CIVIC IMPROVEMENTS

375

The dawn of the twentieth century

brought a new interest in the capital

city and its place in American culture. Washington had been the seat of government

for a century, variously nurtured or starved by the

officials it served, but growing steadily until it

boasted over a quarter million souls. Monumental

buildings like the Capitol; the White House; the

Navy, War, and State Building; and the Library of

Congress were the pride of America. They represented a staggering investment that helped silence

talk of relocating the capital. Proposals for additional government buildings were being made, particularly for sites along the Mall and on Capitol Hill.

For some civic leaders the new century seemed a

good time to study the city’s history, examine its

present situation, and explore its potential for

improvement. Spurred by the so-called City Beautiful Movement, prophets of urban America hoped

to reform and embellish urban areas, making them

healthy by building extensive parklands and

dignified by erecting beautiful buildings and monuments. Although the movement was rooted in the

1893 Columbian Exposition in Chicago, its national

laboratory was Washington, with Capitol Hill

becoming a large part of the noble experiment.

When the American Institute of Architects held

its 1900 annual meeting in Washington, its members lobbied Congress for an official commission to

examine the city’s future development and architectural enhancement. They found a willing partner in Michigan Senator James McMillan, chairman

of the Committee on the District of Columbia, who

would sponsor legislation creating the Senate Park

Commission in 1901. Members of this commission,

some of the country’s leading design professionals,

would advise the government on the capital’s

future. The “McMillan Commission,” as the Senate

Park Commission was also known, was chaired by

Daniel Burnham, a Chicago architect best remembered for the edict “Make no little plans; They have

no magic to stir men’s blood.” Burnham and his

colleagues—architect Charles McKim, landscape

architect Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., and sculptor

Augustus Saint-Gaudens—proposed sweeping

changes to Washington’s monumental core. Aiming

to reverse decades of neglect and thoughtless

development, the commission sought to make the

city a world-class capital, ornamented with handsome buildings, parks, plazas, and landscapes. Of

prime importance was the Mall, which would be

cleared of the unsightly train tracks and railroad

stations that Congress had permitted to be built

there, thinned of the forest that had grown thick

over the years, and restored to the formal tapis

vert that Pierre L’Enfant had intended. The commission proposed a phalanx of marble buildings for

Capitol Hill to replace the stores, saloons, hotels,

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Laying the Cornerstone of the Senate Office Building (Detail) 

July 31, 1906
376 History of the United States Capitol

and houses overlooking the Capitol grounds. Such

a classical enclave, designed with unity, harmony,

and symmetry, would be a more worthy neighbor.

In January 1902 the Senate Park Commission

issued its report. An exhibition of its work, consisting of scale models of the city showing before and

after conditions, photographs, and renderings, was

put on display at the new Corcoran Gallery of Art

near the White House so that citizens could come

to have a look at their future. Senator McMillan

escorted President Theodore Roosevelt around the

exhibit, viewing the large and impressive models

from an elevated platform. The spirit of urban

reform struck a chord with the progressive president, who expressed enthusiasm for the commission’s work.

While the Senate Park Commission’s exhibit

was inside, black crepe shrouded the outside of the

Corcoran Gallery in memory of Edward Clark, a

faithful public trustee who had recently died. No

sign of mourning was found at the Capitol, where

he had worked since 1851, but Washington’s premier art museum publicly grieved the city’s loss.

The office of architect of the Capitol was vacant for

the first time in thirty-six years, and, the need to

name a successor soon pitted leaders in Congress

against those who guarded the prerogatives of the

architectural profession.

During Clark’s lengthy illness it had been

assumed by many in Congress that his popular and

hardworking assistant, Elliott Woods, would be elevated to the post in due time. In an institution that

puts great stock in tradition and continuity, it

seemed only right to promote Clark’s assistant in

the same way that Clark, who had been Walter’s

assistant, had been promoted in 1865. Over the

previous four years Woods had been the de facto

architect of the Capitol, and it was fitting to confer

on him the title of office along with its responsibilities and salary (which had stood at $4,500 a year

since 1851). But the fact that Woods was not an

architect bothered leaders of the architectural profession. Especially disturbed was Glenn Brown, the

secretary of the American Institute of Architects

and author of the two-volume History of the

United States Capitol, who had designs of his own

on Clark’s post. Chief among Brown’s supporters

was J. R. Proctor, the chairman of the Civil Service

Commission and a friend of President Roosevelt.

He actively promoted Brown to succeed Clark in

the architect’s job.1

In a matter of hours after Clark’s death, however, the political machinery in Congress geared up

to steer Woods into the architect’s office. Some

thought that his chances could be spoiled only if

he were found to be a Democrat. Telegrams from

his home state of Indiana poured in with testaments to his loyalty to the GOP. Complicating the

situation was Woods’ father, who apparently had

abandoned the party and caused some questions

regarding his son’s politics. Representative Jesse

Overstreet of Indianapolis, where Woods grew up,

received a telegram from a local politico that set

the record straight: the father may have quit the

Republican party, but “the boy stuck.” 2 Another

telegram supporting Woods was sent to Roosevelt

by Senator Matt Quay, the political boss of Pennsylvania. Quay was the chairman of the Committee

on the Organization, Conduct, and Expenditures in

the Executive Department, a potent position that

readily gave him entree to the president. William

Hepburn of Iowa contacted fellow representatives,

urging them to write Roosevelt in support of Woods’

promotion. He was alarmed that a “society of architects” was attempting to interfere in the matter.

As telegrams and letters piled up on Roosevelt’s desk, the American Institute of Architects

quietly expressed concern at the possibility of a

non architect becoming architect of the Capitol.

Two of the institute’s officers, President Charles

McKim and Secretary Glenn Brown, were leading

opponents of Woods’ appointment. As a member of

the Senate Park Commission, McKim understood

that its future success required cooperation from

key civic and government figures, and among these

was the architect of the Capitol. In February 1902,

Brown published an article entitled “The Twentieth

Century Washington” in House and Garden magazine, informing the public about proposals to

restore the federal city to the way Washington and

L’Enfant had envisioned it.3 Part of the focus of the

McMillan Commission was the area around the

Capitol, which was seen as a precinct devoted

exclusively to classical government buildings and

gardens. Other areas near the Capitol would be

affected by the commission’s proposals, and it

would need a sympathetic partner in Clark’s old

job. McKim did not think Woods was such a person

and supported Brown for the post. He was, after
Civic Improvements 377

all, the leading authority on the history of the Capitol, a man well acquainted with the intricacies of its

construction history and details, as well as a

respected architect. Few doubted that Roosevelt

would listen to McKim, who within a few months

would embark on a joint project to remodel and

redecorate the White House. With McKim’s support, and that of other influential men in Washington, Brown had reason to believe that the office of

architect of the Capitol would be his for the asking.

On the other hand, Representative Joseph Cannon of Illinois, the powerful chairman of the House

Committee on Appropriations and future Speaker,

did not care a fig for McKim, nor did he have much

use for the Senate Park Commission or the American Institute of Architects. He felt snubbed when

Senator McMillan proceeded with the Park Commission without the consent or participation of the

House of Representatives. In his view, these bodies

were meddlesome, and he especially did not appreciate the American Institute of Architects telling

Congress who should be appointed architect of the

Capitol. Cannon went to see Roosevelt about the

matter, fortified by a petition signed by forty members of Congress supporting Elliott Woods, and

explained that, unless Woods was appointed to the

post, the president’s relations with the House and

Senate would become unnecessarily strained.

According to Cannon, it was the prerogative of

Congress to say who should fill the position that

was, in fact, their chief housekeeper.

Brown and McKim were no match for Joe Cannon and others in Congress who lined up behind

their man. Roosevelt agreed to appoint Woods but

wanted the job title changed. Cannon suggested

calling the officer “superintendent” instead of

“architect” if it would help quiet critics. This was

easily done and on February 14, 1902, Congress

enacted an appropriation bill that contained language to effect the change.4 All the powers and

authority of the architect’s position were vested in

a new “Superintendent of the Capitol Building and

Grounds,” whose office remained under the

Department of the Interior. The office and the

salary were exactly the same but the head of the

agency would no longer be an architect. Five days

later Roosevelt appointed Woods to the newly

renamed post.

Looking back on the episode, Brown blamed

his loss to Woods (whom he consistently referred

Joseph G. Cannon at the Speaker’s Rostrum

ca. 1903

Library of Congress

Arepresentative from Illinois, Cannon (1836–1926) was chairman of the Appropriations Committee for eight years before becoming Speaker of the House in 1903. 

He is remembered mainly for the tight control he exercised over legislative activities,

but he also took a considerable interest in the Capitol and the accommodations of the

House of Representatives. The first office building designed for the House, a building

that bears his name today, was begun soon after he became Speaker. He unsuccessfully

pushed for the east front extension as a means to ease crowded conditions in the 

Capitol. The American Institute of Architects came up against Cannon’s power when 

it tried to influence the appointment of the next architect of the Capitol when the

office became vacant in 1902. Cannon repelled the institute’s initiatives and steered

Elliott Woods into the office. He remained Woods’ champion throughout their service

on Capitol Hill.
378 History of the United States Capitol

to as “Wood” in his memoir), on Roosevelt’s inexperience and lack of backbone. “This was early in

Roosevelt’s administration,” Brown wrote almost

thirty years later, “and he had no desire to antagonize Congress as he did in later years.” 5 Brown

remained a lifelong critic of Woods’ performance at

the Capitol, even after the superintendent was welcomed into the American Institute of Architects as

a full-fledged member in 1921.

CONGRESSIONAL

OFFICE BUILDINGS

T he census of 1900 increased the

membership of the House of Representatives to 391, up an astonishing

148 seats in the half-century since the Capitol was

last enlarged. Rearranging seats and buying smaller

desks made it possible to accommodate members

comfortably on the floor of the chamber, but elsewhere overcrowding was a problem. Committee

rooms remained in short supply, and restaurants,

barber shops, and bathing rooms were severely

taxed. About fifty-six members could have offices

in the Capitol, and these were usually provided by

virtue of a chairman’s use of a committee room as

his personal office.

Members of the House were envious of the Senate, which in 1891 acquired an office building in the

form of a converted apartment building. The Maltby

House, located at the corner of New Jersey Avenue

and B Street north (modern day Constitution

Avenue), was only three years old when the government purchased the property and remodeled

the apartments into eighty-one offices and committee rooms. In 1893, the government purchased Benjamin Butler’s ponderous stone mansion on B Street

south (modern day Independence Avenue). It was

too small for congressional offices and the Coast

and Geodetic Survey moved in instead.

At that time, acting architect of the Capitol

Elliott Woods, old August Schoenborn, and local

contract architects were working on preliminary

schemes for a House office building. Four squares

of land south of the Capitol were considered as

possible locations, and schematic designs were

created to help develop preliminary cost estimates.

No matter where the new office building was

located, it was to be connected to the Capitol via

an underground tunnel. The tunnel would carry

pedestrian and truck traffic, as well as electrical

conduits and steam pipes. A new power plant connected with the office building would be built to

serve it, the Capitol, and the Library of Congress.

Woods promised that members would be able to

reach the floor of the House through the tunnel as

quickly as from any committee room in the terrace.

