186 History of the United States Capitol
THOMAS U. WALTER AND

THE CAPITOL EXTENSION

187

W ashington and Jefferson’s Capitol

was designed for a nation straddling the Atlantic seaboard. Two

generations later, the country stretched across

North America, and its increasing number of lawmakers needed more room to conduct the nation’s

business. The astonishing growth of the country

prompted a major building campaign that tripled

the size of the Capitol. Spacious legislative chambers were designed, the Library of Congress was

expanded, and scores of new committee rooms and

offices were built. Elegant public lobbies, corridors,

and stairs were decorated with exquisite marbles

and murals to rival the great palaces of Europe. The

Capitol of the Latrobe-Bulfinch period was transformed into a sparkling jewel glittering with the

finest materials, art, and architecture money could

buy. A remarkable new dome—a breathtaking feat

of architecture and engineering—completed the

transformation and became a symbol of American

self-government and democracy.

On September 25, 1850, the Senate instructed

its Committee on Public Buildings to hold a 

competition for the enlargement of the Capitol.1

Four days later, Congress gave President Millard 

Fillmore responsibility for deciding how the Capitol would be extended. While neither he nor the

House of Representatives was under any obligation

to accept the results of the Senate competition,

the competition proceeded anyway: there was

nothing to lose except $500 from the contingency

fund. While some eager architects may have

thought that the Senate competition would determine who would get the prized commission, it

merely set the stage for the real competition over

which Fillmore would later preside.

An advertisement from the Senate committee

began appearing in Washington newspapers on

September 30, 1850, the day Congress adjourned.

As in Hadfield’s, Latrobe’s, and Bulfinch’s day, the

prospect of long-term employment on the nation’s

most prominent building was a powerful enticement. The advertisement read:

Enlargement of the Capitol

The Committee on Public Buildings of the Senate,

having been authorized by a resolution of that

body “to invite plans, accompanied by estimates,

for the extension of the Capitol, and to allow a

premium of $500 for the plan which may be

adopted by the Committees of Public Buildings

(acting jointly) of the two Houses of Congress,”

accordingly invite such plans and estimates to be

delivered to the Secretary of the Senate on or

before the 1st day of December next.

It is required that these plans and estimates

shall provide for the extension of the Capitol,

CHAPTER SIX

The Capitol Extension (Detail) 

by Thomas U. Walter, 1851

The Athenaeum of Philadelphia
188 History of the United States Capitol

either by additional wings, to be placed on the

north and south of the present building, or by

the erection of a separate and distinct building

within the enclosure to the east of the building.

The committee do not desire to prescribe any

conditions that may restrain the free exercise

of architectural taste and judgment, but they

would prefer that whatever plan may be proposed may have such reference to and correspondence with the present building as to

preserve the general symmetry of the entire

structure when complete. Although but one

plan can be adopted, the committee reserve to

themselves the right to form such plan by the

adoption of parts of different plans submitted,

should such a course be found necessary, in

which event the committee also reserve to

themselves the right to divide or proportion,

according to their own judgment, the amount

of premium to be awarded for the whole plan to

those whose plans may in part be adopted,

according to the relative importance and merit

of each part adopted.

In composing the newspaper advertisement,

the committee repeated some of the same mistakes made by the old board of commissioners

when it advertised for a Capitol design in 1792. It

offered little guidance and did not give architects

enough time to adequately study the problem and

make presentable drawings. The only architectural

guideline given was that the addition must blend

with the existing building. No variance from the

neoclassical style would be considered, no stylistic

transformation would be allowed. Committee members seemed not to expect any single design to fulfill every requirement and therefore provided for

several architects to be compensated for ideas that

might be blended into a hybrid scheme.

Perhaps the strangest aspect of the advertisement was the suggestion to build a separate structure in the east garden. This solution to Congress’s

space problems was entirely novel. An anonymous

writer referred to the proposal as the “Siamese

twin plan” or—supposing the two buildings would

be connected with a courtyard between—the

“square Barrack plan.” 2 It was, by any reckoning,

a distinctly odd idea.

At least thirteen architects responded to the

advertisement—seven from the Washington area,

two from New York City, and one each from

Philadelphia, Boston, Hartford, and St. Louis.3 A

few were prominent members of the architectural

profession: Robert Mills of Washington and Thomas

U. Walter of Philadelphia enjoyed national reputations and are well-remembered today. Others, such

as Charles B. Cluskey of Washington (recently relocated from Georgia), Charles F. Anderson and

Cyrus W. Warner of New York, and Frank W. Vodges

of St. Louis, were less famous, although well known

in their regions.

On December 3, 1850, the competition drawings were put on public display in the Library of

Congress. Soon thereafter they were moved to a

room where the House and Senate Committees on

Eliza and Robert Mills 

Daguerreotype by Jessie H. Whitehurst, ca. 1851 

National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution

This photograph was taken about the time Mills (1781–1855) was competing for

the commission to enlarge the Capitol. No living architect knew the building better

than Mills, nor had given its expansion greater thought.

At the time Mills sat for this photograph he was near the end of a long and 

distinguished career that included close ties (as architect or builder or both) to five

major Washington landmarks: the Patent Office (1836); the Treasury Building (1836);

the General Post Office (1839); the Smithsonian Institution (1847); and the Washington Monument (1848). At age nineteen he had worked for James Hoban at the President’s House, and he later joined B. Henry Latrobe at the Capitol as a student,

draftsman, and clerk. Despite his long experience, Mills could not match the vigor 

and talent of a younger generation of architects competing for the honor of enlarging

the nation’s Capitol.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 189

Public Buildings could inspect them privately.

While only a few drawings survive, the designs

were described in cover letters that give valuable

insight into the thoughts behind the lost drawings.4 In accordance with the newspaper advertisement, most of the architects submitted at least one

design for wings and one for a separate building.

Some submitted multiple designs showing small

variations on the two themes. William P. Elliot of

Washington, for instance, submitted twelve drawings illustrating eight schemes. Charles Anderson’s

design called for wings enclosing the east plaza into

a forecourt similar to the one he admired at Buckingham Palace in London. A tall fence would enclose

the eastern perimeter of the forecourt, and he proposed relocating Greenough’s statue of Washington

to a new pedestal on top of a ceremonial gateway.

Colonel J. J. Abert of the Army Corps of Topographical Engineers resubmitted a design for wings originally drawn in 1844 by his corps with William

Strickland’s help. He also sent another design for

wings, drawn by Phillip Harry, that was more ornamental and consequently more expensive.

The design Robert Mills submitted for north

and south wings was similar to what the committees had already seen. He proposed detached, rectangular buildings connected to the Capitol by

covered, open-air colonnades.5 But it may have

surprised senators to find Mills more enthusiastic

about two schemes he designed for a “duplicate

Capitol.” Both called for a replica of the Capitol

positioned 300 feet east of the existing structure.

One plan showed the buildings connected by a

central hyphen 160 feet wide containing a huge

new room for the Library of Congress. A grand

colonnade and stairs were placed along the north

and south elevations, making these the principal

fronts of a vastly enlarged building. A new dome

200 or 300 feet high designed after that of St. Paul’s

Cathedral in London crowned the central library

section. Chambers for the House and Senate were

located in the new east wing with a central rotunda

somewhat smaller (seventy-six feet in diameter)

than its counterpart in the old Capitol, which, in

turn, became the west wing in this plan.

Mills also proposed a second way to connect

the Capitol with its mirror image, one that eliminated the library hyphen in favor of a central courtyard created by enclosing the north and south

perimeters with “colonnaded terraces.” In the center of the courtyard, Mills proposed to erect a column 200 feet high dedicated to the American

Revolution. On top of the column would be a fifteen-foot-tall bronze statue of Liberty, which would

hold the American flag when either house of Congress was in session. Near the top of the column,

Mills proposed placing a great clock with four illuminated dials ten feet in diameter. His memorial to

the Revolution would have surpassed the Washington monument in Baltimore and Nelson’s column

in London by more than thirty feet.

In one of his eight designs, William P. Elliot

proposed a duplicate Capitol connected to the old

building by a glass-topped central gallery that

would be used perhaps as a library or simply as a

promenade from the old to the new rotunda. One

variation would crown the connecting building

with a new dome covering a third rotunda, which

he called “The Great Public Hall.” Another Washington architect, James King, planned new chambers in a duplicate Capitol with the intervening

Sketch of 

Duplicate Building

with outer Wing

Buildings of

Communication

forming a square

court within 

with Galleries 

all round 

by Robert Mills 

With 1850 unpublished

report of the Committee on

Public Buildings, Senate

Report 145, 31st Congress

(SEN31A–D1); Records of

the U. S. Senate, Record

Group 46; National Archives,

Washington, D. C.

