THE architectural profession has been unusually prominent in recent discussions in Congress, and the debates have been of more than merely professional concern. That Senator Gallinger’s amendment to the bill for a State Justice Commerce building reducing the commission of the architect to two and a half per cent, should have been finally defeated on its merits as the result of discussion, is matter for congratulation, but it is humiliating that such a proposition should ever have been made. The debate revealed an astounding degree of ignorance on the part of senators as to the nature of the duties, training, and ordinary practice of architects, and placed Messrs. Gallinger and Hale, especially, in a somewhat ludicrous light. The American architect has laid the profession under obligation by reprinting from the Congressional Record practically the whole of this debate, which is, for architects, very comical, if also somewhat disheartening reading. But it is instructive as reflecting the state of mind of a certain section of the community, and shows the great need there is for a campaign of education with regard to the aims and ideals and the methods of work of architects, and the nature of their duties. Against the unjust animadversions, of Messrs. Hale and Gallinger, who seemed to have come to the conclusion that the study or knowledge of architecture somehow unfits a man for designing a building, the profession was fortunate in having such efficient champions as Senators Newlands of Nevada, Dryden of New Jersey, and Hoar of Massachusetts. That the intelligent public has felt a deep concern in this debate has been evidenced by a leading article in the New York Evening Post headed “At the Mercy of Architects” The final sentence of this article, referring to Messrs. Dryden and Newlands, is worthy the attention of the profession: “If there are honorary memberships for laymen in the architectural societies, it is easy to see where two might gracefully be disposed. The presence of an honorary architect or two on the floor of the Senate would at least extend its proverbial courtesy to a profession that needs it and would surely prevent the ignorant imputation of dishonesty to gentlemen who, more than any other class, perhaps, are making our cities better to look at and better to live in.”
The discussion in the Senate finally fell foul of Mr. McKim’s restoration and additions to the White House. Few if any architectural works carried out at the capital during many years have given such satisfaction to architects throughout the country as the tasteful and refined work of Mr. McKim at the White House. His work there not only restores the primitive dignity of the interior, which had been lost by vulgar accretions and changes, but makes it finer than ever it can have been, yet in perfect harmony with the dignified and tasteful exterior. In view of the constantly repeated attacks on the recent work at the White House, it seems worth while to insist repeatedly on the excellence of Mr. McKim’s work, lest the good that has been accomplished would in the future be undone. It is to be hoped that the business offices which were added in a connected position, built in brick painted white, may in the near future be rebuilt or completed in marble by the same architect. Every one admits that the present business building is unsatisfactory, simply on account of the cheap material with which it is executed. It ought without delay to receive a monumental treatment worthy of the old building and worthy of the nation.
The restorations of the White House were brought about by an agitation against a proposed vandalism on the part of an army engineer, which would have resulted in the absolute destruction of the old building. A more important building even than the White House has recently been threatened in a similar manner. It has been proposed to place the projected additions to the east part of the capitol in the hands of the present superintendent of the capitol, who is not an architect, and who is absolutely without any fitness to design and carry out an important addition to the greatest architectural monument which the nation possesses. It is thought that the reference of this question to a joint commission of the Senate and the House has killed this project. It will require great vigilance, however, on the part of all friends of the fine art of architecture, if this danger is not to be renewed. We trust that the hopes that the project has for the present been killed are not over sanguine.
The danger that the placing of the new building for the Department of Agriculture should ruin absolutely the recently perfected scheme for the improvement of the City of Washington, in accordance with the general plan of President Washington and Major L'Enfant, has happily been averted Some of the authorities are now even claiming that it had never been proposed so to place the building as to narrow the mall. This is especially encouraging as showing what the united demands of the architects of the country and their friends can accomplish when they are demanding something, not for themselves, but for the good of the community. We believe the country as a whole is sensitive with regard to everything affecting the beauty of the capital city. Public opinion needs only to be informed on any matters affecting the question to make itself immediately felt.
It may be worth while to call attention to a report of the Secretary of the Treasury to the Senate with regard to the workings of the Tarsney Act, of the very existence of which some senators were entirely ignorant.
The report gives a list of public buildings for which plans were obtained by competition under the Tarsney act, the conditions under which architects were invited to compete, and the opinion of the secretary as to the merits of the act. The report is very interesting reading, and gives an instructive resume of the recent action of the Treasury Department in this matter, and with a full statement of the rules of the Department, of the programmes in the several competitions, and their results.
Secretary Shaw states:
In reply to the request for my opinion as to the advantages or disadvantages of said act, I have to state that the experience of the Department with the seven buildings completed and under construction has been on the whole favorable as to merits of design and quality of constructive work.
Difficulties of administration occurring at the outset have for the most part disappeared with practical experience.
The department is more in doubt as to the success of the method when applied to the smaller buildings, and is now making trial in several cases. So far the results on the whole have not been encouraging as to design, and are doubtful as to quality of working drawings and construction. This is to be charged to the fact that architects of the first rank do not care to enter competitions for buildings of minor cost, and the work falls into the hands of persons of lesser experience and professional skill.
The remote location of most of the smaller buildings is also an unfavorable feature, as it increases very much the cost to the architect of the necessary superintendence.