Woods submitted plans and elevations showing

six possible designs for an office building suited to

city squares south of the Capitol. All were for threestory structures with an Ionic order standing on a

rusticated ground floor. Their similarity and deference to the basic composition of the Capitol were

obvious. Woods explained his initial ideas about

the style and character of the proposed building in

his annual report for 1902:

In view of the proximity of the proposed new

structure to the Capitol building, the construction should be carried out on classic lines. The

idea had been carried out in the sketches. The

exterior walls of the new building should be

either of marble or granite, preferably the former. The interior would be constructed largely

of steel and terra-cotta and other fireproof

Elliott Woods in

His Laboratory

ca. 1910

Aside from his regular duties as superintendent of the Capitol, Woods

(1865–1923) enjoyed scientific experiments with

wireless telegraphy and

X-rays. His laboratory

was located at the corner

of Delaware Avenue and

C Street, N. E.
Civic Improvements 379

materials. The court walls would be faced with

enamel brick conducive to cleanliness and good

lighting for the interior rooms.6

The smallest proposed version of a House office

building contained 285 offices and another ninetyfive rooms intended for folding rooms (where outgoing mail was handled), storage, or work shops.

Designs for larger buildings accommodated more

than 400 offices with 125 support rooms. Woods

estimated that it would cost about $2,500,000 to

construct the smaller building, while the larger

versions would cost about $4,300,000.

The Civil Appropriations Act of March 3, 1903,

authorized the creation of a commission to oversee

construction of a new office building for the House

of Representatives and provided $750,000 to begin

the project. Serving on the commission were Joe

Cannon of Illinois (elected Speaker later that year),

William Hepburn of Iowa, and James D. Richardson

of Tennessee. Woods was designated by law to

direct and supervise construction and to make all

the necessary contractual arrangements. The idea

of using a supervising commission to oversee construction of the House office building was entirely

new and a welcome improvement over the old way

of doing business. Unlike the time when Latrobe or

Walter answered to the executive branch, enduring

attacks in Congress from members who felt helpless and ignored, the commission of two Republicans and one Democrat provided appropriate

project oversight within the House of Representatives itself. The bipartisan commission also protected the work from the sort of politically

motivated scrutiny that had characterized past

projects. Woods’ friendly relationship with the

Speaker was another propitious sign that the work

would proceed smoothly.

In one of its first actions, the commission

decided to build the new office building on a large

parcel bounded by First Street east, B Street south

(modern day Independence Avenue), New Jersey

Avenue, and C Street south. The site was convenient and the ground was level and solid. A corner

of the property lay over the path of a proposed railroad tunnel carrying southbound trains from Washington’s new Union Station, but that was not

considered an insurmountable problem. The secretary of interior was asked to initiate condemnation

proceedings to obtain title to the square, the

assessed value of which was about $250,000. Demolition of existing structures (mainly nineteenthcentury commercial buildings overlooking the Capitol and residential row houses facing side streets)

began on February 1, 1904, and excavation on the

site began that summer. Tracks were constructed

across the east plaza in front of the Capitol for

trains transporting dirt from the House office building site to the site of Union Station, which needed

fill material. (One of the first and finest accomplishments of the McMillan Commission, the city’s

new railroad station permitted removal of the old

stations and tracks cluttering the Mall.)

After the site was selected, the commission

decided how the building would be designed. Cannon seemed particularly averse to spending money

to hire an architect who would charge 5 or 6 percent of the construction cost and add an unnecessary expense to the project. He thought that Woods

and his staff could do the work just as well and far

more cheaply: they had already worked up several

competent designs and there was no need to go

elsewhere for architectural assistance. But it was

Woods himself who understood the limitations of

his organization in the design field, realizing that

House Office Building Design “C” by Elliott Woods

1902

This was one of six preliminary designs for an office building worked up by the

superintendent of the Capitol.
380 History of the United States Capitol

the building would be scrutinized by the architectural profession—in particular, the AIA. He wanted

the authority to hire a consulting architect.

Striking a middle course, the commission

charged Woods with planning the new House office

building, writing specifications, and overseeing

construction. A drafting room would be operated

under his direction and he would act as the general contractor. Consulting architects would be

hired to ensure a first-rate design, but they would

not be allowed to charge a percentage fee. Instead,

the consultants would be given a flat fee of $10,000

per year. Finding a firm with the requisite prestige

that would also accept the terms allowed by the

commission could well have been a daunting task.

Happily, however, it did not take Woods long to

become acquainted with one of the nation’s most

fashionable firms. Partners John Carrère and

Thomas Hastings were society architects, with elegant Beaux Arts tastes perfectly suited to the

needs of their wealthy clients. The firm was held

in high esteem by the AIA and would surely help

Woods in any public relations problems that might

arise in the future. (Charles McKim was Thomas

Hastings’s “best man” when he married in 1900.)

John M. Carrère and Thomas Hastings

ca. 1890

The American Institute of Architects Archives, Washington, D.C.

The son of a Baltimore coffee merchant, Carrère (1858–1911) was born in Rio De

Janeiro, studied in Switzerland, and graduated from the Ecole des Beaux Arts in 1882.

Returning to America, he was a draftsman in the office of McKim, Mead & White

before forming a partnership with Thomas Hastings (1860–1929), a native New Yorker

who was also a graduate of the Ecole.

From the commencement of their work together, Carrère and Hastings attracted

wealthy clients, enjoying widespread success and celebrity. Their first important

patron was Henry Flagler, for whom they designed the Ponce DeLeon Hotel and the

Flagler Memorial Presbyterian Church in St. Augustine, Florida, and “Whitehall,” Flagler’s Palm Beach estate. Great mansions were the firm’s specialty—clients included

Mrs. Richard Townsend of Washington, D. C.; Mrs. Richard Grambrill of Newport,

Rhode Island; Murrary Guggenheim of Elberton, New Jersey; William K. Vanderbilt of

Great Neck, New York; and Alfred I. duPont of Wilmington, Delaware.

Following a nationwide competition, the firm of Carrère & Hastings was commissioned to design the New York Public Library, which was completed in 1911. The 

Jefferson Hotel in Richmond, Virginia, the Agricultural Building at the Louisiana 

Purchase Exposition in St. Louis, and the National Amphitheater at Arlington Cemetery were other notable commissions. From 1904 to 1929, the firm provided most of

the architectural services required by the United States Congress.

Both partners were active in the New York chapter of the American Institute of

Architects and the Architecture League of New York. Carrère was a founder of the

New York Art Commission, a director of the American Academy at Rome, and a member of the National Academy of Design. Hastings was awarded the Royal Institute of

British Architects’ Gold Medal and was made a Chevalier of the Legion of Honor by the

French government.
Civic Improvements 381

On April 8, 1904, Woods laid before the commission a letter from Thomas Hastings in which he

agreed without a word of equivocation to four general stipulations: the working drawings would be

produced in Washington under Woods’ supervision; the fee was satisfactory; the general layout of

the interior already devised by Woods was acceptable, but his firm would become responsible for its

“correct” architectural effect; and a suitable exterior architectural effect would be devised. With

considerable solemnity Hastings pledged to render

Woods services with “full loyalty and confidence.” 7

On April 11, 1904, the commission accepted

Woods’ recommendation to hire Carrère & Hastings as consulting architects, beginning a friendly

and mutually beneficial association that lasted a

quarter-century.

Woods set up a drafting room to produce

detailed working drawings for the building, and he

hired Oscar Wenderoth, an architect associated

with Carrère & Hastings, to serve as head draftsman. (Wenderoth later served as supervising architect of the treasury, 1912–1915.) Owen Brainard,

another of the architects’ close associates, was

retained as consulting engineer. Not only would

Wenderoth work out the details of the new House

office building; he and his men would also plan a

new office building for the Senate. Four months

earlier, the Senate had created its own commission to oversee construction of an office building

for its use, a building mirroring its counterpart on

the other side of the Capitol’s east garden as proposed by the McMillan Commission. (As it turned

out, the Maltby House had been built on unstable

ground and was showing alarming signs of structural failure.) A new building for the Senate would

complement the House office building, ensuring

that neither body was better accommodated than

the other. Miscellaneous projects relating to the

office buildings, such as plans for the connecting

tunnels and designs for furniture, were also

addressed in Wenderoth’s drafting room. Schemes

for rebuilding the House chamber and other tasks

were handled there as well.8

Of the partners, Thomas Hastings was considered the better designer, and John Carrère was

the businessman who handled clients. For their

work in Washington, however, Hastings took

responsibility for the House office building and

Carrère had charge of the Senate office building.

The two buildings were nearly identical on the

outside, designed as elegant yet deferential backdrops to the Capitol. Although dominant features

such as domes or pediments were avoided, smaller

details were plentiful and rich. Facing the Capitol

grounds were colonnades almost 300 feet long

with thirty-four paired Doric columns standing on

a ground-story base. End pavilions featured large

arched windows framed by columns. Pilasters continued the Doric order along secondary elevations,

while the backs of both office buildings were originally left perfectly plain. A continuous balustrade

masked a low roof. The design was inspired by the

Gardes-Meubles on the Place de la Concord and

the great colonnade at the Louvre in Paris.

The principal entrance to each office building

was located at the corner closest to the Capitol.

No hint was made on the outside to indicate that a

rotunda fifty-seven feet in diameter lay just behind

the entrance. It functioned as the main lobby and

the introduction to the building’s interior grandeur.

Using Woods’ plan for a grand circular vestibule,

Carrère & Hastings designed a ring of eighteen

Corinthian columns standing on an arcade and

supporting a coffered dome. Opposite the entrance

was placed a broad, split staircase leading to the

most sumptuous room in the building—the caucus

room. The procession into the building, through

the rotunda, up the stairs, and into the caucus

room, was both clear and compelling. While originally intended to be copies of Statuary Hall, the

caucus rooms were redesigned as rectangular twostory spaces fifty-two feet wide and seventy-four

feet long. The flat ceilings were divided into panels

and decorated with a variety of molded plaster

ornaments highlighted with gold leaf. In the House

caucus room the walls were lined with Corinthian

pilasters, while its counterpart in the Senate office

building had freestanding Corinthian columns

twenty-seven feet high in white Vermont marble.

Tall arched windows looked onto interior courtyards lined with Indiana limestone. The House

office building’s court was fully enclosed from the

beginning, but the one at the Senate office building remained a three-sided yard until 1931. The

First Street addition, begun that year, enclosed

the courtyard with a fourth side.
382 History of the United States Capitol

Construction of the House Office Building

1906

The first House office building was designed by the New York firm of Carrère &

Hastings using plans developed by Elliott Woods. The principal feature of the exterior

was a colonnade 300 feet long with paired Doric columns, which are shown here with

only their bases in place.

Member’s Office

1907

This photograph was taken after the interior of the

House office building was finished but before it was

occupied. The central table was manufactured by Gimbel Brothers of New York, the tufted “Turkish” chair

was made by the Julius Lansburgh Company of Washington, while the remaining furnishings were ordered from

John Wanamaker of Philadelphia.

Committee on Military Affairs, House

Office Building

ca. 1908

Most committee rooms in the first House office

building were functional and businesslike.
Civic Improvements 383

House Office Building

1908

The design of the House office building acknowledged its accessory role in the architectural hierarchy 

of the Capitol complex.