Plans of the two Capitols were cut from Mills’

Guide to the Capitol and

pasted on a sheet of

paper and the connecting

features added. A soaring

column dedicated to the

Revolution was intended

to occupy the center of

the courtyard.
190 History of the United States Capitol

space set aside for the newly created Department

of the Interior.

One of the more sensible schemes to build eastward came from the Philadelphia architect Thomas

U. Walter. He ignored the “duplicate Capitol” idea,

designing instead an addition to the east front of

the existing building. Unlike Mills’ design for an

east extension published in 1849, Walter’s proposed addition covered the entire east elevation of

the Capitol, burying it behind courtyards and connecting corridors. From the carriage front, the

Capitol would be totally transformed into a single,

massive block with a twenty-five-bay portico

between small end pavilions. From the west the

Capitol would appear unchanged. The strength of

the design lay with its floor plan. A monumental

passage lined with forty columns connected the

new entrance to the rotunda door. Just off this corridor were the new chambers for the House and

Senate, designed without curving walls or domed

ceilings that might promote echoes.

One of America’s leading architects, Richard

Upjohn, was in Europe when the competition was

announced. Upon returning home, he learned of

the contest but realized there was not enough time

to prepare drawings and estimates. He nonetheless

Thomas U. Walter

1854

Before being named architect of the Capitol extension, Walter (1804–1887) was closely associated with one

of the country’s great works of architecture and philanthropy: Girard College for Orphans in Philadelphia.

Stephen Girard left the bulk of his $7.5 million estate to

the college in a will that dictated the size, materials, and

plan of its buildings. In 1832, Walter won an architectural

competition for the college complex and, at age 28,

topped a field of older and more experienced architects

that included his former master, William Strickland.

While Girard College was under way, Walter was commissioned to build a breakwater at La Guaira, the port of

Caracas, Venezuela. From 1843 until 1845, Walter served

as the project’s chief engineer. To transport stone to the

site of the breakwater, Walter supervised construction of

one of the first railroads in South America.

After Girard College Walter’s career was dominated by

fourteen years at the Capitol, a period of creativity and hard

work seldom matched in the life of an American architect.

What promised to be a quiet retirement began in 1865, but it

was shattered by financial reverses brought on by the Panic

of 1873, which left the architect bankrupt. He accepted a

low-paying job at the Pennsylvania Railroad and later joined

James McArthur in building the colossal Philadelphia City

Hall. He labored there until his death at age 83.

In 1836 Walter called together twenty-three architects from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore,

Washington, and New Orleans to form the American Institution of Architects. Although short-lived, the institution

laid the groundwork for the founding of the American

Institute of Architects in 1857. Walter hoped that membership in the AIA would be a badge of honor, helping to

cultivate respect for the profession and safeguard its prerogatives. In 1876 he was elected the AIA’s second president, and he was serving as such at the time of his death.

Founders Hall 

Girard College, ca. 1860 

Author’s Collection
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 191

Design For An Enlargement of the U. S. Capitol 

Washington, D. C.

by Thomas U. Walter, 1850

The east elevation was dominated by an extensive portico with thirty-four

columns, some of which were to be reused from Bulfinch’s portico.

Perspective View of a Design For Enlarging the U. S. Capitol 

by Thomas U. Walter, 1850

From the east and side elevations, Walter’s proposed addition would have transformed the Capitol into a totally different building. The design was not approved in

the Senate, chiefly because of Jefferson Davis’ opposition.

Design For An Enlargement of the U. S. Capitol

Washington, D. C.

by Thomas U. Walter, 1850.

The close proximity of the chambers was a feature admired

in this plan. Not having to purchase additional land or deal 

with the sloping ground of the west lawn were two others. This

plan was favored by the majority of the House Committee on 

Public Buildings, as well as the chairman of the Senate Committee

on Public Buildings.
192 History of the United States Capitol

wished to be considered and wrote a letter to the

Senate committee expressing interest. He offered

to take on the duties of architect for a negotiated

fee and suggested the $500 prize money be

deducted from his first paycheck. In offering his

services, Upjohn said he was motivated by the

desire to see American public buildings “alike creditable to our country, to our age, and to the profession to which I am devoted.” He excused himself

for not entering the competition, saying such a

contest was highly disagreeable, a sentiment widely

held by architects both then and now:

I have not been in the habit of joining in the

scramble for employment by presenting competition plans as such a mode of doing business

is not agreeable to my views and feelings as a

professional man and does not commend itself

to my judgement.

...I hope to see the time when architects may

be employed as we employ painters, sculptors,

physicians, and lawyers, because we believe

them to understand their business and can best

do what we commission them to do. Whenever

I can meet parties on such grounds I have no

fear of the result.6

Upjohn’s tactic did not win him the commission

he sought, and he would not be the only one disappointed in the long, perverse process of naming an

architect to enlarge the Capitol. After the designs

had been reviewed by the House and Senate Committees on Public Buildings, it became clear that

there would be no agreement on how the building

should be enlarged. The Senate still preferred

wings and the House was equally adamant about

an eastward expansion. While they waited for the

president to begin his selection process, the Senate

divided the $500 premium among five contestants.

William P. Elliot and Philip Harry shared first-place

honors and were awarded $125 each. Robert Mills

and Charles F. Anderson tied for second place and

were each given $100, while Thomas McCleland of

Alexandria, Virginia, earned $50 for his entry.7

Soon after the awards were made, the Senate

Committee on Public Buildings asked Mills to study

the entries and incorporate their best features into

a new composite design. He quickly finished the job

and the design was presented to the full Senate by

Jefferson Davis on February 8, 1851. (While not the

committee’s chairman, Davis was its most dynamic

member.) The plan called for north and south wings

directly attached to the ends of the Capitol. They

were recessed from the western elevation to avoid

the expense of sinking foundations into the slope of

Capitol Hill and were necessarily extended beyond

the eastern elevation. Thus positioned, the new

wings would put the dome in the center of the building’s mass when viewed from north or south. The

committee considered this an important point and

mistakenly thought it would “restore to the rotundo

the central position which it had in the original

design.” 8 Again citing restoration to the “classic

Proposed 

Enlargement of 

the Capitol

by Robert Mills

ca. 1851 

After the 1850 

competition closed, Mills

was asked to combine the

best features of several

entries into a composite

design, which came to be

known as the “Senate

Plan.” Wings were

attached directly to the

ends of the old building

while a new dome

crowned the center.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 193

beauty and simplicity of the first plan,” Davis proposed to reduce the height of the central dome and

remove the domes over the House and Senate

wings, and he argued that the appearance of each

elevation would be improved by the addition of the

new wings. All future requirements of the House

and Senate, their committees, and the library

would, he was sure, be satisfied as well. Davis promised it would not cost half as much as a duplicate

building, and the committee considered the

expense of wings the lowest expenditure that

would accomplish the project goals. The cost of the

enlargement was an estimated $1,291,000.

While the Senate took a public position on the

Capitol extension, the House of Representatives

did not. Its Committee on Public Buildings failed

to issue a report because one of its members,

Andrew Johnson of Tennessee (future president

of the United States), objected and it could not

report unless its members were unanimous. To

satisfy public curiosity, however, the committee

chairman, Richard Stanton of Kentucky, decided

to publish an account of the committee’s findings

in the National Intelligencer of March 7, 1851.9

After giving a synopsis of the enlargement question, he explained that his committee objected to

building wings because of the expense involved in

enlarging the grounds and altering the terraces. It

also objected to placing great distance between the

two chambers, which would be reached through

narrow and intricate passages inside or balconies

outside. Stanton condemned the necessity of shutting the light and air out of the old building and

noted that noise and dirt would infiltrate the halls

of Congress while the wings were under construction. In his opinion, all objections would be avoided

by adding an eastward extension as favored by the

House Committee on Public Buildings:

The plan adopted by the majority of the House

committee, and approved in all its main features by the chairman of the Senate committee, is one designed and presented by Thomas

U. Walter, Esq., of Philadelphia, a gentleman of

great practical experience, and eminently distinguished for his skill and genius as an architect. It combines all the conveniences desirable

in the proposed enlargement, is harmonious

and beautiful in architectural design, and may

be constructed without excessive expenditure.

Stanton wrote that columns and steps from

the old east portico would be reused in a new portico, which would be enlarged with eight new

columns. Two new porticoes would add interest

and grandeur to the north and south sides of the

building. The chambers were designed with particular attention to acoustics. Ceilings were to be no

higher than thirty feet, horizontal, and deeply paneled. No curving surfaces would promote reverberations or echoes. The old hall of the House

would be converted into the Library of Congress

and its former room either continued as a library

or divided into committee rooms. Hot water pipes

connected to boilers in the basement would be

used to warm the extension. It was Walter’s preferred method of heating, one that avoided the

“carbonic acid-gas” produced by hot air furnaces.

