The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-08-08
STATEMENT OF SMITH
SUGGESTIONS AS TO
 PLANS OF CAPITOL.
Montgomery Architect Makes Pungcnt Answer to Strictures of Chief Justice McClellan-His Ideas
 Were "BOrrowed.-

Montgornery Architect Makes Pungcnt Answer to Strictures of Chief Justice NfcClellan-His Ideas l Were Borrowed"
 Editor The Advertiser:
 Referring to the action of the Cap- itol Commission proper In changing from the separate judicial building to the two wings with collonade connec- tion, wish to state that this idea originated with me. Two of the archi. tects had already submitted plans of separate buildings. one of those is now the accepted plans with my suggestion of wings and collonades added on: I appeared before the Commission at their request with my sketches and when they saw how great the possi- bilities were for homogeneous and connected whole, they reconsidered their action and adopted my sugges- Itions
 I wish to state farther that I never approached one of the members of the Commission or Justices before the com petition and I could not count oA one vote when the competition opened.
 In Justice to everybody in the first place I wish to state that the picture printed in The Birmingham Age-Her- ald as the plan of MT. Lockwood adopted by the Commission, is not the plans adopted by tho Commission. The dome has been radically changed and modified by the deft touch of MT. lCharles McKim. Two lesser domes have been added to the wings. As far as I can judge from the very dim picture In The Age-Herald, a pediment has been added over the main front icolumns. The drawing also seems to show a parapet above the cornice line. The new dome, the lesser domes, the pediment, the parapet and modillions under main cornice of building have all been added since the competitive plans were In.
 sincerely congratulate Mir. Lockwood on having the friendship of such men as Mir Sawyer of New York, for whom he spperintended the Carnegie Library building, and the ability through his assistance of having gained valuable suggestions for his building from the renowned Mir. McKim. 1 will state far ther that 1t Is an easy matter with such assistance, and after having had free access to all the competitive plans, to get up an elevation which is at least decent. but I submit that It is not fair to the people of the State or anyone connected with this contro- versy to print this as the plan as orig inally submitted by MT. Lockwood when 1t is not
 Even now the elevation shows the peculiar feature of having no entrances on the front of the wings. Taking into consideration all of the surround ings, 1t would seem much wiser both for reasons of architectural effect and utility to have more than. ono front entrance door to.a building aggregat- ing 3SO feet In length.
 The letters of Messrs. Sawyer and McKim speak for themselves. They are nicely worded, but after all do not Az MK ft,lFx nnd ca axnr these men personally they could hard ly do otherwise than approve his scheme They, however, never have seen any of the other plans. know they have never seen mine. Would 1t not have been more to the point, since both the Chief Justice and the archi- tect are as sure of the superiority of their plans, to have submitted mine. too and asked for criticism? Does 1t not look as though they feared this After all, the main controversy is owing to the unanimous difference of the Capitol Commission and the Jus tices of the Supreme Court on these two plans. Why not submit these two plans, not as modified. by MT. Mckim. but as submitted to the Commission on the original competition to two experts who know neither of us per- sonally or know anything of the con troversy?
 Bundle the plans up and send the prospectus and tell them what the an- mex is for and let them say which Is the : best Surely this Is fairer than sub hitting a three story sketch made by MT Sawyer and asking Mf. Mckim' 6 opinion on the merits of the two. MT Sawyer was not In this competition and with all due respect to his architectural ability, maybe his three-story sketch was not as good as mine.
 | L. An.a A1- ,a .t, Naak NN4raN my plans If 1t seems fit and will add balm to the judicial mind of the Chief Justice and substitute the title Civil Engineer After all am very proud of that title and it will have no effect on the Judgment of fair minded men.
 The Chief Justice says in regard to my floor plan: The scheme Is of such obvious and yet peculiar viciousness as not to require and scarcely to admit of illustrative analogy.
 The prospectus furnished to architects for their guidance has these two | clauses:
 Tt Is submitted whether this general scheme can best be carried out by mak- ing the wings two stories or three-sto- ries in height" and again
 Elevator desirable If building to be of two stories only; necessary if of lthree-stories and if of twO-stories. pro- vision to be made for subsequent in- | stallation of elevator, and also, Tn that event, if practicable, for subsequent su- perimposition of third, the cost of which, however, Is not to be embraced in the estimated cost of the wings"
 The clause. the deviation from which seems to have branded me forever as a renegade professionally. is the one reading, rooms A, B, c. D. and E, to be on the same floor. These rooms are according to the prospectus. as follows court room, 2.OO0 feet: reading room ?, 800 to 5000 square feet; library stack room, capacity 1000 law books, libra rians' room. $40 feet, judges retiring room. 36O feet.
 Plot these rooms on one floor and they will make a very large building , The adopted plan calls for building , s5 feet by 130 feet; while my building calls for "A feet by 104 feet. I wanted to get my rooms as requested all or ] one floor, but to do so, ruined what thought a good exterior, made the wing out of proportion to the main building
 in my estimation. and then. too, thu
 prospectus practically called for fiool g plans that existed before the competi ton was called and this is directly con . trary to the fundamental rules of al