House Office

Building Caucus

Room

ca. 1908

Aversatile chamber for hearings, meetings, and receptions, the

caucus room was an 

elegant design with 

coupled Corinthian

pilasters, a marble floor,

and a richly ornamented

plaster ceiling. It was

similar in scale and spirit

to the east room at the

White House, which

Charles McKim

redesigned for Theodore

Roosevelt in 1902.
384 History of the United States Capitol

On December 12, 1908, the House office building opened for business. For the first time in the

nation’s history each representative had an office,

actually a modest room averaging fifteen and a half

feet wide and twenty-three feet long. Modern in

every respect, the offices were outfitted with telephones, lavatories (supplying hot, cold, and iced

water), steam heat, and forced-air ventilation. In

addition, fourteen rooms were available for committees. Ninety-eight suites and eight committee

rooms were provided in the Senate office building,

which opened on March 5, 1909. A Philadelphia

paper took note of the beautiful new office buildings as they neared completion in Washington,

observing in its headline that legislators were being

“Good To Themselves”:

Each division of the nation’s Legislature will

have a stately edifice of its own and the combined cost of the two is placed at about five 

million dollars. In the building for the Representatives there will be a fine office for every

member of the House. The Senators will each

have a three-room suite, including a bathroom, in the edifice devoted to their use. All

expenses for heat, light, maintenance, and

attendants will be paid by the government. A

special little subway road will transport the

lawmakers free of charge between the Capitol

and the splendid structures erected for their

comfort and convenience.

The laborer is worthy of his hire, no doubt; and

he is likewise worthy of suitable housing while

he is performing his work. Yet it is also to be

remembered that Congress, besides providing

for the creation of these semi-palatial

“annexes,” has voted to increase the salary of

every Senator and Representative from $5,000

to $7,500—while at the same time by a little

adroit legislative juggling, each of them is entitled to an extra fifteen hundred dollars yearly

for clerk hire, which he may spend for that purpose, or put it in his pocket.9

While hardly biting, the article took a dim view

of congressional luxury purchased with the people’s pocketbook. Unlike publicity concerning the

Capitol, stories about congressional office buildings

seemed not so much about civic improvements as

about personal extravagance on the part of elected

officials. Nothing was ever too good for the Capitol,

but everything was too good in the legislative office

buildings. Despite the evidence of judicious economy and good urban design that usually governed

Rotunda, Senate Office Building

1909

Except for the plaster dome, the rotunda was made entirely of white marble.
Civic Improvements 385

Senate Caucus Room Under Construction

1908

Although initially smaller, the Senate Office 

Building cost more than its counterpart built for the

House of Representatives. One reason for the discrepancy was the use of more costly materials for the 

interior. Here workmen are setting a stone for the 

caucus room’s entablature, which was marble like the

room’s columns, walls, and floor.

Senate Office Building

ca. 1909

While the design of the office buildings may have avoided 

architectural competition with the Capitol, it did not shy away from

rich details. Particularly notable were the plaques carved with plumed

helmets, eagles, banners, flags, trophies, and other symbols.

Committee Room, Senate Office Building

1909

Still missing its clock and sconces, this room was photographed just

before the Senate office building opened. Leather-covered chairs and

conference table, crystal chandeliers, and a marble mantle contribute

to the impression of a corporate board room.
386 History of the United States Capitol

such projects, this pattern of thinking in the press

persisted throughout the twentieth century.

THE BONUS

Despite occasional snide comments, the

office buildings were hailed as great

successes. At no time in the history of

Capitol Hill had construction projects of such magnitude been bathed in such harmony. Woods was

applauded for administrative tranquility and

smooth operations, but the two commissions and

the two consulting architects deserved a good deal

of credit as well. The superintendent was congratulated for saving the government more than

$100,000 that otherwise would have been paid to

architects charging a percentage fee. Instead,

Woods drew only his salary and rendered the same

service as a highly paid professional architect. On

February 28, 1911, James A. Tawney of Minnesota,

chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations, introduced legislation to pay Woods $7,500

for preparing the plans and specifications and

superintending the construction of the House

office building. Even considering this unprecedented gratuity, he argued, the government still

got the best of the bargain:

These buildings were constructed under the

supervision of the Superintendent of the Capitol at an expense not only within the bare limit

of cost, but considerably below the limit of cost.

There would have been paid for architect’s fees

on the House Office Building on the basis of 5

per cent $158,000. As it was the supervisory

and architectural work actually cost the Government the sum of $88,000, or only 2.7 per

cent of the cost of the building.... Out of this a

sum of $31,703.95 was paid for the services of

the consulting architect [Carrère & Hastings],

and a further sum of $11,000 for special engineering services, which ordinarily the client has

to pay. The total net saving to the Government

on architectural cost alone on this building has

actually been $70,027.44.

I have a similar statement with regard to the

saving on the Senate Office Building. Now, the

net saving to the Government on the entire

construction has been $140,855.1210

James R. Mann of Illinois supported the

extraordinary measure, asserting that the completion of construction without cost overruns was

“largely owning to the common sense and to the

constant care of Mr. Woods.” 11 But William E. Cox

of Indiana spoke against the appropriation, telling

Capitol Power Plant

1910

Authorized in 1904, the power plant was built to

supply electricity and heat to the new congressional

office buildings, the Capitol, the Library of Congress,

and other public buildings. This photograph shows the

twin chimneys at their original height of 212 feet.

While electrical production ceased in 1951, the

facility has been expanded five times to keep up with

heating and cooling demands.
Civic Improvements 387

his colleagues that Woods was only doing his duty,

and that it was unnecessary to give a bonus for

mere competence and efficiency. He also objected

to the House providing the superintendent with a

bonus when the Senate might not follow suit. That

would be unfair. Thetus Sims of Tennessee declared

his intention to support the measure as a matter of

sound policy. He complained that the House

depended too often on the executive branch or on

outside experts for advice and it was time to reward

their own officers who performed so well. He said:

I think this is something more than a mere personal compliment to Mr. Woods. I think we

ought to rely on our own servants and use them

as much as we can. Mr. Woods would have, the

same as any other man, the pride of having his

name connected with this great building, and

would perhaps regard that as compensation

enough, but I think it is absolutely niggardly on

our part not to give him something. I think there

is a higher consideration than any contract that

can be made. Let us have more of this thing

done hereafter, instead of employing experts

outside of this House, who have no pride in the

success of the economics that may have been

attempted by this House.12

A final tribute to Woods drew applause from

members of the House. Four days later the Senate

considered additional compensation for the superintendent in the amount of $5,000, but the figure

was soon raised to equal that granted by the House.

Both appropriations were approved at the end of

the 61st Congress. Along with funds to buy flags

and fertilizers, Woods was granted $15,000 for his

extraordinary services.

BROODING OVER 

THE CAPITOL

Newspapers of the day carried stories describing Woods’ energy and

devotion to the Capitol. “Uncle

Joe” Cannon was quoted in one article as saying: “I

do not know how Elliott Woods could be overworked unless he was hitched double with a mule.”

The masthead of the story read: “Broods Over The

U. S. Capitol Like A Mother Over Only Child: Elliott

Woods Finds Joy in His Work, and Plenty of Work to

Keep Him Joyful.” Woods was given credit for wearing many hats while acting so nonchalantly that few

people could guess that the man stayed so busy:

Woods is extremely versatile, he is Uncle Sam’s

builder in the National Capital; he is a clever

musician and composer; he is an all-round scientist, antedating the bureau of standards in

many important tests; he is custodian of a

unique art collection of very great value; he has

cut down the death rate of Congress by original

innovations for ventilation and sanitation—and

withal he is extremely modest.

He is managing director of a complete little city

with a scientific laboratory, blacksmith shop,

machine shop, carpenter and cabinet making

shop, electric shop, painters and glaziers, tinners and roofers, stone masons, plumbers and

gas fitters, jacks of all trades.13

Visitors to Woods’ laboratory near the Senate

office building sometimes found the superintendent playing the violin or working at an operatic

composition. He also relaxed by conducting experiments with X-rays or exchanging telegraphic messages with ships at sea. Especially favored were

ships carrying cargo destined for Capitol Hill, such

as freighters bringing marble from Vermont, New

York, or Georgia for the office buildings. According

to one account, Woods was in the habit of warming

his dinner in one of the boiler rooms in the Capitol

alongside some of his employees. He also joined

them in a kazoo band that occasionally annoyed

policemen who were napping nearby. These harmless recreations were well deserved, as newspapers

liked to report, because Woods was otherwise the

“busiest man in Washington.”

Around the Capitol, routine maintenance was

varied as ever. Old gas chandeliers were replaced

by new bronze electric fixtures with milk glass

shades and downward-pointing light bulbs. At the

end of January 1903, Woods despatched a cart to

the White House to haul back crystal chandeliers

and other furnishings purchased at Roosevelt’s

auction, which cleared out the “Victorian” accretions cluttering the residence. As part of his own

housecleaning, Woods hired men, dogs, and ferrets

to hunt and destroy rats in the Capitol. Releafing

picture frames, relaying floor tiles, preparing a sign

with the command “Pull The Chain” for a water

closet, and buying new cherry toilet seats (at six

dollars apiece) were other examples of small projects that kept Woods and his staff busy.
388 History of the United States Capitol

Macnichol & Sons, a local painting firm, was

hired year after year to keep the interior finishes

fresh. Typical projects included painting the Senate document room in simple tints or treating the

walls and ceiling in the Supreme Court chamber

with an “asbestive coating.” They were hired to

remove paint from interior stonework, beginning

with the lower walls of the rotunda in 1905. Outside, the Macnichol firm usually received the quadrennial contract to paint the dome, which required

4,200 gallons of paint and kept thirty-five men

occupied for two months. Inside, decorative painting was introduced into areas that needed sprucing

up. Complaints were occasionally made by those

who compared the Capitol’s haphazard decorations

with the well-orchestrated and harmonious interiors at the Library of Congress. While the complaints

were not particularly fair, they initiated a spate of

improvements by various artists. One project was a

redecoration of Statuary Hall and the lobbies

around the House chamber. Joseph Rakemann, an

artist who had worked under Brumidi, began decorating the walls of Statuary Hall in the summer of

1902, painting them to resemble huge blocks of

marble. The ceiling was also painted in a variety of

colors highlighted with gold leaf. Pleasant little

scenes of Mount Vernon, Arlington House, and the

Washington Monument were painted in the connecting corridor, near where the Columbus doors

once hung. Another artist, Elmer Garnsey of New

York, had charge of decorating the new offices and

committee rooms in the old library space.

In the spring of 1905, Gutzon Borglum, a sculptor later famous for Mount Rushmore, was paid $250

for suggesting improvements to the rotunda. He

proposed removing the eight history paintings, lining the walls with marble, erecting pairs of tall Ionic

columns, re-trimming the doorways, and placing

sculptural panels above them. A new marble frieze

representing American society would replace the

unfinished painted frieze. Borglum’s suggestions

would have transformed the rotunda into a room on

par with the Beaux Arts interiors being built in great

urban libraries, train stations, and state capitols at

the beginning of the century. His scheme, however,

went nowhere and the only significant work on the

rotunda during this period was the “restoration” of

the stone walls that removed layer after layer of

paint and whitewash. The work was termed a

restoration in spite of the fact that paint was an 

Two Designs for

Architectural

Improvements in

the Rotunda 

by August Schoenborn 

ca. 1901 To bring the rotunda

up to twentieth-century

standards of classical

grandeur, the architect 

of the Capitol sought

ideas for redecorating 

the room with marble

columns, marble walls,

and other artistic additions. None of the ideas

were implemented.
Civic Improvements 389

original finish. Another contribution to the Capitol

rotunda was made in 1907 when Woods installed a

marble disk ten inches in diameter in the center of

the floor. Despite proposals for major architectural

embellishments, the little marble disk and the clean

stone walls were the only modifications made to the

rotunda during this period.