Although unnecessary, fireplaces would be built in

every room to provide cheerful fires for those

unaccustomed to central heating.

Principal Floor Plan

by Robert Mills, ca. 1851

By advancing the wings eastward, Mills avoided the embankments of the west 

terrace, which would save on construction costs. In place of the old hall of the House,

Mills drew a suite of rooms for the clerk, a post office, and a library. New House and

Senate chambers occupied most of their respective wings. The congressional library

was enlarged by an apse as well as its extension across the entire west central building.

Jefferson Davis wanted this plan adopted but encountered opposition in the

House of Representatives.
194 History of the United States Capitol

THE PRESIDENT’S

DECISION

During the second session of the 31st

Congress, which ran from December

2, 1850, to March 3, 1851, Washington

swarmed with architects. Contestants in the Senate competition came to explain their designs and

to meet with anyone who could help them gain

favor in Congress or with the president. Those who

lived nearby had a natural advantage, but reliable,

fast, and cheap railroad transportation gave architects from Philadelphia, New York, and Boston

quick access to the nation’s capital as well. Several

new faces were seen around town, most notably

Ammi B. Young of Boston, while William P. Elliot

and others dropped out of the contest. Almost

daily, the president’s mail brought letters of recommendation from politicians and other influential

friends. Some architects wrote eloquent testimonials of their political support or damning testimony

against their competitors. Charles Frederick Anderson seemed to have been a particularly industrious

letter writer, offering advice and indulging in grand

self promotion. In one missive, he recounted with

alarm a rumor he heard in New York suggesting the

president would not appoint an architect who did

not support the Whig party. Thinking it would help

his cause, Anderson wrote that he strongly believed

whomever was appointed should “strain every

nerve to keep in power the party or individual by

whose means they obtain such extensive and honorable employment.” 10

One of the competing architects, Thomas U.

Walter, kept an account of his trips to Washington

as well as a record of the meetings he had with the

president and other politicians.11 His activities illustrate what was necessary to compete for an important federal commission. Eight days after the

competition was announced, he was in Washington

meeting with Senator Hunter, chairman of the Committee on Public Buildings, as well as Congressman

Joseph R. Chandler of Philadelphia. Walter and

Chandler had been friends for a quarter-century,

brought together by their mutual association with

Girard College—Chandler was a member of the

board of trustees and Walter had been the architect

and later a fellow board member. Walter made a

second trip on October 17, 1850, when he carefully

examined the Capitol and studied the problem of

making additions to it. A third trip began on November 22, soon after he completed the eight drawings

he submitted to the Senate Committee on Public

Buildings. During his twelve-day stay, Walter met

with Robert Beale, the Senate sergeant at arms,

who introduced him to President Fillmore at the

White House. He had several meetings with members of Congress, met with Joseph Henry, the secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, attended the

opening of Congress, met a second time with the

president, was introduced to the secretary of the

treasury, and met again with Senator Hunter. When

he returned to Philadelphia, Walter worked on a

perspective of his design to enlarge the Capitol with

an eastern extension, which he presented to the

Senate committee during his fourth visit beginning

on December 12. He spent an evening in the company of Congressman Stanton, beginning a warm

and friendly relationship. With Stanton and Senators Hunter and Davis, Walter explained his plans

for the extension and took the opportunity to review

designs submitted by others. Until he left the city,

on December 20, Walter paid calls on congressmen

and senators, which he repeated during his fifth

visit—a short stay of only two days on January 10

and 11, 1851. During his sixth trip to Washington,

beginning on February 11, Chandler took him to

see the president and he passed another pleasant

evening with Chairman Stanton.

During these meetings and visits, Walter was

swamped with ideas and suggestions that he was

obliged to digest and reconcile. Throughout the

spring of 1851 he kept up the backbreaking combination of visiting Washington and spending grueling

hours over the drafting board in Philadelphia. On

February 20, Fillmore and the cabinet had a meeting with all the architects, which lasted four and a

half hours. The next day, participants reconvened

at the Capitol, where they staked the outline of

their plans on the ground. By April 10 Walter finished a series of variations for an eastern extension,

north and south wings, and another design combining wings with an east addition. On April 12 he was

back in Washington to deliver plans to Colonel

Abert, who acted as an advisor to the president.

Walter’s tenth visit was cut short by the illness of

his daughter, which suddenly called him home to

Philadelphia. Ten days later he visited Robert Mills,

William P. Elliot, and Colonel Abert but was again
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 195

obliged to hurry home to his daughter’s side. On

May 1, just four days after the death of his daughter Irene, Walter and his wife traveled to Washington where he again met with the president and his

cabinet. By this time Fillmore had decided to

enlarge the Capitol by adding flanking wings, but

the question remained of just how the old and new

structures should be attached. Placing the wings

directly against the ends of the Capitol seemed the

most obvious way to connect them, but this meant

that all the side windows and doors of the old building would be covered over. Several architects—

Mills and Walter among them—had at one time

proposed courtyards between the old and new

buildings, but no one had devised a satisfactory

way of going from one to the other. Secretary of

State Daniel Webster finally suggested building the

wings some distance from the Capitol and connecting them by narrow corridors. Thus, the light and

air coming into the Capitol would not be disturbed,

construction activity would be kept away from the

occupied building, and as much of the old building

as possible would stand free of the additions. It was

a superb suggestion.

During a cabinet meeting on May 1, the location of the chambers within the new wings was discussed. Placing them in the eastern part had the

practical advantage of allowing the wings to be

advanced eastward and thus recede from the sloping western grounds. Such a placement would avoid

the trouble and expense of sinking foundations

thirty or forty feet below the surface. But eastern

chambers would also expose legislators to the dust,

noise, and smells of the east plaza with all its clanking of horse-drawn carriages and wagons. Fillmore

decided that congressmen and senators should

instead enjoy the charming prospect and fresh air

of a garden view westward toward the Mall.

On May 2, after one more visit to the Capitol,

Walter returned to Philadelphia to work on a new

plan for the extension with detached wings, connecting corridors, and western chambers. A month

later he was back in Washington with new plans,

which were immediately sent to the president. On

June 4 he explained features of the design to Fillmore and the cabinet. Another meeting took place

on June 9, and the next afternoon Walter was notified that the president had appointed him architect of the Capitol extension. He immediately

Design for an

Extension of the 

U. S. Capitol 

by Thomas U. Walter

1851

In the spring of 1851

President Fillmore interviewed architects during

cabinet meetings where

suggestions were made

and revisions encouraged.

This design was made 

to show a more economical version of an east

extension. The figure

$1,259,000 was lightly

penciled under 

Walter’s signature.

Design for an Extension of the U. S. Capitol, Washington, D. C.

by Thomas U. Walter, 1851

In a scheme similar to Mills’ “Senate Plan,” Walter designed wings attached

directly to the ends of the old building and advanced them eastward to avoid the west

terraces. Here the principal entrances to the wings were from the west.
196 History of the United States Capitol

telegraphed his wife and went to the Capitol to

find a room to use as an office. On June 11, Walter

took the required oath and returned to Philadelphia to pack up his family for their move to Washington. Eight days later he was back and living in a

boarding house with his wife and young children.

At a meeting with the president on June 20, Walter

was notified that his salary had been set at $4,500

per year and that he should report to the secretary

of the interior, Alexander H. H. Stuart. The arrangement was a change from that in Latrobe’s or

Bulfinch’s day, when the architect reported to 

the commissioner of public buildings, and the

incumbent commissioner, William Easby, was not 

altogether pleased. While he had no authority over

Walter, Easby was in a good position to cause trouble in the future.

Walter’s appointment was greeted with quiet

resignation by most architects who wanted the job.

Two, however, bristled. Robert Mills had helped

father the movement to enlarge the Capitol and he

felt that he deserved the appointment by parental

right. He bore his loss silently until 1853, when a

change in administration opened what he thought

was an opportunity to replace Walter, but his efforts

to dislodge the victor failed. Another competitor,

Charles Anderson, was more embittered and troublesome. He spent the remaining fifteen years of

his life engaged in a smear campaign against Walter, eventually landing them in court. But aside

from these exceptions, all seemed to agree that

President Fillmore made a wise selection when 

he appointed Walter. It was, after all, an astute 

political move. In the prevailing spirit of compromise, the president chose the architect favored by

the House of Representatives to enlarge the Capitol in the manner favored by the Senate.

