Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-11-25
ALL PLANS REJECTED
NEW COMPETITION ORDERED FOR
POLICE COURT BUILDING.
Local Architects Only to Participate
Program to Be Prepared
at Once.

The District Commissioners today decided
that all the plans for the proposed Police
Court building submitted in the recent
competition, be rejected and that new
connection be held, limited to the local
architects who participated In the former
competition. Also that no architect be al
lowed to submit more than one design, and
that the cost of the building be limited to
$4,000, less the fees of the architect. This
action was decided upon after hearing be-
fore the Commissioners, participated in by
the architects who entered in the former
competition.
The program for the new competition will
be prepared Immediately by Col. Biddle
and Building Inspector Ashford, and it Is
hoped to have the matter settled by the
close of the Christmas holidays, so that 1t
can be presented to Congress.
The hearing this morning was granted
upon the request of the architects, who pro-
tested against the awarding of the prize of
S2lOO to Henry Simpson, whose plan No.
10. was selected by the Commissioners as
the best. and who had submitted two de-
signs. Architect George o. Totten. jr., also
submitted two plans and Harding & Upman
submitted three designs, The remaining arch
fleets. who submitted only one design each,
argued that the designs of those architects
who had submitted more than one set of
plans. should be eliminated from the con-
sderation or else that q new competition
should be held.
Architects Present.
Among the architects present at the hear
ing were B. Stanley Simmons. Messrs.
Harding & Upman. A. Ten Eyck Brown,
George S Cooper. Oscar G. Vogt, Frederick
G.. Atkinson. A. b. He1ton, Frank H. Jack
son and Mr.. Wood, representing Wood,
Dom * Demng.
At the beginning of the hearing Building
inspector Ashford stated that he had I'M
when
that only one plan should be submitted by
any one architect. and that he had stated
this to several architects who had inquired
after the specifications had been issued.
Col Biddle then related the circumstances
ccasioning the complications with respect
to the competition. He said that he under
stood that as a rule architects submitted
only one plan because of the expense of
getting up more than one set of drawings.
Mr. Simmons said that Mr.. Ashford had
informed him that only one plan from each
architect would be considered and Mr..
Brown produced a letter from Mr.. Ashford
stating that but one drawing should be sub
mttcd.
During the discussion of the points at
issue Col Biddle said the Commissioners
and he thought It would be absurd for them
to put it aside and take one they did not de-
sire unless there were some good reason
justifying such course.
Favored Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Atkinson was in favor of awarding
the prize to Mr.. Simr~nn. inasmuch as his
plan was selected as the best and since the
program of competition did not specifically
state that only one plan should be sub
mitted.
Several other architects briefly spoke on
the matter, and each speaker declared that
he had full confidence that Mr.. Simpson
and other architects who had submitted
more than one set of plans had no intention
of taking any unfair advantage in the COM
petition. Mr.. Wood and Mr.. Simmons sug-
gested that all the plans be rejected and
that new competition be opened Mr..
Brown suggested further that the limit of
cost of the building be increased.
MIR. Harding. of Harding Cpman, who
submitted three sets of drawings, told the
Commissioners that his firm had considered
that they were acting wholly within their
rights and according to professional ethics.
when they submitted more than one set of
drawings. While we were considering the
Police Court design he said, we had be-
fore us the program of competition for
Freedman's Hospital, which specifically
stated that no alternate designs would be
considered This is always stated when
tile competition is limited to one design"
At the close of the hearing Commissioner
mcfarland told the architects that the
Commissioners would probably adhere to
the former limit of cost, and that the
Commissioners believed that a suitable
building could be secured for the amount
to be made available. After considering
the matter the Commissioners ordered a
pavr DreyiOusly stated