Woods’ policy of stone “restoration” extended

to the ornamental air shaft (called today the “small

Senate rotunda”), where he removed the white

paint from Latrobe’s tobacco columns to reveal the

brownish sandstone for the first time since the

1820s. The bare stone stood in stark contrast to

the white plaster walls, creating an unexpected

clash of colors and finishes, which the superintendent found disagreeable. In an effort to reconcile

the different materials, Woods proposed replacing

the plaster with an imitation stone to complement

the “restored” stone columns. Unwilling to make

such a drastic change without professional concurrence, he wrote to Carrère & Hastings:

You will remember that we have been making

some extensive restorations in the Capitol,

whereby a large portion of the old sandstone

work has been brought to light.

. . . If it is the proper thing to do I would like to

remove the plaster from the walls and give them

a coat of stucco which would resemble the other

stone and, in fact, be of such a character as

practically become a stone. The vestibule would

then appear to be entirely of stone.

This method, you will understand, is not an

attempt at imitation by painting, but it is an

imitation by the use of actual building material.

Will you kindly inform me if this is architecturally correct or whether or not such procedure might bring criticism? 14

The Rotunda

ca. 1910

Believing that the

walls of the rotunda 

were originally bare, 

the superintendent of 

the Capitol removed

paint from the stonework, shown here soon

after the “restoration”

was completed.
390 History of the United States Capitol

In a few days Woods had an answer. The firm

declared that the proposal was “entirely reasonable

and architecturally correct,” citing precedents in

Europe and America. It declared that the best and

most current example of this type of treatment was

found at the Pennsylvania railroad station in New

York City, a monumental work by McKim, Mead &

White. Travertine from Rome lined part of the walls,

while the rest was “stucco cast to look exactly like

real stone. There were structural reasons for not

using stone throughout and reasons of architectural harmony for adopting the substitute.” 15

Thus assured by the highest authorities in New

York, Woods instructed his assistant David Lynn to

escort representatives from the Washington construction firm of Richardson & Burgess around the

Capitol to look at painted plaster that might be

replaced by imitation sandstone. Aside from the

small Senate rotunda, they looked at heavily-traveled areas in the center building such as the passages on the ground floor, the crypt, and the

vestibule in front of Statuary Hall (called today the

“small House rotunda”). They proposed to do the

work for cost plus 15 percent, an offer that was

accepted on August 22, 1910. Soon, Richardson &

Burgess began removing old plaster and installing

the imitation sandstone that has proven to be a

durable (and impossible to precisely replicate)

surface material.

“COMPLETING” 

THE CAPITOL

I n the early days of Woods’ term, the

east front extension joined the list of

civic improvements planned for Capitol Hill. The idea had received little notice since

Walter first proposed it in 1863, although most of

Edward Clark’s annual reports contained a line or

two describing the advantages such an addition

would have. Congressional nonchalance in the

Gilded Age was superseded in the early twentieth

century by an attitude more hospitable to ambitious civic improvements that would tout America’s growing wealth, power, and self-confidence.

Congress appropriated $1,500 in 1902 to give

Woods the funds to prepare plans and estimates

for an extension to the east front. In his report

Woods submitted Walter’s forty-year-old drawings

and wrote that they would guide the project:

Walter has left as a heritage the plans which I

now present you for consideration. He had left

us a picture of his conception of the completed

Capitol. What greater tribute to his remarkable

genius could be paid than to say that, if completed in accordance with his plans, the Capitol will gain a splendid addition, and yet, as

one views it from the view point supposed in

the perspective, it is still the Capitol. 

It would seem sacrilege to offer any other plan

for consideration than the Walter plan. We may

be safely guided by the thought, the effort, and

the production of this great man’s genius.16

Woods estimated the east front extension

would cost $2,300,000. Joe Cannon took the matter before the House on February 10, 1903, and

spoke in favor of the addition. He solemnly

declared that, despite its grandeur and

magnificence, the Capitol was an unfinished building. The additions built in the 1850s and 1860s

were just the beginning of a more extensive program of enlargements. Using a familiar argument,

Cannon cited the growth of the nation, the number of states, the population, and the number of

representatives in Congress as justifications for a

bigger Capitol:

I am not an old man—I fancy I am not, but it is

within my recollection as a boy, after I had

begun taking some notice of public affairs as

they were referred to in the few newspapers

that we had back in 1850, as a lad of 14, reading that Congress had authorized the extension of the Capitol building; then year after

year progress was reported on the dome, this

wing, the other wing, and finally as I recollect,

there was substantial completion—not full

completion—along in the early sixties . . .

But by the time the extension was determined

upon we had 23,000,000 of people in the United

States, 30 states—a population of 23,191,876

to be exact. The membership in the House,

including delegates, was 173. Each Representative represented 134,000 people. There were

36 committees of the House. The minimum

membership of any committee was 3 and the

maximum 9. The number of States represented

in Congress was 31. In 1900 the population was

76,000,000 plus. The membership of the next

House, the Fifty-eighth Congress, will be 389,

as against 173 a half century ago. Each representative will represent 190,000 people. There

are now 45 committees of the present House,
Civic Improvements 391

as against 31 of the House a half century ago.

The minimum membership of the committee is

5 and the maximum 17, as against 9 of a half

century ago.17

Cannon cited the architectural reason for the

extension and invited his colleagues to look up at

the skirt of the dome and see for themselves how

it appeared to hover in thin air over the east portico. He was neither particularly careful about the

facts of the case, nor especially honest in manipulating the details of the building’s history, but he

made the east front extension sound like the logical next step in the Capitol’s development:

The central extension would be 55 feet beyond

the wall line of the present wing. Now, gentlemen will notice that the western extension has

lately been put into committee rooms for the

House and Senate. That was completed according to the original design. The corresponding

extension on the east was never built. If gentlemen want to verify—if it needs any

verification—if you will go out and look at the

Dome on the east side, looking at the main wall

of the building, you will see that the Dome

extends 9 or 10 feet beyond the main wall to

the east...

Now, I submit that the time has come, not only

for an office building for the House, but for the

completion of this Capitol.18

Cannon’s last remark drew loud applause. He

was also applauded when he spoke of the happy

condition of the treasury, which permitted the

extension to be funded with ease. Yet John H.

Stephens of Texas challenged the contention that

the east extension was simply a continuation of an

ongoing (but stalled) project. In his view, the

extension was an entirely new building and, therefore, required committee hearings and authorizing

legislation. Despite Cannon’s best efforts, the

House took a cautious view of the question. On

March 3, 1903, $7,000 was appropriated for study

models of the Capitol showing the architectural

effect of the proposed addition.

Before the models were begun, Woods and

Cannon thought it would be wise to employ Carrère & Hastings to help with the extension design.

Apparently, Woods no longer felt that the Walter

design was the only one to consider. On April 28,

1904, Congress established a six-man commission

comprising three senators and three representatives for the “extension and completion” of the

Capitol. Among its duties, the commission would

study and report on the idea of refacing the west

elevation of the old Capitol with marble, replacing

the west terrace steps with marble, and providing

sculpture for the House pediment. Within two days

of its creation, the commission hired Carrère &

Hastings to assist in its multifaceted mission.

On December 27, 1904, Carrère & Hastings

finished its report, which presented two schemes

for the extension. The first envisioned a modest

extension twelve feet deep, just enough to place a

masonry wall under the skirt of the dome. This

would provide the appearance of support that the

dome seemed to require, but it would add little

usable space on the interior: only two new rooms

and several storage alcoves would be gained. The

second scheme called for an extension thirty-two

and a half feet deep, adding eighteen new rooms

per floor as well as a corridor connecting the House

and Senate wings. Both plans called for widening

the new central portico by the addition of two

columns, which would create a broader pediment.

Thus, the central portico would become the dominant one, befitting its importance. Although its origins are unclear, Carrère & Hastings also presented

a “Supplementary Report” showing the structural

changes to the rotunda and surrounding areas necessary to replicate the dome in marble.

In stating the opinions of the firm, Carrère &

Hastings declared a decided preference for the

first extension scheme. It changed the Capitol the

least, and it solved the architectural problem just

as well as the larger addition. They recommended

preserving the forecourt and condemned the idea

of bringing the central portico in line with the porticoes of the two wings. That alignment would

obscure the view of the wings when seen from an

oblique angle. This admonition was not a rebuke

to Walter, whom they thought had been obliged in

his day to provide an extension with as many

rooms as possible. Now that office buildings were

under way, the need for additional rooms in the

Capitol was not as urgent.

On other matters, Carrère & Hastings recommended that the west front be refaced with marble, exactly reproducing every detail of the historic

facade. There was no pressing architectural problem to solve on that side of the building, but the

deteriorated sandstone walls—with some of its
392 History of the United States Capitol

carved details held together by paint—was an

embarrassing sight. Olmsted’s stairs were also

worn, and the firm recommended replacing the

bluestone steps with marble. Finally, they estimated $55,000 would be needed to commission a

sculptural group for the long-vacant House pediment. In all, Carrère & Hastings described

$1,333,000 worth of improvements, but the pediment sculpture was the only item approved.

In the days of Captain Meigs, several sculptors

wanted the commission to fill the House pediment

with something equivalent to Crawford’s Progress

of Civilization. In the Pierce and Buchanan

administrations Henry Kirke Brown, Erastus Dow

Palmer, and a few other artists presented designs

that were not accepted for various reasons. In 1869

Clark Mills’ son Theophilus came close to landing a

commission for a group of sixteen figures representing the emancipation of slaves. His extravagant fee ($130,000), however, doomed the project.

In 1879 Launt Thompson of New York proposed a

sentimental group illustrative of “Peace and

Plenty,” but his plan went nowhere as well. By the

dawn of the twentieth century Gutzon Borlum and

Charles Neihaus were working on designs that

they hoped would persuade Congress to fill the

empty pediment. The time was finally propitious

for such civic improvements, after decades of what

has been termed “official disinterest.” 19

Borglum produced a composition entitled The

Building of a Nation, while Neihaus’ group was

called simply The Law. Unfortunately, each artist

estimated that his works would cost about

$110,000, or twice what Carrère & Hastings suggested. These prices did nothing to smooth the

way for congressional approval, and the project

stalled for a while. In 1908, Representative Samuel

McCall of Massachusetts nudged it along by asking

Woods how much money should be included for

the House pediment in a bill he planned to introduce. The superintendent replied that $55,000

was needed for statuary and about $20,000 was

needed for contingencies. McCall’s legislation was

approved on April 16, 1908, and the pediment

appeared destined to be completed at last.

As soon as the money became available, Woods

contacted Neihaus about doing the pediment for

the sum stipulated in McCall’s bill. The sculptor

agreed, but the final decision was left up to members of yet another commission, this one made up

of members of the Joint Committee on the Library

(including McCall), the Speaker, and the superintendent. The commission returned to Carrère &

Hastings for advice and the firm recommended

four eminent artists, including John Quincy Adams

Ward, who replied that at age seventy-eight he

was simply too old to consider doing it: he recommending Paul Wayland Bartlett instead.20 Bartlett

had collaborated with Ward on the pediment for

the New York Stock Exchange, a work fairly equivalent to the House pediment. A second endorsement was given by National Sculpture Society. On

May 26, 1908, Bartlett was given the contract subject to the approval of the commission. Without

lifting a finger on his own behalf, Bartlett bested

some of America’s most prominent artists, some of

whom had spent large parts of their careers vying

for the job.