Capitol with the Approved Extension Design

by Thomas U. Walter, 1851

The Athenaeum of Philadelphia

On June 10, 1851, President Millard Fillmore approved Walter’s design for wings

placed forty-five feet from the ends of the old building and connected to it by narrow

corridors. Each wing had three porticoes, with the eastern ones sheltering the 

principal entrances.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 197

Plans of the North Wing

by Thomas U. Walter, 1851

The Senate chamber was originally to receive light and air from twenty-five windows arranged in two tiers. Light

would also be admitted through a skylight in the center of the iron ceiling. The Supreme Court was to have a new

chamber on the first floor while the upper story accommodated committee rooms and the galleries.

Second Floor

First Floor Third Floor
198 History of the United States Capitol

Plans of the South Wing

by Thomas U. Walter, 1851

The House chamber occupied the western half of the south wing. There, representatives would enjoy fresh air

and garden views away from the dust and noise of the east plaza. On the first floor Walter planned a series of 

committee rooms, offices, workrooms, storage rooms, and water closets, while the third floor was occupied by more

committee rooms and the gallery overlooking the chamber. 

The notation indicating that this was the “Original Design of T. U. Walter Architect” was added to the drawing

about 1858.

Third Floor

Second Floor

First Floor
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 199

THE THIRD

CORNERSTONE

Months before Fillmore appointed

Walter, it was generally understood that the cornerstone of the

Capitol extension would be laid on July 4, 1851.

The approaching national anniversary gave the

president, the cabinet, and the competing architects a useful deadline. Initially, the president did

not wish to lay the cornerstone with Masonic rites,

feeling that if Masons were invited then Odd Fellows would have to be invited as well. Sentiments

against the Masonic fraternity had begun in the

days of Andrew Jackson’s presidency, when critics

complained about the group’s alleged exclusiveness and its acknowledged secrecy. Fillmore himself was considered anti-Mason, and it was not until

July 1 that he agreed to a Masonic ritual at the cornerstone ceremony.

Despite hurried arrangements, events surrounding the laying of the extension cornerstone

went smoothly. The commissioner of public buildings hired Nicholas Acker to prepare a granite block

to serve as one of the two cornerstones. An awning

of coarse linen was stitched to protect the speaker’s

platform from rain or sun. J. V. N. Throop was paid

eighteen dollars for engraving the metal plate. One

of Walter’s apprentices, Clement West, ordered

$40.44 worth of coins from the Philadelphia mint

to be deposited in the cornerstone along with views

of Washington, newspapers, and other materials.

Laborers dug the foundation trenches following

the lines staked out by the architect.

Prior to the ceremony, newspapers printed the

program drawn up by Richard Wallack, the marshal

of the District of Columbia. They called on parade

participants to assemble at city hall at 10 o’clock

on the Fourth. The parade’s first division was

mostly made up of the marshal, his aides, and officers of the army and navy, including veterans of

the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the war with

Mexico. The second division, by far the most

diverse, included three persons who had been present at the 1793 cornerstone laying; President Fillmore; present and past cabinet members; members

of Congress; the architect of the Capitol extension;

Supreme Court justices; the diplomatic corps; the

Section of 

South Wing

by Thomas U. Walter

1851

Progressing up the 

exterior stairs through a

columned, two-story hall

before reaching the House

chamber was simple, clear,

and direct. The chamber

was designed with an iron

ceiling carried from

trusses in the attic. A

gallery was to be supported by slender iron

columns similar to those

installed in the old Senate

chamber in 1828.
200 History of the United States Capitol

clergy; state governors; the corporate authorities

of Alexandria, Georgetown, and Washington; and

the Society of Cincinnati. The third division was

composed of about 200 Masons from Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia.

The final two divisions included temperance and

benevolent societies, literary associations, colleges,

and schools.

July 4, 1851, was an unusually mild day, a welcome respite from Washington’s notoriously

steamy summers. The day began with church bells

ringing and artillery salutes from various spots

around the city. At eight o’clock a procession

headed by President Fillmore marched from the

White House to the Washington Monument, where

a stone quarried at Valley Forge was presented by

the Pennsylvania Sons of Temperance. After the

usual speeches, salutes, and benedictions, the

president’s party went to city hall to join the

parade that would soon march to the Capitol.

Newspaper accounts described the procession

with enthusiastic approval:

We have never witnessed, under such short

notice, a finer display of our volunteer companies: the Washington Light Infantry Band

deserve high credit for their recent improvement, and the Sharpshooters paraded their

fine new set of musical instruments for the

first time. The visiting companies of Baltimore, though few in number, attracted considerable attention.

The array of Officers of the Army and Navy

was one of the most imposing features of the

pageant, including amongst them thirty or

forty brave veterans, many of whom had faithfully spent the flower of their lives in the service of their country.... When again will our

countrymen be favored with an opportunity

like this?12

The procession reached the Capitol at 11:30.

The Senate chaplain delivered a “fervent” prayer

opening the ceremony. Into the hollow granite cornerstone Walter placed a glass jar containing newspapers, documents, coins, and a patriotic statement

written by Secretary of State Webster. The stone

was then laid by the president with “great dignity

and solemnity.” With that done, the Masons took

over, making deposits in their stone, lowering it on

top of the first stone, and consecrating it with the

“corn of nourishment, the wine of refreshment,

and the oil of joy.” Holding the same gavel used by

Washington in 1793, the grand master, Benjamin

Brown French, tapped the stone and pronounced

it “well laid, true and trusty.” Turning to Walter, he

handed over tools of the architectural profession—

a square, a level, and a plumb—with a prayer that

the work might be successfully completed.

Following the presentation, the ceremony

continued on the platform on the steps of the

Capitol. French was the first to speak. He

described the nation’s progress since the Capitol’s

first cornerstone was laid and spoke of the “sacred

fire of liberty” and the “dark and dismal clouds of

disunion,” which, he was happy to say, had been

weathered by the “good old Ship of State.” Henry

Clay headed a list of patriots whom French called

the “saviors of this glorious galaxy of American

States... the pillars of their country in the hour

of her darkest trial.”

Ready to deliver the principal address was 

the venerable secretary of state. As Webster

approached, he was greeted with enthusiastic

cheers. His reputation as a mighty orator attracted

a large audience, many of whom came early to

stand close to the platform so as not to miss a word.

And Webster did not disappoint them. For two

hours the eloquent statesman held his audience

captive, reciting statistics illustrating the growth of

the country and its industry, agriculture, commerce, population, and government. He evoked the

memory of Washington, praised the blessings of

liberty, and called the secession of southern states

“the greatest of all improbabilities.” It was an

address full of classical allusions, long, learned

quotations from Cicero (delivered, of course, in

Latin), and proud reminders of America’s own

progress and history. It was to be Webster’s last

great speech, his last plea for the preservation of

the Union.

An artillery salute followed the conclusion of

Webster’s address. The military and civic organizations “returned in excellent order to their respective places of rendezvous.” At nightfall, the

celebration concluded with fireworks on the Mall.

The Capitol’s third cornerstone had been set amid

one of the most elaborate ceremonies ever held in

Washington. For the moment, the nation’s future

appeared peaceful and secure.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 201

ON THE JOB

Initially, Walter’s office was set up in

one or two empty committee rooms in

the Capitol, which he surrendered

when Congress returned in the fall. On December

18, 1851, the office moved into rented rooms above

the Adams Express Office on A Street north. There,

Walter’s room was the center of drafting activity

while an adjacent clerk’s room was the business

center. Both were plainly furnished with carpets;

coal stoves; wash stands with pitchers, basins, and

hand towels; and looking glasses. The architect’s

office had three pine drawing tables, two mahogany

writing tables with cloth covers, eight drawing

boards, a bookcase, three armchairs, and eight

Windsor chairs. A fireproof safe protected building

contracts, proposals, and other important documents. Official letters from the Department of the

Interior, applications for employment, bills, and

invoices were filed in a large mahogany case. Drafting paper came in long rolls, and finished drawings

were hung in racks. The number of draftsmen

working under Walter varied from time to time. At

the beginning of the work two young students from

Philadelphia, Clement West and Edward Clark,

came to Washington to continue their apprenticeships. They were soon joined by August Schoenborn, a German architect whom Walter considered

a master of perspective and coloring. (Both Clark

and Schoenborn would work at the Capitol for the

rest of their long careers.)

The clerk’s office contained two pine writing

tables with baize covers, a pine desk, a swivel chair,

and three Windsor chairs. The office journal, ledger,

day book, bid book, check book, and cash box were

kept in the clerk’s safe. Duplicate vouchers were

stored in the safe as well. Presiding over the office

was Zephaniah W. Denham, whom Walter appointed

on July 21, 1851, at an annual salary of $1,200.

