brief essay can't undo the damage inflicted by one newspaper that spread to others across the state. Like Mark Twain, all we can do is point out the obvious: that negative reports on the Hunley have been "greatly exaggerated."

We can also draw some consolation in the knowledge that the Hunley has survived a great deal over the past 140 years. I suspect she will survive a series of inaccurate press reports.