While in Paris during the summer of 1908

Bartlett received photographs of the House 

pediment annotated with its dimensions. He modeled small clay maquettes for a work called The

Apotheosis of Democracy that would be further

refined and developed as his ideas matured over

the course of the project. Two central figures representing Peace Protecting Genius stood between

a group entitled The Power of Labor: Agriculture

and another called The Power of Labor: Industry.

Bartlett finished the first two sketches in September 1908, and upon returning to America he

showed them to Woods, Cannon, McCall, and other

members of the pediment commission. They

approved the concept and basic design on February 16, 1909.

By the terms of his contract, Bartlett had three

years to finish the sculpture, yet it would actually

take more than seven years to complete and install.

Curiosity about the project was strong, both 

in France and America. Periodicals, such as 

Scribner’s Magazine, carried illustrated articles

that gave the public a look at the great work destined for the Capitol. As time wore on, Bartlett

was twice able to extend the deadline with Woods’

blessing. The superintendent advised the Speaker

that it was better to suffer delay rather than hurry

the work and suffer an inferior product. Most of

the figures were sculpted in France and, one by

one, shipped to New York, where Italian-born
Civic Improvements 393

carvers replicated the models in Georgia marble.

The finished products were sent to Bartlett’s Washington studio, near Union Station. There the city’s

elite, including Mrs. Woodrow Wilson, came to

have a close look. In the summer of 1916 The

Apotheosis of Democracy was finally completed

and installed in the pediment that had stood empty

since 1865. The magnificent work was unveiled

during a ceremony held on August 2.

RETHINKING THE

HOUSE CHAMBER

AGAIN The day before Bartlett’s composition

was approved by the pediment committee, Samuel McCall reported on

another matter related to improvements for the

House of Representatives. As the result of a resolution passed on May 12, 1908, the Committee on

the Library investigated the acoustics, ventilation,

and general accommodations of the House chamber. This latest study had a long pedigree that

could be traced to the time when representatives

first complained in 1857 about the “artificial” air

they were obliged to breathe. This time, however,

McCall looked into other matters as well. His committee was asked to consult with architects about

a complete reconstruction of the room to place it

in direct contact with the south wall and thereby

take advantage of the windows there. Reducing

the size of the room so as to make speaking and

hearing easier, was another topic of consideration.

Woods was directed to report to the Speaker about

the issues before the committee. As usual, he

turned immediately to Carrère & Hastings for help.

Peace 

Protecting Genius 

by Paul Bartlett

ca. 1908 These figures in The

Apotheosis of Democracy

were the focal point of

Bartlett’s composition.

Represented as a winged

youth holding the lamp 

of knowledge, the figure

of Genius is protected 

by a resolute figure of

Peace crowned by a 

laurel wreath.

Unveiling of 

The Apotheosis of Democracy

1916 Paul Bartlett was commissioned in 1908 to create

sculpture for the House pediment, which had stood

empty for forty-three years.
394 History of the United States Capitol

There was nothing new about the complaints

regarding the hall’s ventilation, nor was the proposed solution novel. Removing the south wall

would allow windows in the members’ retiring

room and the press gallery to light and ventilate

the chamber. Carrère & Hastings developed at

least five designs for rebuilding the chamber with

these windows as part of the scheme. One was a

reproduction of Statuary Hall, a sentimental

favorite of Woods and the consulting architects.

Two other options would have created rectangular

chambers somewhat smaller than the one in use.

One retained the long axis parallel to the south

wall; the other rotated the axis ninety degrees,

placing the Speaker’s chair in the center of the

east wall. Although the latter design offered some

structural advantages, it found no favor with

Woods, who called it “faulty.”

In each proposal, emphasis was placed on

reducing the size of the floor and the gallery and

increasing the size of the cloakrooms and the number of seats on the floor. The arrangements were

developed using the superintendent’s considerable experience with the existing room as well as

Carrère & Hastings’ experience designing auditoriums and theaters in New York. The firm also

studied materials about the legislative halls of

England, France, Germany, Austria, and other

European nations collected by McCall. The foreign halls were found to be equally divided

between rectangular and semicircular chambers,

and all but the British Parliament (in which legislators faced each other on benches) arranged

seats in concentric rows, like those already set up

in the House and Senate chambers.

Reducing the size of the House chamber was a

goal of this reconstruction project, and it was given

close attention in the report that McCall communicated to the full House on February 15, 1909. He

noted that there was “no critic of repute who has

written about the House of Representatives who

has not commented upon the inordinate dimensions of the chamber and its adverse effect upon

debate and deliberation.” 21 After citing a few examples, McCall quoted at length from Congressional

Government: A Study in American Politics,

Woodrow Wilson’s classic look at congressional

domination of American government published in

1885. It was written while Wilson pursued a doctorate in political science at John Hopkins University

and contained insightful observations about the

room in which the House conducted its business:

There are, to begin with, physical and architectural reasons why businesslike debate of

public affairs by the House of Representatives

is out of the question. To those who visit the

galleries of the representative Chamber during

Scheme “A” for Rebuilding the House Chamber 

by Carrère & Hastings, 1908

Statuary Hall was the model for this scheme to rebuild the House chamber.
Civic Improvements 395

a session of the House these reasons are as

obvious as they are astonishing.

It would be natural to expect that a body which

meets ostensibly for consultation and deliberation should hold its sittings in a room small

enough to admit of a easy interchange of views

and a ready concert of action, where its members would be brought into close, sympathetic

contact; and it is nothing less than astonishing

to find it spread at large through the vast

spaces of such a chamber as the Hall of the

House of Representatives, where there are no

close ranks of cooperating parties, but each

Member has a roomy desk and an easy revolving chair; where broad aisles spread and stretch

themselves; where ample, soft-carpeted areas

lie about the spacious desks of the Speaker

and clerk; where deep galleries reach back

from the outer limits of the wide passages

which lie beyond the “bar”: an immense, capacious chamber, disposing its giant dimensions

freely beneath the great level lacunar ceiling

through whose glass panels the full light of day

pours in. The most vivid impression the visitor

gets in looking over that vast hall is the impression of space.

A speaker must have a voice like O’Connell’s,

the practical visitor is apt to think as he sits in

the gallery, to fill even the silent spaces of that

room: how much more to overcome the disorderly noises that buzz and rattle through it

when the Representatives are assembled—a

voice clear, sonorous, dominant, like the voice

of a clarion. One who speaks there with the

voice and lungs of the ordinary mortal must

content himself with the audience of those

Members in his own immediate neighborhood,

whose ears he rudely assails in vehement

efforts to command the attention of those

beyond them, and who, therefore, can not

choose but hear him.22

McCall speculated that the magnitude of the

hall had diminished the influence of the House of

Representatives over the years. Why were the

great orators in the history of the House—Henry

Clay, Daniel Webster, and John Quincy Adams—

associated with the old hall while no one serving in

the new chamber could match former oratorical

Scheme “B” for Rebuilding the House Chamber 

by Carrère & Hastings, 1908

Removing the press gallery and the members’ retiring room would allow a 

reconstructed House chamber to have windows.
396 History of the United States Capitol

greatness or political influence? The fault, he concluded, was the size of the chamber rather than

the quality of the nation’s representatives.

McCall informed the House that the Library

Committee had digested the information presented

by the consulting architects and disapproved the

superintendent’s recommendation of scheme “A,”

the one based on the Statuary Hall prototype. He

stated that it would appear ridiculous to have

nearly identical chambers situated so close by—

one filled with statues and the other with the people’s representatives. In addition, the chance of

encountering acoustical problems in the halfdomed chamber should not be risked. His committee, therefore, recommended scheme “B,” a plan

promising great architectural improvement as well

as a better room for debate. It reduced the floor

area by 2,220 square feet and the gallery by more

than 3,200 square feet. The size of the cloak rooms

was increased by 3,700 square feet.

Despite the elegance of the new hall that

McCall proposed, members of the House were not

prepared to undertake such drastic action quite

yet. Compelling arguments in favor of a smaller

chamber were opposed by those who could not

understand why it should be shrunk just when the

House was about to gain forty-four new members.

The idea to reconstruct the chamber was eventually doomed by the census of 1910, which increased

the number of representatives to 435—a number

destined not to change. Instead of being resized,

the chamber was subjected to the latest in a long

series of rearrangements. On January 10, 1913, the

House voted $25,000 to buy new furniture to

accommodate 450 seats on yet another new floor.

The Francis H. Bacon company of Boston supplied

roomy chairs and two large tables for the leadership. (Bacon, an old friend of Thomas Hastings,

had also made much of the furniture for the House

and Senate office buildings.) Gone forever were

the individual desks that took up so much room,

but the more spacious aisles made movement about

the hall easier and less disruptive.

The latest increase in the membership of the

House obliged the enlargement of its five-year-old

office building as well. Forty-eight new rooms were

built in the attic by cutting the roof beams and lifting a new roof into place while the building

remained open and fully occupied. All the new

House Chamber with a New Floor (top) and New Seating (bottom)

1913

An increased membership following the census of 1910 caused 450 fixed seats to

be installed in place of desks and chairs. The new arrangement permitted more space

for aisles, thus making it easier and quieter to move about the room.
Civic Improvements 397

The Grounds 

ca. 1910

Since 1867 the Capitol grounds have been under the care of the architect of the

Capitol. Keeping the grass cut (top) and the trees healthy (bottom) are two important

parts of the job.

Stair Repair

1915

After ninety years of wear, the sandstone steps

leading to the central portico were taken up in the summer of 1915 and replaced with granite. Workmen laid

tar-soaked sheets as a waterproofing measure before

installing the new treads.
398 History of the United States Capitol

rooms faced the interior courtyard, while the sloping roof that faced the streets provided space for a

narrow corridor and dark, but handy, storage

rooms under the eaves. Five elevators were

extended to serve the new fifth floor, which was

occupied in 1914.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Despite the nation’s reluctance to enter

into European conflicts, unprovoked

attacks by German submarines

against American shipping finally forced President

Wilson to ask Congress for a declaration of war on

April 2, 1917. Neutrality had not sustained peace,

and the president promised that joining France,

England, Russia, and other Allied Powers in the

fight against the Central Powers would make the

world “safe for democracy.” Along with the troops

and gas masks, the world war exported such treasured American images as the stars and stripes,

Uncle Sam, and the Capitol’s dome into the European theater, pressing America’s message of determination, confidence, and moral uprightness. At

home, the Capitol stood unfortified and open as

always. As a boost to morale, flood lights were

installed to illuminate the dome and its crowning

statue. Lights were usually left on until midnight.

The only defensive measure taken to secure the

building during World War I was to hang new iron

gates at the main entrances, which were closed

and locked only at night.

The Capitol’s calm appearance during the war

helped keep spirits high without hinting at the

deteriorating relations between the president and

Congress that took place inside. With the end of

the war came a retreat from world affairs that

suited America’s isolationist mood, and its attention returned to the heady business of making

money. Wilsonian idealism was a burden most

Americans happily traded for the “normalcy” of

Warren G. Harding, as lighthearted a president as

the nation had ever seen.