The day after he appointed Denham, Walter

named Samuel Strong general superintendent of

construction. Most likely Strong came to this

important job through political influence wielded

by backers in New York City and Albany, who had

sent Fillmore letters in Strong’s favor well before

the architect was named. The president may also

have recalled that Strong was superintendent of

construction for the arsenal in New York City while

he was comptroller of the state. With responsibilities similar to those of the position of clerk of the

works in Latrobe’s day, Strong oversaw work performed by day laborers and insured the quality of

Eastern Elevation, South Wing

by Thomas U. Walter, 1851

Afew weeks after the cornerstone of the 

extension was laid, Walter completed a series of exterior

elevations showing the design in detail.
202 History of the United States Capitol

contractors’ work. Materials delivered to the site

were inspected to guard against fraud, and if any

delinquencies or improprieties were discovered,

Strong was to report them immediately. His salary

was set at $2,000 per year.

Walter recommended that the extension project be advertised for bids and placed under a single contract. The second-best approach, in his

opinion, would be to divide the project into multiple parts to be sent out for bids. Either manner of

executing the work was preferable to the “dayswork system,” which he thought suffered from an

absence of incentive and motivation.

Fillmore and Stuart agreed with Walter’s second recommendation and instructed him to

divided the work into as many parts as possible to

enlarge competition to the greatest extent.13 Walter replied that it was too early to consider contracts for such things as roofing, painting, or

glazing and he would therefore confine his remarks

to parts of the building that lay immediately ahead.

His recommendations, approved on September 13,

divided the work into six basic contracts:

—Granite work of sub-basement of both 

buildings, including materials, in 

one contract.

—Marble work of the entire exterior, including

materials, also in one contract.

—Brick by the thousand.

—Lime and cement by the barrel.

—Sand by the bushel.

—Lumber for centering and scaffolding by the

thousand feet.14

The first contracts Walter signed were with

John Purdy for lumber, Andrew Hoover and

Samuel Seely for lime, Joseph Piper for foundation

stone, Matthew Emory for granite, Christopher

Adams for brick, George Schafer and Alexander

Boteler for cement, and A. N. Clements for sand. A

quarry just beyond Chain Bridge upriver from

Washington supplied the gneiss used to build the

foundations of the south wing, while a nearby

quarry supplied stone for the north wing. Using

hundreds of day laborers, work on the foundations

began in August, and by the time the money ran

out in December, almost 50,000 cubic yards of

earth had been excavated and 18,000 perches of

stone laid. The footings were eight feet, nine

inches wide and were sunk fifteen feet below

ground on the eastern front and forty feet on the

west. So much of the western lawn was what Walter called “made ground” that it was necessary to

begin the foundations on undisturbed strata

located deep below the surface.

By mid-December, the first appropriation for

the extension was exhausted. Work came to a halt

and the hands were dismissed. Unemployed laborers presented a petition asking Congress to appropriate funds so they might regain a means of

support. Many in their ranks had moved to Washington thinking employment would be steady and

now found it difficult to find other work due to the

cold and wet weather. However, their straightforward request soon became entangled in a political

web aggravated by the shenanigans of disgruntled

contractors.

On December 16, 1851, Democratic Representative Richard Stanton offered a resolution authorizing the architect to keep the workmen employed

until such time as another appropriation was made.

Stanton and his friends wanted to see the work—

barely four months under way—continued. Other

members of the House saw it as a dangerous precedent guaranteeing government employment for

anyone who wanted it. Many who opposed Stanton did not wish to abandon the project but

objected to the workmen’s claim that the government owed them jobs. A member of the Whig party,

Daniel Wallace of South Carolina, sounded the

alarm in the House:

I do not recognize the right of any class of persons to come here in person, or by their representative, and demand that appropriations be

made to give them employment. Such ideas, sir,

as have been advanced on this floor by the honorable gentleman from Kentucky should, in my

judgment, be met with the unqualified reprobation of this House and the country. These ideas

are but the reflex of those of the French school

of communism and the right to labor, which

erected the barricades in the streets of Paris in

1848, and from the destructive tendencies of

which, France has sought present repose by

the restoration of the Empire under military

rule of Napoleon II.15

Friends of the extension simply wanted funds

to restart the project and did not believe that the

laborers posed a threat to the republic or to capitalism. Another question was raised that further postponed funding. On January 12, 1852, the House

appointed a committee to investigate the firmness
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 203

and stability of the foundations.16 An enemy of the

administration and the extension project, John

McNair, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, was

appointed chairman. After two months of investigation—but before the committee reported its findings—McNair let it be known that he considered

the foundations to be in a “dreadful” condition.17 In

his opinion, the mortar was insufficient to bond

properly and he claimed to have found many stones

loose enough to be dug out by hand. The pronouncements were made a few minutes after Stanton introduced an appropriation to continue the

extension through the fiscal year ending June 30,

1853. Seeing the prospects of the appropriation

endangered, Stanton reacted with a defense of the

project in which he tried to expose outside influences acting on McNair and his committee. He suspected disappointed applicants had attempted “to

throw doubt upon the stability of the work.” 18 Contractors who failed to get government business

came to the chamber “to harass this House,

and . . . to lead intelligent and honorable members

of Congress into dilemmas, of which, when they

learn the whole truth, they will be ashamed.” 19 He

described the scientific tests that proved the foundations capable of sustaining more than 200 times

the weight to be placed on them. The allegations

regarding the bonding of stones were rebutted by

the facts as well as descriptions of similar foundations that were still standing in Greece after thousands of years. Stanton was well prepared in his

defense of the workmanship of the foundations,

while McNair seemed ill-equipped to support his

position. Reluctantly McNair admitted that his opinions were influenced by a man named Knowles—

“one of the best architects, perhaps, in the state of

Pennsylvania”—who condemned the foundations

after spending a few minutes inspecting them.

A congressman from Ohio, David K. Cartter,

spoke of very different fears regarding the foundations. He was not concerned about their stability

but warned that they were laid in the wrong place.

“They are too near the eastern skirt of the empire,”

he cautioned,

and I have no apprehension at all but that it

will rest, mechanically, firmly upon its present

foundation, and bear upon its surface the edifice you propose to place upon it, until the

weight of the empire transfers it to the center

of the empire. You had better address yourself

to that consideration; for the time is soon coming when the difficulty will not be in the weight

upon it, but in keeping the foundation still.

The foundations will partake of the spirit of

the Republic, and make a western trip.20

Cartter was not alone in his belief that the capital would one day be moved to a location closer to

the geographical center of the nation. This prediction, often used as a reason to oppose new construction in the federal city, would be heard time

and again throughout the remainder of the nineteenth century. One cynical member suggested

that the only reason a western congressman would

oppose moving the seat of government westward

was because those who lived far from Washington

received more money for mileage than those who

lived close by.21

In the Senate, opponents to the Capitol extension were led by Solon Borland of Arkansas, who

introduced a resolution calling for their own investigation into the solidity of the foundations. Borland questioned the cost of the project, rejecting

the architect’s estimate as deceivingly low and

warning against greedy workmen who wished the

government to operate “a great national

almshouse” for their benefit.22 He painted a dramatic and exaggerated picture of doom and

destruction that would ensue if construction were

allowed to proceed. The extension was, according

to Borland, a “house built upon the sand” that

would surely topple and become a “mausoleum to

its dupes.” 23

The Senate instructed its Committee on Public Buildings to investigate the foundations and

authorized it to call experts into consultation. The

committee, in turn, called on the Army Corps of

Engineers and the Corps of Topographical Engineers to examine the work. Both bureaus reported

favorably. Frederick A. Smith and J. L. Mason of

the Corps of Engineers noted that the gneiss or

blue stone was excellent and well suited for foundations. The mortar was made properly from

hydraulic cement and sand, and the workmanship

was excellent. The committee could see no reason

to delay construction any longer, especially in view

of the fine spring weather. It recommended restarting the work at once. 24

Senator Borland was unmoved. Facts could

not change his mind about the architect or his belief

that the Capitol extension was a waste of money.

On April 9, 1852, while Senator Hunter tried to
204 History of the United States Capitol

secure an appropriation for the extension, Borland

proclaimed that it would be better to sacrifice the

$100,000 already expended rather than pursue the

wasteful project that would cost many millions in

the end. He also criticized the extension on aesthetic grounds, claiming that the building was

already too low for its length. To make it any longer

without making it taller would, Borland predicted,

court architectural disaster. He lamented that the

distance between the new chambers would be so

great that traveling to and from them would entail

a quarter mile round trip. One of Borland’s allies,

Senator James W. Bradbury of Maine, suggested

easing overcrowding by removing desks from the

two chambers. Space problems would disappear

and legislators would stop writing letters and pay

closer attention to the business at hand. Another

senator, Joseph R. Underwood of Kentucky,

thought that abandoned foundations would do no

credit to the nation. He asked his colleagues to

imagine a country dotted with similar relics of

unfinished business and wondered how the American people would come to view Congress. Clearly,

it would not be a sight to honor the country.25

At every opportunity, Borland and his lieutenants threw obstacles in the path of the appropriation. Yet at the end of the day, a resolution

from the House of Representatives appropriating

$500,000 was agreed to by the Senate. On April

14, 1852, it was signed into law. Idle for months,

workmen at last went back to their jobs.

