The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-08-08
JUDGE McCLELLAN's LAME DE-
 TENSE.

TENSE.
 The Press of Alabama during the past month has had a great deal of criticism of the Supreme Court for it's part in running over the Capitol Commission and selecting a design for Capitol ex- tension including two-story wings
 The Advertiser took the lead in this discussion and at the same time pre- scented engravings of the three prize de- signs. All that this paper has said has been disnifed and parliamentary. Many columns have appeared in all the other papers. much of which has been reprinted on this page. Some of this criticism has been in very plain terms, and 1t seems that 1t has finally aroused Chief Justice Mcclellan from his usual Iethargy and self-satished vanity. He has written columns and columns in a sort of dissenting opinion. It appeared in The Birmingham Age Herald of Sunday and is reproduced in this issue of The Advertiser.
 Judge Mcclellan appears to have been narrow enough to suppose that through The Age-Herald only could he reach the public. This paper heard of his article Saturday and tried to get 1t that day, but no one was found here with authority to give us copy. We take great pleasure in reproducing 1t. Viewed as a whole 1t is the best vindi- cation conceivable of the attitude or The Advertiser and the many other
 
 the cotton mill" design.
 Judge Mcclellan comes forward with a picture with this statement under It: This picture shows the Capitol as IL will appear when the plan of MT. Lock- wood. adopted by the Commission, has been carried out. except a tentative change in the roof of the dome suggest ed by Mir Chas. F. McKim."
 In the course of his laborious de- fense of the first prize design Judge Mcclellan says:
 It is a great pity many people have been egreriously misled and deceived into faVorins Smiths plan oyer eye c,,t hecaf of sns Wieh iaseee the cut M of MT. smiths picture as published in The Montgomery Adver-
  This comparison, together. with the gratuitious abuse of the judges. Is re- sponsible for the purely fictitious pub The great and wholly fictitious advan- has has over an engraving of the mere pencil line shhoWding the a bs to some the vast differencs there would be be tween cut of the frame t,Isssra of withoat Dq,u weatherboardins pr ceiling sans Sr,ldine Sr fHnt completed in all respects. win t, pii acv essories sesiw' les,ntsd" % and sm6eilished. That is the sort of comparison that was vas laid before the people, and which ms, mas erroneous impression should be entire. ly removed by the cut of picture or Lockwoods proposed building pup Ushed herewith, taken at about the same angle as MT. Smiths picture ana which has been made since the plans were acted on.
 Now The Advertiser reproduced by pure photographic processes the three prize designs from the originals. No responsibility can attach to The Adver- tiser for the violent contrast between the designs. and it is all nonsense about anybodys being misled or deceived by those reproductions. The contrast In I the original drawings was far more striking than in any newspaper pic lures.
 | But what about Judge McC1eilan's course in trying to make the people oi l Alabama believe that this new picture is a reproduction of the original Lock- wood design from about the same angle as Mir. Smiths pictureT In order that the public may see the diff ferences for itself. we also reprint the very same cut of the Lockwood design that first appeared in The Advertis- | CT. Ii will be seen at a glance that the ] new cut is not from any angle at all It is e distinct. front elevation. l Furthermore, that is a small part of the difference between the two draw l ings. It is far more radical than "a tentative change in the roof of the dome.' -~. #: .-~:.
 It is very plain that the whole de- sign of the dome has been changed b. There is a great difference in Its height form, size. etc.
 There is 8 striking change in the ad- dition of two subsidiary domes, one on each wing. .--- ....-:. ..
 There is a conspicuous change in the addition of a pediment. or gable end effect, on the central portico of the main building. ~".
 There are additions of ornamental work about the cornicss.
 The columns In front of the wings are not half columns set in. as in the first design. They appear to be com plete columns standing out from the walls.
 The wings do not stand up close tc the main building as in the first de- sign. There are corridors with col umns and front entrances into these corridors. s....
 These are probably the results ol second thought on the part of th' architect and his New York advisers Either Judge Mcclellan was so pro foundly ignorant and untutored 1T these matters as not to be able to ob serve them, or else he Is deliberatel! trying to do what he so savagel! claims The Advertiser and its contem poraries have been doing.
 Every one of those changes in tn