A spirit of peace and prosperity pervaded society in the happy-go-lucky days leading up to Harding’s campaign and election. One small example of

the national good mood occurred unexpectedly in

early 1921, when Elliott Woods was elected an

honorary member of the Washington chapter of

the American Institute of Architects. The ill will

that once existed between the Institute and the

superintendent melted away as the architectural

community of Washington recognized that Woods

was responsible for some of the city’s best new

buildings. At the same time, Speaker Joe Cannon

was afoot in the House of Representatives with a

bill to restore the title of Woods’ office to architect

of the Capitol. On January 13, 1921, Cannon

addressed the House about the superintendent’s

service on Capitol Hill and beyond:

Mr. Woods is aging, but he is as competent today as he ever was. He is the best architect

that I ever met. He had charge of the construction of the buildings here; he had charge of the

Court of Claims building, which was overhauled

by him; and he had charge of the courthouse

down here. You are familiar with his work. He

has done whatever he was called on to do without any increase of salary, so far as that is concerned, and he is not asking for it. He is not a

very old man. I think he is between 50 and 60

years of age, but as he is getting along in years

he would like to be called “architect.” 23

James R. Mann of Illinois remembered the days

when Woods’ office was called “architect of the

Capitol” and considered the restoration of the title

a worthwhile—although mostly sentimental—gesture. He understood that it meant a great deal to

the superintendent, who had earned the title by

virtue of his successful architectural projects.

Mann also corrected a misapprehension held by a

few members, who thought the measure would

create a new position with new demands on the

treasury. Mann made it clear that only the name of

the office would be affected and no additional

expense would be incurred. With its opponents

thus assured, the measure was approved. Under

the provisions of the Legislative Act signed on

March 3, 1921, the office of “superintendent of the

Capitol” was restored to its old title of “architect

of the Capitol.” Harding took the oath of office as

the nation’s 29th president the next day.

Woods was exceedingly gratified by the congressional action that restored the noble title of his

office. He placed announcements in the local newspapers to inform businessmen of the change and

was soon greeted with letters of congratulation.

Typical of such correspondence was a letter from
Civic Improvements 399

James Tanner, a District court official and a fellow

Hoosier who had known Woods since his youth:

Speaking very seriously, I desire to say that I

think that Congress, under the leadership of

old Uncle Joe, has done a mighty just thing in

adding the peacock feather they did to your

tiara. You have repaired, embellished and

glorified so much of our much abused city that

it was your absolute due. I do not consider it a

compliment to you, I consider it justice.24

No one was happier than Thomas Hastings. His

association with Woods over almost twenty years

had developed into a close friendship, and he

wished to further Woods’ standing by making him a

full-fledged member of the American Institute of

Architects. Hastings told his friend that he wanted

to have the “real joy” of delivering full membership

to him.25 Woods, however, thought his status as an

honorary member of the Washington chapter was

not enough to promote him to full membership and

advised Hastings to drop the matter. He was just as

grateful for the mere proposal. Undeterred, Hastings placed Woods’ name in nomination and asked

Electus D. Litchfield and Henry Bacon, other

prominent New York architects, to second it. Hastings told Woods that he was confident that the nomination would go through with flying colors. “Three

cheers,” Hastings wrote, “if anyone should be in

the institute you should certainly be, and we will

receive you with open arms.” 26 On May 7, 1921, the

secretary of the AIA informed Woods of his election. He was honored to join the professional association that once scorned him.

Unfortunately, Woods had only two years to

enjoy the cherished title of architect of the Capitol. In the summer of 1923, while on vacation at

Spring Lake, New Jersey, he died of heart failure

at age 59. Vice President Calvin Coolidge and

Speaker Frederick H. Gillett were among the honorary pall bearers at his funeral. Soon after the

last rites were concluded, senators, representatives, and the employees of the office were busy

writing President Harding about Woods’ successor. The near unanimous choice was David Lynn,

who had worked in the architect’s office since

1901. (Glenn Brown wanted to be considered

again but was advised not to meddle in the “family affairs” of Capitol Hill.) Lynn had begun as a

laborer and worked his way through increasingly

responsible jobs, such as foreman of cleaners,

watchman, and civil engineer, before becoming

Woods’ trusted assistant; indeed, his climb

through the ranks paralleled Woods’ own career

under Edward Clark. He was from an old Maryland family, handsome and agreeable, and blessed

with a knack for making friends in high places.

Senior senators such as Furnifold M. Simmons of

North Carolina, Oscar Underwood of Alabama,

and Charles Culberson of Texas sent testimonials

to the president regarding his suitability for the

architect’s job. Simmons wrote:

Although I am a member of the Minority Party,

I think that our personal relations will render

my recommendation in the matter of filling the

vacancy not unwelcome to you. When you were

in the Senate you must have yourself met 

Capitol Storeroom

ca. 1915

By the early twentieth century, a room originally used as a restaurant (modern

day SB–17) served as a storeroom stocked with such supplies as cakes of soap; bundles

of rope, hose, and wire; bins of spare plumbing parts; and cans of French zinc. Seated

at the desk is the superintendent’s right-hand man, David Lynn (1873–1961), who

would succeed Elliott Woods in 1923.
400 History of the United States Capitol

Mr. David Lynn. . . . I earnestly hope that you

will decide to appoint Mr. Lynn. Mr. Lynn is a

Civil engineer of long experience, a gentleman

of the highest character, and he is personally

very popular with all of us who have come in

contact with him.27

Simmons’ recommendation was echoed by

numerous senators and congressmen who wrote

from their homes while away from Washington’s

summer heat. Employees of the architect’s office

submitted a petition to the White House supporting Lynn. Congress was in recess when Woods’

death occurred, and the president himself was

about to embark on a trip west for recreation and

to explain his administration’s faltering policies.

On August 2, 1923, while in San Francisco, Harding suddenly died of a stroke. Three weeks later

and with little fanfare, President Coolidge

appointed David Lynn architect of the Capitol.

The transition from Woods to Lynn was seamless. Newspaper articles about the new architect

described Lynn as having grown up in the office,

deserving the post by virtue of his intimate knowledge of the Capitol and the details of the job. He

was usually referred to as the “fifth” architect of

the Capitol, a numerical designation that Lynn

himself probably created. The new architect was

an amateur historian and genealogist who liked

the idea that his office traced its roots to Washington’s administration. While a part of the office was

indeed an heir to the functions of the board of

commissioners that Washington appointed in 1791,

Lynn looked upon Dr. William Thornton as his professional forefather, citing him as the “first” architect of the Capitol. Lynn thought that Washington

had appointed Thornton in 1793 to an office with

the title of “architect of the Capitol,” and no one

questioned the matter. Similarly, Latrobe was 

designated the “second” architect, Bulfinch was

the “third,” and Walter was the “fourth.” The 

actual evolution of the office was honorable and 

Senate 

Barber Shop

ca. 1925

From 1860 to 1980,

the Senate barber shop

occupied a room in the

old north wing (modern

day S–145) first designated as a committee

room in the HalletThornton era floor plans.

Following the fire of

1814, the room was occupied by the chief clerk of

the Supreme Court.

Conveniences such

as bathing rooms and

barber shops were provided during a time when

most legislators lodged

in boarding houses or

hotels, where such facilities were either crowded

or nonexistent. Shaving

mugs personalized with

senators’ names were

stored in the cabinet

near the entrance.
Civic Improvements 401

interesting, but it was also far too complicated to

recite so easily. (Thornton never held an office

with the title “architect of the Capitol,” for example, and Latrobe and Bulfinch both worked under

contract and did not occupy a government office

as such.) While overly simplistic and fundamentally inaccurate, Lynn’s view of his office helped

bolster the pedigree of the position he now held.

RETHINKING THE

SENATE CHAMBER

AGAIN

On June 7, 1924, a busy day at the end of

a long session of Congress, the Senate

passed a resolution directing the architect of the Capitol to consult with reputable architects to improve the “living conditions of the

Senate Chamber.” 28 With a note of irony, Senator

William Borah of Idaho asked if the measure would

bring the Senate in “touch with the outside world,”

prompting Senator Royal S. Copeland of New York,

from the Committee on Rules, to reply that it was

a distinct possibility. The veiled reference to windows and a more comfortable chamber led the

Senate to adopt the measure unanimously. It was

the latest in a series of attempts to reconstruct the

Senate chamber and to overcome Captain Meigs’

legacy of a windowless room.

Instinctively, Lynn turned to Carrère & Hastings for assistance. Within five months the firm

developed a design for rebuilding the chamber and

adjacent rooms. To improve the space’s acoustic

qualities as well as its architectural treatment,

Carrère & Hastings proposed to rebuild it in the

form of a semicircle, covered by a low half dome.

They cited Statuary Hall as the source of inspiration, saying that the new design “adhered strictly

to the best traditions of the early part of the nineteenth century as evolved from the highest development of classical types.” 29 Three two-story

windows on the north wall would have provided an

agreeable light, free from the direct glare of the

sun. Little change to the outside appearance would

have been noticed, but on the interior the marble

room, president’s room, vice-president’s office, and

press galleries would be sacrificed. Mechanical

ventilation would still be needed to augment the

air introduced from the windows, but an investigation into the equipment and cost would wait until

after the improvements were authorized. The cost

of the new chamber was estimated at $450,000.

The design Carrère & Hastings proposed was

a straightforward plan with a row of engaged Ionic

columns placed along the north wall framing the

windows and the central podium. Copied from the

Ionic of the Erechtheion in Athens, the order was

the same one that Latrobe used in the old Senate

chamber. A lower ring of Doric columns carried

the semicircular gallery opposite the windowed

wall. For acoustical reasons the domed ceiling was

kept low and deeply coffered. Walls were depicted

as perfectly smooth blocks of marble or some other

fine stone. The overall effect was masculine and

stately, an elegant essay in the neoclassical revival

style—expressed, in this instance, with Grecian

orders. According to one account, Thomas Hastings considered Walter’s “early Victorian” interior

“too dreary and formidable for members of the

Senate to maintain a cheerful frame of mind.” The

new design was more “cheerful” by virtue of its

“early Colonial” inspiration.30 Despite such haphazard use of architectural and historical terms (Grecian architecture is hardly “colonial,” for instance),

Design for a New Senate Chamber 

by Carrère & Hastings, 1924

Carrère & Hastings’ proposal for the new Senate chamber included the Ionic order

along the north wall and Doric columns supporting a semicircular gallery. Three tall

arched windows would have provided the natural light and air that some felt were vital

to good health. Air-conditioning and the stock market crash put an end to the project.
created, allowing the temperature at the floor level

to be unaffected by the number of persons in the

galleries.32 Two additional zones were installed,

one each for the Republican and Democratic cloak

rooms. Work was completed on the hall of the

House by December 3, 1928, the opening of the

second session of the 70th Congress, but it was

deferred in the Senate while relocation of the

chamber was being discussed.

During the first session of the 71st Congress

the Senate chamber was fitted with an air-conditioning system. The equipment was operational by

August 1929, bringing welcome relief to senators

suffering through an unusual session that had

begun on April 15. Calling its product “Manufactured Weather,” the Carrier Corporation correctly

predicted that its ventilation system would have a

profound effect on the operations of Congress:

Whether it be bitingly cold or raw or insufferably, enervatingly, prostratingly hot and humid

outside, inside the historic walls of Congress

it will always be comfortable, not only, but

healthful, invigorating, inspiring.