MASSACHUSETTS

MARBLE

During the debates, Borland occasionally alluded to a contract supposedly

worth one and a half million dollars

that Walter had signed, which the senator claimed

was illegal. Only $100,000 had been appropriated

and the architect had no authority to obligate the

government beyond that sum. Although he was

never specific, Borland was referring to a contract

signed on January 13, 1852, by John Rice and John

Baird, marble merchants from Philadelphia. The

senator was correct in believing that the contract

was lucrative and long term, but he was mistaken

in believing it did anything more than state the

mutually agreed upon prices for marble delivered

from their quarry at Lee, Massachusetts. Walter

recommended cladding the extension with American marble because the sandstone used in the old

building had proven unsatisfactory, especially

where it was exposed to the weather. Despite layers of paint protecting the surface, spallation and

exfoliation marred its appearance, a condition no

one wished to see repeated on the new wings.

(During this period only one other public building

in Washington was faced with marble. Robert Mills’

General Post Office at F and 8th Streets, N. W.,

was completed in 1842 using marble from Westchester, New York.)

Walter received eighteen bids for marble in

response to a newspaper advertisement published

on September 19, 1851. Proposals were invited for

all the exterior marble, including the material,

workmanship, and installation. The bids were

accompanied by samples of stone that the contractors proposed to use. After the opening of bids

on October 21, 1851, a proposal from Provost, Winter, & Company at $773,918 was the lowest. The

firm had executed the stonework at the Patent

Office and came highly recommended by the chairman of the House Committee on Public Buildings,

Richard Stanton. Before a contract was signed,

however, the president wanted the marble tested

for strength and evaluated for beauty.

Secretary of the Interior Stuart appointed a

five-man commission to test marble samples: General Joseph G. Totten of the Army Corps of Engineers; Joseph Henry, secretary of the Smithsonian

Institution; Thomas Ewbank, commissioner of

the Patent Office; and Thomas U. Walter. Joining

them was America’s foremost architectural critic

and aesthete, Andrew Jackson Downing of Newburgh, New York, who had recently been engaged

by the government to plan landscape improvements for the Mall.

The commission made its one and only report

on December 22, 1851.26 After citing the difficulties

of conducting an impartial evaluation of marble

given “the present state of science,” the report

described various experiments carried out on

twelve specimens of marble submitted from quarries in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and

Maryland. The tests were meant to approximate
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 205

the effects of weathering and measured such things

as density and the pressure necessary to crush the

stone. Masons prepared the samples by cutting

them into one and a half inch cubes. These were

subjected to crushing tests at the Navy Yard using a

machine that determined the strength of gun metal.

Another test measured the amount of water

absorbed by the marbles. Samples were frozen and

thawed twenty-eight times in secession to study

the probable effects of weathering.

The commission determined that marbles from

East Chester and Hastings, New York; Lee, Massachusetts; and Baltimore, Maryland, were appropriate. Letters were sent to the proprietors of these

quarries asking them to submit offers while unsolicited testimonials were received explaining the

properties that made one marble better than

another. Horatio Greenough, for instance, recommend the Lee, Massachusetts, marble. He had personally examined and tested it and found it to be

an excellent stone with an even tint and texture.

No marble pleased him better for sculpture.27

Walter visited the quarries to see if there were

enough stone to complete the extension. He did

not wish to begin with one marble and finish with

another. He found that the Baltimore quarry operated by Provost & Winter (the low bidder) did not

contain a sufficient supply, and that firm was therefore eliminated from consideration. By virtue of its

beauty, abundance, and strength, the Lee, Massachusetts, marble was selected instead. John Rice

and John Baird offered to supply blocks of less

than thirty cubic feet for sixty-five cents per foot

and larger blocks for $1.98 per cubic foot.

Rice & Baird’s contract covered the delivery of

marble but not the cutting, carving, or setting. The

administration thought it best to separate these

aspects of the marble work. Walter recommended

Provost & Winter for this work, partly as consolation for having their original bid disqualified but

also because he knew them to be faithful and

responsible workmen whose rates were quite reasonable. The secretary of the interior forwarded

the recommendation to the chairmen of the House

and Senate Committees on Public Buildings, who

returned it with their approval. On July 12, 1852,

Walter signed a contract with Provost & Winter

spelling out the prices for cutting, carving, and

setting the exterior marble.

The New Capitol

artist unknown

“Drawn After Nature”

for Herman Meyer

ca. 1851

Soon after Walter’s

design was approved, views

of the Capitol with its new

wings were published to

satisfy the public’s curiosity

about the “new” building.

Even crude depictions such

as this conveyed a sense of

the intended appearance of

the enlarged Capitol.
206 History of the United States Capitol

ANOTHER FIRE 

IN THE LIBRARY

Two days after the marble commission

issued its report, a disastrous fire

destroyed the main reading room of

the Library of Congress. The fire was discovered

around eight o’clock in the morning on December

24, 1851, by John Jones, a guard who noticed a

suspicious flickering through the library windows.

Having no key, he broke the door down and, once

inside, saw a small fire burning near the north end

of the room. Later Jones testified that if water had

been available he could have easily extinguished

the flames on the spot. But he had to run downstairs for water and, by the time he returned, the

fire had spread all over the two-story apartment.

Alarms were sounded and seven fire companies

responded. The first to arrive was the Columbia.

Its hose, still wet from fighting a fire elsewhere,

was frozen solid by the extremely cold weather

and had to be taken to the nearby gas factory to be

thawed. The Anacostia engine company arrived

next and was the first to fight the fire effectively.28

Soon other companies were on the western

grounds, throwing water on the fire through the

library’s windows. One fire engine was brought up

the east portico steps and a second was hauled

into the rotunda. A hose was run into the library to

combat the fire, which was done with “power and

efficiency.” The fire companies were joined by a

detachment of U.S. Marines, who assisted in the

bucket brigade and wielded axes to cut away sections of the roof that lay in harm’s way. The staircase to the dome caught fire and was chopped away

to prevent flames from spreading to the vast store

of dry wood that comprised the outer dome. Had

the dome gone up in smoke, the disaster would

have been devastating. Firefighters worked all day

and well into the night. On Christmas day, they

were still spraying water on the wreckage.

The toll of the disaster was great. Thirty-five

thousand volumes—65 percent of the library’s holdings—were destroyed. About two-thirds of the

books purchased from Thomas Jefferson in 1815

were gone. Manuscripts, maps, and unspecified

“articles of vertu” had been consumed by the

flames. Gilbert Stuart’s portraits of the first five

presidents were lost, as were two portraits of

Christopher Columbus and likenesses of Hernando

Cortes, Peyton Randolph, Simon Bolivar, Baron

von Steuben, and John Hanson. Busts of George

Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Zachary Taylor,

and the Marquis de Lafayette, were also destroyed,

as was a figure of Apollo. The elegant room damaged by fire in 1826 was now a burnt-out shell:

nothing remained but the bare brick walls. No trace

of the ceiling or roof could be found. The heat had

been so intense that pieces of the sandstone

columns of the west portico scaled off, but miraculously there was little damage outside the main

library room.

John S. Meehan, the librarian of Congress,

wrote the Speaker an account of the fire. He

described the public property destroyed by the fire

but was pleased to report that about 20,000 volumes housed in adjacent rooms survived, including

the entire law library. Having throughout his tenure

prohibited the use of candles, lamps, or other artificial lighting devices in the room, Meehan considered the fire’s origins mysterious and asked that it

be the subject of a “searching investigation.” 29

Commissioner Easby oversaw the removal of

rubbish and the installation of a temporary tin roof

over the library. To cover these expenses and to

pay for the axes and buckets bought to fight the

fire, Easby requested an appropriation of $5,000.

The secretary of the interior asked the commissioner to investigate the origins of the fire, and he

in turn passed the request to the architect of the

Capitol extension. On December 26, 1851, Walter

reported that the fire was caused by the framing of

one of the alcoves coming into contact with a chimney flue. A fire laid in the room under the library

used by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

(modern day S- 152), was left to burn unattended

on the morning of the disaster. The sooty flue

caught fire and a small hole in the chimney allowed

a spark to ignite one of the library’s wooden

alcoves. “No human forethought or vigilance,” Walter concluded diplomatically, “could, under the circumstances, have prevented the catastrophe.” 30

On January 13, 1852, Congress appropriated

the money Easby requested as well as $10,000 to

begin replenishing the library’s holdings. Soon more

money was provided to fit up the document room

and nearby corridors to serve as a temporary library.

