New-York tribune., 1908-12-14
FIGHT PRISON AWARD
ARCHITECT THE ISSUE.
RiUaIS Say Commission Erceeded
Po5cer IN appointing Designer.


The application Of Warren & Wetmore. archt-
! tects. for injunction restraining the state
/ Commission on New Prisons from proceeding
with the erection Of buildings for the new prison
! on Iona Island Is now known to be based on the
! assertion that the commission had authority
/ 10 appoint ar architect. It had been inferred
! that the objection had been made on the crit
icisms Of the award in the competition for plans
! TO ". J. BeardsIey, Of PoUghkeepse- The plain
tiffs say that the commission, under the law OF
1906 and amended in 1907. had power only to
! conduct q competition among architects for plans
for the prison and TO select three designs for
which prizes could be given.
Other legal points to be raised in the applica-
ton for preliminary injunction, which Is TO De
heard this week. are that the BeaTdsley pan
cannot be adopted as the final one for the neF
prison because its estimates for cost are hisher
than the 81 600 600 authorized by the Legtsla-
ture and because it makes proper provision for
the future extension Of the cell house and other
buildings in the prison, as required by the syI-
labus Of the commission.
Warren & Wetuore want other architects VINO
are dissatisfied with the action Of the -conlrnls-
sion to join in the application for an injunction
They say that they are doing the state service
by their action ard that they are coming 10 the
relief OF Franklin 3 Ware. the state architect'
who was strongly opposed TO the decision OF the
best
T-,5a- the law no plans could be adopted
without Nr Wares concurrence, the law giving
to him practically a veto power in the case MI
Wares report 10 the commission. in when ne
urged Il TO reconsider its determinations ex-
p1afned that he was reluctant &c use this veto
mower. as the Beardsley plans were not bad
enough 10 make him feel justified in DONG So
but he. nevertheless, criticised them
lot IA
sion invited architects to submit plans for the
,,rfeon dr-.0-n in accordance with general floor
r,Iane Of buildings required. which We're prepared
b,. the state Architect and With syllabus TO
he n-epared by the commission. Three sets were
f., be- selected from the plans submitted, all TO
be Graded in order Of merit. and the commission
was authorized to award prizes 10 the three
architects whose plans were selected Inc toldI
--iza money was limited to $4,000. The act
avnresslv states however. that all plans ana
estimates selected are to become the apsolute
o-+,- If the state and that the award Of
,-a shall not be regarded as acceptance OF the
plans
-r,,. architects refused 10 enter the competl-
,fo, -, s,,cl, terms They believed that the pro-
spectfve award not enough TO JUSTIFY 'he
expenditure Of time and money Further' they
did not care 10 fake the chance OF being ap-
rointe5 architects Of the new prison, even II
their ulanS were selected as the TueS sIipui"tou
that the plans we're TO become the property Of
the state and could be used without further
,,,-nrensat ton TO the architects. Many firms and
in55viduals however. entered the competition.
feeling that the state would receive 50 much
benefit from the impartial selection Of three sets
If r1ans the best features of which could be
merged IN the design ultimately adopted, that
the,- we're willing TO do their share. They have
teay, dissa tisfed at the award, however. and
five Of them joined in a petition to Gov
.-,or Hughes, asking review Of the findings
80 the beard Of award which considered the
laps This board consisted. under the act. Of
tt. members Of the Commission on New Prisons.
,,,e state architect and a prison physician.
,.,.ernor Hughes made no official reply to this
,o,f+i,,, although he wrote Of the sgners.
,,rIi,e him that he had no power 10 grant the
reo,5est Nothing more was heard Of the protest
until the action was brought by Warren & Wet
more Until The Tribune learned yesterday Of
the legal questions involved II had been sup
rosos tba, criticism Of the Beardsey plans
formed the basis Of the application for an IN
junction
Section 10 Of the under which the com
mission has its power says;
The said board shall examine all plans sub
r,ftted TO IT, and shall select fherefrom It's first,
second and third choice, ana SO aes!slate og
number The plans. specifications and
estimates so selected shall be the absoIuie prop
erty bf the state, but such award ShaH not be
deemed be IN accc ptance OF any pan 50 SUD
mitted and selected
Section II READS. The ssid commission is
Continued on second page