Manufactured Weather may, indeed, have a

profound effect upon our governmental system! Congress may voluntarily remain in session throughout the summer,—in order that

our Congressmen may be protected from the

intolerable discomforts and dangers of the ordinary outdoor weather! 33

Cooler air in the summer brought relief to be

sure, but the major health benefit of “manufactured weather” was the control of humidity. The

dry air used to heat the legislative chambers in

winter was blamed for such ailments as grippe,

influenza, bronchitis, and the common cold. Indoor

air deficient in moisture was, according to the Carrier Corporation, “a menace to Health, ruinous to

Comfort.” 34 The benefits of air conditioning might

not be as noticeable in winter, but its effects on

health were welcome in all seasons.

The novelty of air conditioning promised to

startle some senators unaccustomed to cool, dry

air in summertime. Lynn had notices printed to

assure them that there was nothing to worry about

when experiencing an air-conditioned room for

the first time. After explaining the mechanics of

the new system he wrote:

The sensation of chill experienced upon entering the Senate Chamber is due principally to

the dryness of the air causing the evaporation

402 History of the United States Capitol

the notion that the new design would rid the Senate chamber of its Victorian gloom by introducing

architectural splendors from the early republic

was a new twist in an old saga. Earlier complaints

had been focused only on the lack of fresh air, but

now the architectural style of the chamber was

condemned as well.

Senator Copeland of New York was the principal proponent of relocating the chamber. A medical doctor by training, he was a former

commissioner of public health, and president of

the New York Board of Health, who had gained a

national reputation through radio broadcasts and

writings devoted to health issues. He now found

himself greatly disturbed by the lack of fresh air in

the Senate chamber. “I think it is a shame,” he said

sadly, “to see men in this chamber sicken and suffer as they do.” 31 Finance Committee chairman

Reed Smoot of Utah, who had served in the Senate

since 1903, backed the move as well. He claimed

that his health had been impaired by his long service in the windowless chamber and declared that

the time had come to rebuild the room.

In 1927, while Copeland and Smoot worked

for the adoption of Carrère & Hastings’ plan, a

commission of experts was formed to advise the

architect of the Capitol about a new and wondrous

improvement in the science of ventilation called

“air conditioning.” The commission’s chairman was

a professor of public health at Yale University,

while other members of the eleven-person board

included doctors, mechanical and sanitary engineers, and leading experts on ventilation. Hearings

were held and the matter was fully discussed

before going before the Committees on Appropriations. With relative ease, $323,000 was secured to

install “dehumidifying air conditioning apparatus

with automatically controlled ducts” in both the

House and Senate chambers.

The Carrier Engineering Corporation won the

bidding to air-condition the two chambers and

adjacent cloak rooms. Air was introduced into the

chambers through diffusers in the iron ceilings,

which were supplied by ducts that snaked across

the roofs and eventually descended to the equipment rooms under the terrace. One group of registers was placed directly over the floor area, and a

separate ring of diffusers was placed over the galleries. By this means an “invisible partition” was
Civic Improvements 403

of the slight amount of moisture of the skin.

After the completion of this evaporation the

body will be perfectly comfortable, for the

actual difference in temperature between the

inside and outside air is very small. No fear may

be felt by the occupants of the Senate Chamber

from the conditions produced by this new system of ventilation and air conditioning.35

Once the chamber was air-conditioned Senators Copeland and Smoot dropped their crusade

to relocate the room. The Senate chamber had

joined the hall of the House to become one of the

two most comfortable rooms in the Capitol.

Despite its “gloomy Victorian” appearance, it felt

wonderfully modern. A few months after the air

conditioning was turned on, two unrelated factors

conspired to doom the relocation project forever.

The project’s artistic director, Thomas Hastings,

died of an appendicitis on October 22, 1929, two

days before the great New York stock market

crash—Black Thursday.

Air conditioning quickly became an indispensable part of life on Capitol Hill. In 1935, Congress

appropriated $2.5 million to provide the rest of the

Capitol and the office buildings with this new form

of ventilation. The Carrier Corporation won the

contract to air-condition the Capitol, while two of

its competitors were hired for the office buildings.

Central refrigeration equipment was installed at

the Capitol power plant, whence chilled water was

conducted to the various buildings through underground tunnels. At the Capitol, holes were cut in

floors and walls to make way for metal duct work.

Once again the massive structure proved capable

of sustaining the loss of building materials (mainly

brick) without any threat to its stability.

THE GROWING CAMPUS

A lthough Senator Smoot eventually

abandoned his efforts to have the

Senate chamber rebuilt, he was

instrumental in relocating the Supreme Court into

its own building. In 1925, he proposed to spend

fifty million dollars on new buildings in the federal

city, and the chief justice of the United States,

William Howard Taft, had a project in mind to help

use part of the money. Taft took it upon himself to

urge Congress to authorize a new home for the

Court, thus ending its “temporary” status as a

guest of the Senate. For the past century and a

quarter, the Court had borrowed space in the old

north wing; it had been using the old Senate chamber for its proceedings since 1860. Whenever the

Senate was provided with more space, the

Supreme Court fell heir to a little more room as

well. This was true when the old library space was

converted into offices in 1900 and true again when

the Senate office building opened in 1909. In both

cases, although the Supreme Court gained a few

rooms in the Capitol, there was still not enough

space for each justice to have an office, and, as a

result, most worked at home.

Chief Justice Taft argued that the present

accommodations for the Court were woefully inadequate, certainly less convenient than what a lower

court would find acceptable. Lawyers coming

before the Court had no place to work, no table to

use when making last-minute changes in their

cases, no chair to sit on while reading a brief. They

did not even have a place to put their coats and

hats. While a mere symptom of a larger problem,

this lack of basic accommodations for attorneys

had an adverse effect on the Court. When Associate Justice Willis Van Devanter testified before a

House committee considering a new building for

the Supreme Court, he asserted that the lack of

facilities for out-of-town attorneys accounted for

some ill-prepared presentations, which, in turn,

wasted the Court’s time.

In December 1928, Congress responded to

Taft’s initiative by creating the United States

Supreme Court Building Commission. The success

of earlier commissions for the House and Senate

office buildings had led the way for a new one,

which would steer its project over the next seven

years. Taft was designated chairman and was joined

by Van Devanter, the chairmen and ranking members of the Committees on Public Buildings of the

House and Senate, and the architect of the Capitol.

Like the commissions that came before it, this

one produced magnificent results with virtually no

acrimony. Deciding upon the architect, for

instance, was an easy task. While Lynn would have

undoubtedly recommended Carrère & Hastings for

the job, the chief justice had already established a

close relationship with Cass Gilbert of New York.

Gilbert was another giant in the architectural 
404 History of the United States Capitol

profession whom Taft had (when president)

appointed to the Commission of Fine Arts in 1910.

With Chief Justice Taft’s encouragement, Gilbert

began sketching designs for the Supreme Court in

1926.

As recommended earlier by the McMillan Commission, the site favored by the commission for

the new Supreme Court building was on First

Street east, directly across from the Capitol

between Maryland Avenue and East Capitol Street.

Two other locations were also mentioned, but neither was seriously considered. Judiciary Square,

the Court’s intended location on the L’Enfant plan,

was already occupied by the massive brick Pension Building (now home of the National Building

Museum). Another site near the Tidal basin was a

possibility, but it was reserved for an unspecified

monument by the McMillan Commission; the Jefferson Memorial was later built there. Gilbert did

not like the site across from the Capitol because of

its subordinate position and because Maryland

Avenue, one of L’Enfant’s diagonal streets, made it

irregular. Nor did he like the idea of building next

to the baronial Library of Congress. Gilbert proposed creating a new park for the Court about half

a mile directly east of the Capitol, but that would

have entailed the condemnation and destruction

of hundreds of post Civil War row houses—a timeconsuming and expensive undertaking. Notwithstanding Gilbert’s views, the site for the Supreme

Court was not changed from the spot specified by

the McMillan Commission.

Gilbert was formally commissioned to design

the Supreme Court building in April 1929. Soon

the architect and his assistants showed a preliminary design, along with an estimate of the cost of

materials and labor for the complicated undertaking. Their work was approved by the commission,

and, on May 25, 1929, the Speaker was informed

that the new Supreme Court building would cost

$9,740,000. The funds were appropriated on

December 20, and demolition of the residential

structures on the site was begun soon thereafter.

On February 3, 1930, with the funding secure and

the project well under way, the ailing chief justice

retired from the Court and from the commission.

The following day Gilbert wrote Taft an affectionate note that read in part:

I have felt it to be a great honor to be selected

by you as the architect of the new Supreme

Court building and I have endeavored to make

a design which shall be worthy of its great purpose and of your ideal. I shall always think of

you as the real author of the project and the

one to whose vision we shall owe a suitable

housing for the Supreme Court of the United

States. It will, in fact, be a monument to your

honored name.36

The design of the Supreme Court building

achieved a balance between classical grandeur and

quiet dignity, appropriate for the nation’s highest

court. Unlike the Library of Congress building next

door (a textbook example of the flamboyant Beaux

Arts style), the Supreme Court was designed in a

quieter, more reserved style now termed neoclassical revival. The building was a steel frame structure

faced with white marble. The facade was about 300

feet wide with a central temple-like pavilion fronted

by a monumental portico of sixteen Corinthian

columns supporting an elaborate entablature. The

commanding central section was flanked by lower

wings in the Ionic order. Four spacious courts provided the interior with unexpected sources of light

and air. The plan carefully and deliberately separated the justices’ working areas from the public,

ensuring privacy and quiet. Visitors approached the

building by way of a long flight of marble steps leading to the portico and a grand rectangular vestibule

Portrait of 

Cass Gilbert 

by Robert Aitken 

ca. 1933

Collection of the Supreme

Court of the United States

Gilbert (1859–1934)

studied architecture at

the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and

spent his early career

working for McKim, Mead

& White. In 1895 he won

the competition for the

Minnesota State Capitol,

a project that earned him

a national reputation.

The Woolworth Building

in New York, one of his

most famous works, was

the tallest building in the

world when it was completed in 1913. Many of

Gilbert’s buildings were

classical, including the

Treasury Annex (1918)

and the U. S. Chamber of

Commerce Building

(1924), both located in

Washington. His last

work, the U. S. Supreme

Court, was perhaps his

crowning achievement.
Civic Improvements 405

(called the “Great Hall”), thirty feet high and lined

with Doric columns. Straight ahead was the courtroom, a space about sixty-four feet square and

lighted by side windows behind screens of Ionic

columns. Although the court room could have been

larger, Taft wanted to preserve much of the intimacy that he liked in the court room in the Capitol.

Above the court was the law library, an elegant room

paneled in oak with carvings of appropriate

emblems and allegorical figures.

While the Supreme Court building was under

way, a second office building was being planned

for the House of Representatives. In 1925 Congress appropriated a modest sum ($2,500) to allow

Lynn to work up plans and estimates for an addition to the existing House office building and

another set of documents for an entirely new structure. He asked Carrère & Hastings to examine the

possibility of enlarging the existing building, while

a consortium of local architects known as the

Allied Architects was hired by Lynn to develop

preliminary designs for a new office building. The

additional space gained by either scheme would

allow each member to occupy two rooms and

Supreme Court

Of the many architectural improvements made on

Capitol Hill during the twentieth century, perhaps 

the most significant was the new building for the 

U. S. Supreme Court, which was finished in 1935. 

(1958 photograph.)

