The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-08
THAT CAPITOL BLUNDER.


 The publication in yesterdays Ad~ vertiser of the perspectives of the three prize winning designs for the enlargement of the State Capitol was a revelation to the people of Mont gomery. It told the story at glance. The photographic reproductions of the three drawings side by side enabled everybody to see how ugly was the accepted design. and how much better were the second and third prize-win- ners.
 The effect on public opinion in the City was instantaneous. Everybody on the streets was talking about the ugiiness of the first prise design and the superiority of the other two. AS different members of The Advertiser stan walked about the streets during the day dozens of people voluntarily expressed their approval of the pa- per's judgment in the matter. The hope was generally expressed by lead ing citizens that the two-story addi- tions to the Capitol building would fail of execution somehow.
 This unanimity of opinion in Mont gomery was reflected by the express sions of both the afternoon papers. The Journal and The Times both expressed strongly their disapproval of the &C., cepted plan. Their articles appear elsewhere on this page.
 There is little doubt that the unanl- mity of public opinion in Montgomery on this matter will prove representa- tive of public opinion throughout the State. We have no doubt. that the people and press in all directions will come to the same conclusions as soon as they glance at photographs of the drawings. The absurdity and ugliness of two-stoiy wings to a three-story building are so plain that he who runs can see 1t. The historic old Capitol on the hill is dear to all the people. and they will not quietly see 1t ruined by please the views or the Supreme Court as to Inside arrangement.
 We do not know how the change will come about. It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court itself will see its blunder and help undo it. But if 1t Is blind and stubborn. doubtless the Capitol Commission itself will see its way to remedy the diniculty. For our part, we do not believe that the Leg islature ever intended for the Supreme Court to boss the Capitol Commission. In puttingsin the last provision of the law, quoted yesterday. we believe that it was only intended for the Supreme Court to have a voice in the arrange mcnt of that part of the Capitol in- tended tor it's use. The Legislature did not intend to have the Supreme Court to decide upon the whole question of . general design for the enlargement and extension of the building.
 The Capitol Commission was made up of the Governor and four other ex- ecutive officers. It was intended to clothe them with the bulk of .respon- sibility in the premises. They were to determine the general plans and tc CdTTy out tHc CouStfuCtAot. ohAy IT SO far as the Supreme Courts quarters were concerned was that body to have a voice. Yet. as 1t Is. that body ha. come into consultation and with sever votes overwhelmed the Capitol Com mission. Furthermore, fl. dfctatine the design of one wing of a new build. ing for its purposes. 1t has also dictat. ed the design of the other wing and changes In the rest of the building with the use of which 1t will have nothing on earth to do. Why should the Governor and the other executive ofIicers have been named as Capitol Commission at all, If they were to be mere fifth wheel! Why should not the act have made the Supreme Court the whole thing. If that was the pur- pose of tlte Legislature?
 The whole performance has been wrong. The cart Is before the horse The Capitol Commission should assert itself and assume the responsibility the law intended 1t to have. It can rescind all that has been done and straighten the situation out. Public opinion, on the one hand. will justi- fy that course. and on the other hand will condemn the result. if the judi cial conferrees are permitted to carry out the present absurd proposition.