Senator James A. Pearce of Maryland, the chairman

of the Library Committee, submitted a resolution
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 207

on January 27, 1852, asking Senator Hunter’s Committee on Public Buildings to look into the steps

necessary to repair the library, making it entirely

fireproof and capable of future enlargement.

As the most handy architect, Walter was called

upon to design a new interior for the Library of

Congress reading room. Two days after the fire, he

was asked by Easby and the secretary of the interior to prepare plans and estimates for the library’s

reconstruction. On January 17, 1852, Walter submitted a report accompanied by architectural

plans, sections, and elevations for a new library

room. In the short time since the fire, Walter had

designed one of the most extraordinary rooms in

the history of American architecture—a sparkling,

incombustible cast-iron library free of any wood

except what might be used for furnishings. The

proliferation of architectural applications of iron

was as rampant in the 1850s as the exploitation of

plastics or aluminum a century later. Iron had

played only a small role in the building arts until

the industrial revolution permitted widespread use

of its strength, resistance to fire, and mass production possibilities. Iron seemed ideally suited for

fireproof construction, and Walter used it for the

Section of the New Library Room, Looking West 

by Thomas U. Walter, 1852

The central library room was flanked by north and south extensions begun 

thirteen years after the principal space was reconstructed.

Section of the New Library Room, 

Looking North

by Thomas U. Walter, 1852

An iron ceiling was the library’s most innovative

feature. Instead of a single balcony as before, Walter

designed two balconies to provide as much shelving

capacity as possible.
208 History of the United States Capitol

Details of Roof of Congressional Library

by Thomas U. Walter, 1852

America’s first iron ceiling was constructed in 1852 over the Library of Congress. 

Perspective of 

Console Supporting Ceiling 

by Thomas U. Walter, 1852

Weighing almost a ton apiece, the consoles Walter

designed for the library’s ceiling were fine specimens of

the rococo taste then current in American decorative

arts. Swirling scrolls and shells joined grapes, corn, and

acanthus in a decorative and imaginative combination.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 209

library’s alcoves, bookcases, galleries, floors, and

doors. But the most daring feature of the room’s

design was its iron ceiling—the first in America

and one of the earliest examples in the world. Suspended over the room from iron trusses, the ceiling was made up of thin iron plates cast into deep

panels and ornamented with decorative moldings

and pendants. Eight skylights, six feet square, were

glazed with colored glass. Imposing brackets five

and a half feet long weighing almost a ton apiece

would help support the ceiling.

To maximize the room’s shelving capability,

Walter’s plan called for a three-tier arrangement

with deep alcoves at the first level, shallow alcoves

and a walkway above, and bookcases against the

upper walls reached from a second balcony. Iron

plates were used as balcony flooring, while the

main floor would be paved with black and white

marble tiles. Double leaf doors at the library’s

main entrance were made of iron painted to

resemble mahogany.

For the future expansion of the library, Walter

planned to dismantle a dozen neighboring committee rooms and replace them with a pair of rooms

similar to the central reading room but with four

levels of book alcoves and shelves. This work would

be delayed until committees using the rooms relocated into the Capitol extension. For the work

immediately ahead, Walter estimated that $72,500

was needed to build the new iron library in the old,

burned-out room. In the House of Representatives,

consideration of Walter’s report and estimate was

urged by his friend, Congressman Chandler of

Pennsylvania, on February 12, 1852, but parliamentary wrangling delayed action until the following month. On March 19, 1852, President Fillmore

approved the legislation authorizing the repairs

and appropriating the funds to carry out the work.

Eleven days later, the secretary of the interior

appointed Walter the superintendent, architect,

and disbursing agent for the library’s reconstruction. He was required to post a $20,000 bond to

guarantee the faithful discharge of his new responsibilities.31 Despite the architectural success of the

iron library, Walter was never to receive a dime in

compensation or a word of thanks for designing it

and supervising its reconstruction.

Walter invited ten iron foundries to submit

bids for the library work. Eight firms responded,

including the Ames foundry in Chicopee, Massachusetts ($77,492), Bogardus and Hoppin in New

York ($72,518), and Janes, Beebe & Company in

New York ($59,872). The latter offered the lowest

bid, indeed the only bid within the appropriation,

and was awarded the contract. “I have the satisfaction to say,” Walter told the secretary of the

interior, “that the work has been executed as well

and as faithfully as it could have been done by

anyone.” 32 Walter had been acquainted with the

firm since 1846, when he went to New York in

search of furnaces for Girard College and visited

the foundry of G. Fox & Company, the predecessor to Janes, Beebe & Company.33 The friendly collaboration between the architect and the New York

ironworkers continued with the Library of Congress reconstruction and flourished throughout

Walter’s years in Washington.

At first it was thought that the library could be

rebuilt in a few months. But by mid-September,

when much of the ironwork had been received but

not yet installed, it became clear that the room

would not be finished by December 6—the opening of the second session of the 32nd Congress.

Walter explained to Secretary Stuart that despite

working day and night the room would still be

unfinished when Congress returned.34 He also

found it would cost about $20,000 more than originally thought. The usual grumbles were heard in

Congress when the additional funds were

requested. Fayette McMullen, a Democratic congressman from Virginia, complained that Walter

had made “a very wide mistake” in his estimate

and hoped more accurate calculations would be

submitted in the future.35 Richard Stanton

defended the architect, telling his colleagues that

much more damage had been caused by the fire

than was previously known. Unforseen problems

were uncovered once repair work was under way,

and these factors justified the architect’s request

for more money. Similar arguments were heard in

the Senate, with Richard Hunter of Virginia supporting the architect and Solon Borland of

Arkansas speaking against him. Richard Brodhead

of Pennsylvania found it difficult to understand

how more than $95,000 could be spent on one

room. Hunter responded with a review of the financial aspects of the project and defended the architect’s management. He concluded by praising the

beauty and novelty of iron architecture, which he
210 History of the United States Capitol

thought would be especially interesting to Pennsylvania industrialists.36

Brodhead withdrew his objection and the

appropriation passed. Twelve thousand dollars was

spent for gilding, bronzing, and painting.37 The decorative painting, Walter said, was devised especially “to keep up the idea of the whole being

composed of metal.” He intended the room to 

dazzle with a “brilliancy and richness consistent

with its architecture,” and he provided a sketch of

the room’s decoration in a letter to the secretary of

the interior written at the end of 1852:

All the plain surfaces of the ceiling, both horizontal and vertical, to be gilded in three shades

of gold leaf, so disposed as to give depth and

effect to the panels.

All the ornamental moldings, pendants, and

drops of the ceiling to be finished in gold bronze,

and the prominent parts to be tipped with gold,

burnished, so as to produce a decided and

sparkling effect against the dead gold surfaces.

The large consoles to be painted in light bronze

green, tipped with gold bronze and burnished

gold, for the purpose of giving relief to the fruits

and foliage.

All the cases, the railings, and the remaining

iron work to be finished with light gold bronze,

tipped on all the parts which receive the

strongest light with burnished gold.

The wall to be frescoed in ornamental panels,

corresponding with the rest of the work.38

William De Lamano & Company of New York

did the decorative painting and gilding in the iron

library. (Later that year, De Lamano was hired to

retouch the ceiling over the House chamber.) Work

was begun in May 1853, and particularly warm

weather made conditions in the room intolerable.

Lest a breeze disturb the delicate procedure, windows remained shut while gilders laid on thousands of sheets of gold leaf. Somewhat aghast, the

New York Tribune reported that men were compelled to work without wearing shirts. It also wrote

that the room was hot enough for a Turkish bath.39

Happily, the efforts of the bare-chested gilders

were appreciated by the press and public. The brilliance of the plan and execution of the color

scheme excited interest, and Walter was asked

about the pigments and gold leaf used to achieve

the effect that was so admired. In 1855, he told the

editor of the American Builder’s News:

The pigments used were the best pure English

lead, and the coloring matter umber, Roman

ochre, and other ordinary pigments—the whole

was ground in boiled linseed oil—The gold leaf

was of the best quality—deepest shade—the

bronze was what is usually called ‘gold bronze.’40

In a letter to one of the owners of the foundry

that cast the ironwork, Walter described Michael

Raleigh’s reaction to the room when he saw it for

the first time. A native of Ireland who helped built

Decimus Burton’s Palm House at Kew Gardens near

London, Raleigh supervised in New York the casting of each piece of iron for the library. Castings

were done from drawings sent by the architect,

and Raleigh had not seen the installation in Washington until it was completed. Although well

acquainted with every piece of iron, he was not

prepared for the splendor of the whole room assembled and decorated with paint and gold leaf:

Raleigh has got through and is almost leaving for

Gotham—I think his visit has been an effective

Library of 

Congress, 

Looking North

ca. 1870

Although it does

not appear as such in this

view, the iron library

sparkled with gold 

leaf highlights.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 211

one—I wish you could have seen him when the

Library in its fullest blaze of noonday glory

busted on his astonished vision from the little

door where Meehan has been so often wont to

anchor himself and feast his enraptured

peepers—It was quite affecting to see how his

eyes sparkled.41

The reconstruction was completed on July 1,

1853, and over the following weeks books and furniture were moved into the new room. In early

August the president and his cabinet came to the

Capitol to inspect Washington’s newest attraction,

taking Walter by surprise—he had invited the president but received no advance word of the visit.

