St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1895-02-26
CAPITOL PLANS OK.
Senate Committees Report
Sustains the Action Of the
Commission.
EVERYTHING MADE PUBLIC.
ANY One Who Desires May
Read the Expert Archi-
teets' Report.
SENATOR YOUNG'S INQUIRY
Is Directed to the DISPOSE
ton Of State Mineral
Lands.
SENATOR YOUNG'S INQUIRY

. Last evenings sitting OF the SEN
ate was a busy one. The report OF
the committee of fifteen, which had
investigated the new capitol plans,
was submitted, and included the re-
port made to the commission by tho
expert architects, Henry Ives Cobb,
of Chicago, and Edmund M. Wheel
right, of Boston. This statement is
a technical review of the defects
and impracticable features of the
several plans examined, and state
ment of the merits of the several
plans and designs recommended for
prizes, the substance of which has
already been made public. The re-
port of the committee, based upon
an examination of the plans and the
report of the experts, is as follows,
and was adopted and ordered
printed in the journal.
''Your special committee appointed
upon the suggestion of his eXcellency,
the governor, to examine the report of
the expert architects who advised the
the plans and specifications referred to
in said report, beg leave to report that
they have performed that duty. The
full report has been submitted to us,
and we have examined the same and
the drawings referred to therein, and
have acquainted ourselves with the
entire action of the board up to the
present time, and fully approve the
same and every part thereof. We be-
lieve the board has been actuated sole
ly by a desire to observe the best inter
ests of the state and that it's action has
been conducive to that result.
mo plan has as yet been adopted, al
though the power of the board in that
respect exists under the act of 1893. It
was for this reason, as we are in
formed, that his eXcellency and the
board felt that its premature publica-
ton might be an injustice to the COM
peting architects whose designs were
still under consideration. We agree in
their views up to the present time, but
are of the opinion that, the report hav-
ing been called for, the interests Of the
state are paramount to those of indi-
viduals, and with the entire concur
renee of the board, the report is here
with submitted No adequate under
standing of the entire question, how
ever, can be obtained, in our opinion,
without any examination and eXplana-
ton of the designs referred to therein
as has been afforded this committee.
eve take this opportunity to heartily
indorse the recommendation of the
board, that the capitol act of 1893 be
amended so as to allow the board am
pier powers in the selection of design
and an architect as provided in the bill
now pending in this body"
When the motion to adopt the re-
port was under consideration Senator
Reishus said: "In justice to minor
ity of the committee, 1 wish to say
that we intended to submit minority
report, but that was not necessary as
the report of expert architects accom-
panied the committee report
Senator Peterson said that he had no
objection to the report as whole, but
only to the last clause, which referred
to recommending the comforting of
power upon the capitol commission to
select a design and architect as pro-
yided in the bill pending in the senate.
Senator Peterson said that he wanted
to leave that part of the matter to the
committee of the whole.
PASSING ON MERITS.
AS a preliminary statement the eX-
| pert architects said that the various
plans were submitted to their inspec-
ton without being designated other
NOT
know who had prepared them. A pre-
liminary examination was made by
them, which resulted in rejecting all
but twenty plans. These were num-
bered 8, 8, 10, 10, 20, q, %, "a, 26,
2S, 80, 80, SO, S5, SO, Al, "A, 45, 46 and 90
The twenty plans were then considered
with reference to the cost of buildings
and 20 %, 20 and 40 were rejected as
being evidently in excess of the cost
laid down, namely $1,50O,0OO. The re-
| naming sixteen plans were carefully
scrutinized, and it was found that Nos
| IS and So were entitled to special men
ton in addition to those to whom the
five prizes should be awarded. No. i
was submitted by A. B. Granger, Of
Cleveland. The architects say Hi!
design shows a praiseworthy arrange
ment for the senate, house of repre-
sentatives, supreme court and library
His corridors, however, are made
quately lighted by light wells of to-
small area in proportion to thei
height. The external treatment wa
LACKING in the dignity requisite to
state capitol"
OF plan No. So, submitted by Berinl
& Filton, New York, and H. r.
Hamilton, st. Paul, the experts say
''In proportion and exterior detail thi
. was one of the best designs submitted
the dome, however, though of excel
lent form, was placed upon the rea
wing and not upon the access to tn
main building. The perspective draw
| ing, although beautifully rendered,
misleading. 1t is drawn with tn
| plane of the picture parallel with tn
main front, and not at an angle, a
in the other designs"
: The expert architects then discusse
the five plans deemed worthy of prize
and suggested such changes as the
; thought should be made. These fiv
: plans have already been discussed i
. the papers and the report of the archi
, tects thereon is known to the public
, The classification of these is as fol
J lows:
Wendell & Humphreys, of Denver
Col, Design SO.
J. A.Schweinfurth, of Boston, Mass
, | Design II.
George R. Mann, of st. Louis, Mo
Design q.
George De Gerstorff, Stockbridge
Mass, Design 46.
Warren B. Dunnell, of Minneapolis
Mimi, Design 8.
STEVENS PRESIDES.
Senator Stevens presided over tn
sitting of the senate in the absence O
Lieut.. Gov. Day. There were fourteen
new bills introduced and referred tt