The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-01-11
THE STATE CAPITOL PLANS.
False Statements Published About the
Action Of the Comm!sslou

OLYMPIA, Jan. 1o-[Special. The state
capitol commission cvinces some annoy
ance, occasioned by the many published
statements concerning their proceedings
in the selection of building plans, they
having necessarily been compelled to
throw a degreelof secrecy about the work
Individual members deny having disclosed
any facts concerning the same, but, as a
member said today, they had no power to
limit the scope of imaginative reporters.
That individual differences of opinion
have existed there Is no doubt, but no con-
tention exists that precludes an amicabls
settlement. and that soon. The Posr-IS-
TELLIeEScER correspondent was informed
that the commission held a very profitable
session today. and that some conclusion
might be reached as early as tomorrow
Prof Wares report was not altogether
satisfactory 10 some of the commissioners,
though IL is understood Gov. Mc6raw IA
vors its adoption. The only circumstance
which might promise delay Is the posi-
bility of the selection of plan of the cost
of which the commissioners might be left
in doubt In such case It may be neces-
sary TO summon the author of the plan TO
ascertain IL his proposed building can be
kept within the 81 .ooo,ooo appropriation
Some statements published concerning the
work of the commission are written far
from the scene OF action and prove to be
news 80 those in position to learn any OF
the facts which nigh, be disclosed.
SEATTLE, Jan. 10, 1904
To THE Error: 1 have just been in
formed through reliable authority that
the commissioners on the state capitol
plans are advised by the advisory archi-
teet. Prof Ware. TO discriminate in favor
of building without a dome. giving for
his reasons the saving of money to the
state and desire for something unique.
wish TO say in comment that this PROPOSE
ton is = subject of the gravest considers
ton and criticism. In the first place it is
a fact worthy Of consideration that every
state capitol building in this country has a
dome, and IL would seem that with such
universal precedent the state of Washing
ton has no reason 20 attempt such o radi-
cal innovation. a dome 10 the feaiar.
that identities n capitol building from
other public structures. and 10 the feature
that should he adhered 10 beyond Qnes-
ton. Particularly 10 this fact in this
state, whose name at once links il with the
national capital and It's domed building.
which has stood the criticism Of 50 many
years.
There IS another reason and very lust
one which the commission should take
into consideration before making such q
discrimination. and that /. the competing
architects These men have spent over
sioo,eo On their designs and are Ger
tatnly worthy Of every consideration posi-
bic They have almost 10 man
recognized IL as al established principle
and necessity in designing building of
thss kind 20 make the dome not only a
feature Of the design, bat the most i'm
porsant one. and on this feature alone
ihey have probably spent more time and
ssudy taan on sli the rest
N0w, IN Justice 10 these architect. who
represent a. least s1 per cent OF the fss
who have submitted plans and who had
nothing 10 80 BY but the established
president. is Is reasonable or lust 20
practically exclude this large majority
Who represent the best men in the pro-
/ tsssion al over the country on such an
idesf Is the state % Washington 50 POOR
thss il eAnnos e.pena the few thousand
dollars additional 80 make the state capt
'S4 . representative aad monumental