On August 10, 1853, he wrote an account of the

sightseeing excursion to Charles Fowler, one of

the partners in the Janes, Beebe company:

Yesterday I went up to the Library to make

some arrangement about covering the inner

door, and to my surprise there was the whole

cabinet with the President (except Judge

Campbell) and they had been there an hour—

the room was dirty; the furniture stacked up

and covered, and every thing in uproar—I made

the best of it I could—the President said he

wrote me a note some time ago, and all I could

say was, I did not receive it—This morning it

came to hand by mail, having been 3 days in

the post office.42

Less than two weeks later, however, the

“uproar” had apparently quieted: the new Library

of Congress was opened officially to the public on

August 23, 1853.

AN ADMINISTRATIVE

TRANSFER

The president who visited the library

was Franklin Pierce, who had become

America’s fourteenth president on

March 4, 1853. Handsome, gracious—and alcoholic—Pierce was elected partly because he was

uncontroversial, having taken few stands in his

public career that would anger partisans in the

north or south. One of the more striking campaign

slogans chanted by his Democratic supporters was:

“We Polked you in 1844; we shall Pierce you in

1852!” Because of his inexperience, the president

depended heavily on the cabinet, particularly Jefferson Davis, the secretary of war and the cabinet’s

most forceful personality. A month after taking

office, Pierce agreed to let Davis control the work

at the Capitol, transferring the extension project

from the Department of the Interior and placing it

under the War Department. (Meanwhile, the commissioner of public buildings, who took care of the

old Capitol and grounds, remained under the

Department of the Interior.) The transfer reflected

Davis’ long-held interest in the enlargement of the

Capitol and was a partial triumph for Walter’s Senate enemies led by Solon Borland of Arkansas.

Two weeks before Pierce’s inauguration, Borland introduced legislation making the commissioner of public buildings the disbursing agent for

the extension project. Commissioner Easby, unlike

the architect, held an office created by law and had

been confirmed by the Senate. In Borland’s view,

Easby was a vigilant public servant who exposed

fraud and waste in Walter’s management. The commissioner had first brought charges against Walter

in a letter to Fillmore written in July 1852. He

claimed the architect was using public money to

purchase poor stone, which he called “the refuse of

the quarry.” 43 Walter refuted the accusation and

the matter was dropped until Easby caught the eye

of the senator from Arkansas. Borland had recently

been named to a special investigative committee

inquiring into abuses, bribery, or fraud in government contracts. Chaired by Sam Houston of Texas,

the committee had been appointed under a Senate

resolution passed on August 6, 1852. Although they

looked into several different areas of illegal activity, such as blackmail in the navy, members of the

Houston committee spent a good deal of time investigating the Capitol extension project. Over a

period of weeks they took testimony from Easby

and about thirty of his confederates, most of whom

were dismissed workmen or disappointed contractors; Walter was not able to ask questions or otherwise cross-examine the witnesses. Some of the

charges were minor, such as a story regarding Sam

Strong’s offer to pay some of the men to burn Senator Borland and Congressman McNair in effigy.

Easby’s accusations were far more extensive.

He testified that the marble contract with John

Rice and John Baird would cost the government

much more than necessary. Blocks of more than

thirty cubic feet were being bought for $1.98 a

foot and cut up into small blocks that would have

cost only sixty-five cents. So far, the commissioner
212 History of the United States Capitol

calculated, the government had been “fleeced of

$44,326.” The gneiss purchased for the foundations was bad, he asserted, and bricks were inferior as well. Easby claimed that Provost & Winter

had a “private” contract in violation of the law

and suggested that they must have paid $50,000

under the table to land such a deal. And so it went,

Easby piling slander upon slander on Walter, while

the architect sat silently in the committee room

taking notes.

Other witnesses took the stand to grind their

axes before Houston’s committee. Some registered

complaints against Sam Strong, telling tales about

his extraction of money as a condition of employment, paying favorite workmen for labors never

performed, or appropriating public material for private gain. Most of these complaints were

unfounded, but a few did have merit. For example,

a few masons sneaked their apprentices onto the

public rolls, where their pay was more than their

skills would otherwise command; once the deception was discovered the masons and their apprentices were dismissed. Also, and more damningly,

Strong was accused of having an interest in the

brick contract, a conflict of interest that caught

Walter off guard. On November 18, after the truth

Present State of the Capitol at Washington

Illustrated News (New York), 1853

By the end of the Fillmore administration, the Capitol extension had risen 

just above ground level.
Thomas U. Walter and the Capitol Extension 213

of the accusation became known, the architect

accepted the superintendent’s resignation.

Walter replied to the accusations against him

in a manuscript covering 123 handwritten pages.

Where fraud had been exposed, he supported prosecution of the villains. The charge of accepting

unskilled workmen, which had some truth to it,

was particularly galling to the architect who valued

craftsmanship and hard work above just about

every other virtue. Walter wrote: “I would have not

suffered them to remain on the work a single hour

had I known they were inferior workmen. The

whole system of apprenticeships... was kept

entirely from my knowledge until the men were

dismissed this winter.” These cases were rare, especially when it was considered that more than 800

men were employed on the Capitol extension.

Responding to the baseless accusations—which

were plentiful—Walter carefully, methodically, and

forcefully rebutted them with facts and by revealing the disreputable motivations of his accusers.

Walter explained the history of the two marble

contracts, showing the step-by-step process that

led to hiring Rice & Baird (the suppliers) and

Provost & Winter (the installers). Each step was

taken with the approval of the president of the

United States, the secretary of the interior, and the

Committees on Public Buildings of the House of

Representatives and Senate. If the contracts were

illegal as Easby claimed, they reached that unfortunate status under the watchful eyes of some of

the nation’s most astute legal minds.

A similar history of the brick contract was

given, and again the whole truth exposed Easby’s

accusations as groundless. Walter admitted that

brick made by Christopher Adams was unfit, but it

also had been rejected. The contract was assigned

to another brick maker, who made improvements

but still failed to come up to Walter’s high standards. The contract then passed to a third brick

maker, Byington & Company of Washington, which

delivered very good bricks. Thus, the architect

reported that the government now paid $6.37 per

thousand bricks, which ordinarily cost eight dollars

on the open market.

Workmen, stone masons, and contractors testified to the faithfulness of the work. President Fillmore and Secretary of the Interior Stuart wrote

letters in response to questions posed by the committee. Strong said that he knew why the commissioner of public buildings held such a grudge against

those in charge of the Capitol extension. He recalled

Easby’s son arriving at the Capitol one day with two

loads of stone from his father’s quarry. The stone

had been rejected by builders of the Washington

Monument and the younger Easby then tried to

pawn it off at the Capitol. Strong inspected the

stone and saw that most of it was hard, flinty, and

shaped like pancakes. He refused to accept it.

Strong concluded that “had Captain Easby’s son had

the furnishing of the stone from his father’s quarries, these complaints would not have been made.”

By the start of the 33rd Congress, Houston’s

committee had finished its work and on March 22,

1853, Senator Borland issued its voluminous

report.44 Despite Walter’s explanations, the committee’s conclusions were dictated by Borland’s

unexplained vendetta against the architect. It concluded that Walter’s administration of the works

was characterized by “great irregularities” and

“gross abuses.” Public funds had been spent wastefully and should be put under the control of

another official.

Walter seemed to take the report in stride. Perhaps he knew of Latrobe’s troubles and took solace

in the fact that architects in public service are fair

game for political sport. The sole recommendation

made by the report was to take the disbursement

of money out of the architect’s control and place it

in “more trustworthy hands.” Exactly whose hands

they might be was left to the president to decide.

On March 23, 1853, the day after Borland presented the Houston committee report, President

Pierce issued an executive order transferring the

Capitol extension project from the Interior Department to the War Department.45 An officer of the

Corps of Engineers would be appointed to exercise a “general supervision and control of the

whole work.” For the next nine years the Capitol

extension and its architect would be governed by

military rule.