Supreme Court Law Library

ca. 1935

The law library is one of America’s great Georgian

revival interiors.
406 History of the United States Capitol

would provide more committee rooms, staff space,

and support areas as well.

Carrère & Hastings responded with a plan to

build a plain structure in the courtyard of the 1908

building. By lowering the ceiling heights in the

new annex and tucking a few offices in the attic,

the scheme could provide a total of 375 new rooms.

The firm proposed to use steel frame construction

and face it with limestone to match the finish of

the existing court. It would be provided with the

usual plumbing, electricity, heating, and elevators

and would cost an estimated three million dollars.

During discussions with the Allied Architects,

Lynn indicated that a new House office building

should not be monumental, but rather be a serviceable, economical building, simple and dignified.

Apparently, some in Congress considered their

Carrère & Hastings building too regal and felt that

a new structure should be less so. With that in

mind, the architects developed two schemes. One

included 266 office suites, a gymnasium, a swimming pool, a rooftop lounge, various storage rooms,

and auxiliary offices and would cost a total of about

six and a half million dollars. A second, more

expensive scheme provided much the same facilities but also accommodated a few more offices

and a 100-car garage. It was essentially two structures connected underground. Both schemes were

designed without high ceilings or “pretentious”

corridors, providing suites that reflected intensive

study and thought. Each member’s suite included

a private office with built-in storage cabinets and a

private entrance, a large general office that could

accommodate two desks and a waiting area, a storage room, and a single lavatory.

The final design was an improvement over the

first schemes proposed by the Allied Architects,

but the general modesty of their early designs prevailed. The garage and gymnasium were dropped

in favor of more offices and a large assembly room,

which became home to the Committee on Ways

and Means. Because of the building’s position on a

sloping site, its rusticated granite base varied in

height: nearly invisible in front, it would stand a

full story above ground in the rear. Above the base

were five principal floors faced with marble. Ionic

columns supporting a simple entablature were

used for the building’s five porticoes; the principal

one, facing the Capitol, was topped by a pediment.

Longworth House Office Building

ca. 1935

The central portico of the second House office building was inspired by one of the

city’s early landmarks—the Washington City Hall by George Hadfield (1820).

Longworth House

Office Building,

Preliminary Lobby

Design 

by the Allied Architects

ca. 1930

The second House

office building was

designed in the restrained

neoclassical revival style.
Civic Improvements 407

Two additional stories were partially hidden by a

marble balustrade.

The issue of funding an additional office building for the House of Representatives was debated

back and forth until March 4, 1929, when $8.4 million was appropriated for a new building. Without

ceremony the cornerstone was laid on June 24,

1932, and the building was finished less than a

year later. It was first occupied on April 20, 1933.

Like its contemporaries, the Jefferson Memorial

and National Gallery of Art, the second House

office building was a fine example of the neoclassical revival style popular for public buildings in the

second quarter of the twentieth century.

The third project that Lynn directed on the

Capitol’s growing campus was initiated a few days

before the additional House office building appropriation was passed. On February 28, 1929, Congress allocated $10,000 for preliminary plans and

estimates to complete the Senate office building

by constructing an addition on First Street east.

Other improvements, such as a new architectural

treatment for the C Street elevation, were contemplated as well. Once the “back” of the building, the C Street side came to unforseen

prominence when the Capitol grounds were

extended to Union Station. The streets once lined

with residences, hotels, and businesses were

cleared and the land was turned into a park, creating a view from Union Station to the unadorned

rear of the Senate office building. Acquisition of

land through purchase and condemnation began

in 1910, and the project continued over the next

thirty years under a series of commissions. In all,

eighteen city squares would be annexed into the

Capitol grounds at a cost of more than ten million

dollars. Informally, David Lynn asked Thomas

Hastings for ideas about architectural and landscape improvements. A similar request was made

to the architect of Union Station, Daniel Burnham, who proposed several schemes for a memorial to President Lincoln in the new park. William

E. Parsons of Chicago, however, was retained in

1927 to develop a master plan for the area that

included new walks, fountains, an underground

garage, and other landscape improvements.

On July 18, 1929, Thomas Hastings was hired

to draw preliminary designs for an addition to the

First Street side of the Senate office building,

View of the

Enlarged Grounds

1931

The land between

Union Station and the

Capitol was acquired by

the government between

1910 and 1940 and developed into a park. An

underground garage—

the first on Capitol Hill—

was provided beneath the

Proposal for a new park.

Memorial to Abraham Lincoln

by Daniel Burnham, ca. 1910

The site for a memorial to the martyred president

was a subject of controversy during the early twentieth

century. Some influential politicians, including Joseph

Cannon, wanted the memorial built on Capitol Hill,

while others favored a site at the western end of the

Mall. This sketch shows one of several designs that

Daniel Burnham created for a Lincoln Memorial

intended for the park about to be created between 

the Capitol and Union Station.
408 History of the United States Capitol

improvements to the existing C Street elevation,

and the landscape treatment of the courtyard. In

the new addition, twenty-four three-room suites,

two committee rooms, and the usual stairs, elevators, and rest rooms were provided. The C Street

elevation was redesigned with pilasters (later

changed to columns) and ornaments belonging to

the Doric order. In November, a month after Hastings’ death, Theodore I. Coe, representing the Carrère & Hastings firm, reported that the First Street

addition would cost about $2,231,000, while other

improvements intended to finish the Senate office

building were estimated at an additional $883,000.

Congress appropriated the funds to complete the

building on February 20, 1931. With both principals of the Carrère & Hastings firm dead, Lynn

hired two local architects, Nathan Wyeth and Francis P. Sullivan, to prepare working drawings. Wyeth

was a veteran of Carrère & Hastings’ Washington

office and a future municipal architect of the District of Columbia. In September, the First Street

wing was underway and the project was completed

by the end of June 1933.

Despite the deepening economic depression

that marked the last days of Herbert Hoover’s

administration, Lynn presided over an increasing

inventory of construction projects. Many had been

in the planning stages before the depression broke,

but the timing of the unprecedented construction

activity on Capitol Hill during the early 1930s was a

welcome boon to thousands of workmen who otherwise faced unemployment. Major projects were

undertaken at the western and eastern extremes of

the Capitol grounds. Just before Franklin Roosevelt’s inauguration on March 4, 1933, the new

home for the Botanic Garden was finished. By relocating the garden, its old site cleared the vista to

the Grant Memorial from the Mall, as directed by

the McMillan Commission. On June 28, 1933, Lynn

signed a contract with the Hechinger Engineering

Corporation to clear a site east of the Library of

Congress to prepare for the construction of an

annex. Already under way was an addition to the

back of the library, which was to contain the rare

book collection and a reading room, a card catalogue room, a garage, a loading dock, extensive

underground storage rooms, and shops.

While the sound and dust of construction

activity were everywhere around it, the Capitol

Completion of U. S. Senate Office Building

by Nathan Wyeth and Francis P. Sullivan, ca. 1930 

Although the basic design was provided by Carrère & Hastings, two Washington

architects were responsible for the working drawings of the First Street addition to

the Senate Office Building. Part of the project included refacing the C Street elevation

with columns and an entablature to present a fine face for those coming to the city

from nearby Union Station.
Civic Improvements 409

U. S. Botanic Garden Conservatory

Chartered by Congress in 1820, the Botanic Garden

is the oldest continually operating facility of its kind in

the United States. Its first home was located behind the

Patent Office and was constructed in 1842 to house a

collection of exotic flora brought to Washington from

the South Seas by a naval exploring expedition. When

the Patent Office was enlarged in the 1850s, the collection was transferred to a new greenhouse built on the

Mall at the foot of Capitol Hill.

At the turn of the century the McMillan Commission proposed to clear away extraneous buildings from

the Mall to return it to an open park as envisioned by

Pierre L’Enfant. Accordingly, a new conservatory for the

Botanic Garden was designed by the Chicago firm of

Bennett, Parsons & Frost and begun in the fall of 1931

on a site just south of the Mall. The facade is rusticated

limestone with tall arched openings with keystones

carved with images of Pan, Pomona, Triton, and Flora.

This aerial view looking northwest shows the extensive

greenhouses and tall palm court at the rear of the building. The framing of the greenhouses was the first structural use of aluminum alloy in a major American

building. (1982 photograph.)

Bartholdi Park

ca. 1932

Construction of the new U. S. Botanic Garden

included relocating the Bartholdi Fountain to its own

park. Behind the fountain is a residential structure

designed by the project architects, Bennett, Parsons &

Frost of Chicago. It served briefly as the official residence of the garden’s director but has been occupied by

the garden’s offices since 1934.
410 History of the United States Capitol

Statuary Hall

Photograph by Underwood & Underwood, 1932

By the early 1930s the arrangement of statues appeared haphazard and their

weight threatened to overload the floor. In 1933 authorization was given to distribute

the collection throughout the Capitol and display fewer pieces in Statuary Hall itself.

Adams Building of the Library of Congress

ca. 1938

The Washington partnership of Pierson & Wilson was responsible for the design of

the library’s second building, now named for President John Adams after being known

for years simply as “the Annex.” A restrained and finely detailed art deco building, it

features an exterior clad with Georgia marble. Its apparent bulk was reduced by holding the upper two floors back and projecting the end bays. Bronze entrance doors by

Lee Lawrie depict persons important to the history of writing.

When the building opened in 1938, the Library’s shelving capacity tripled to

fifteen million volumes. A silent pneumatic system whisked books in leather pouches

from the annex to the main reading room across the street in a breathtaking twentyeight seconds. 
Civic Improvements 411

itself stood relatively unchanged during the 1930s.

The first half of the decade saw only one notable

interior project: on February 24, 1933, Congress

authorized the architect of the Capitol to rearrange

and relocate statues in the Statuary Hall collection. The collection had grown to sixty-eight

pieces, overcrowding the former House chamber

and threatening to overload the floor. Removing

some statues to other parts of the Capitol allowed

the remaining pieces to be shown to advantage

and helped restore dignity to that historic room.

After the Supreme Court vacated the Capitol

in June of 1935, a number of rooms in the old north

wing were turned back to the Senate. The old law

library on the first floor was kept as a reference

library, while the Courtroom above (the old Senate

chamber) was left virtually untouched. Other

rooms, however, were remodeled and refitted for

use by various Senate offices. Wood floors that had

been laid over the original brick floors were

removed and replaced with new concrete covered

with rubber tile or white oak. Electrical wiring and

plumbing were updated and the rooms were

equipped with an air-conditioning system. Among

the new tenants in the old Court space were the

Senate sergeant at arms and the disbursing office.

REBUILDING THE

CHAMBERS

On July 14, 1938, Lynn hired a structural

engineer, Thomas W. Marshall, to inspect

the roofs over the north and south wings.

Lynn was worried about their safety, for they

remained virtually as Captain Meigs had left them

in the 1850s. By twentieth-century standards, Marshall concluded, they were “entirely obsolete.” He

described the roof structure and its general

deficiencies succinctly:

The roof trusses over both wings are made up

of rolled-iron deck beams as top chord members, cast-iron web struts and wrought-iron eye

bar bottom chords and web ties, all pin connected, a type of truss long since superseded

by the all steel truss with riveted connections.

The cast-iron struts and wrought-iron eye bars

are of satisfactory sizes and are not over

stressed. The top chord deck beams and the

connecting pins are definitely deficient in size

and are greatly over stressed. The lateral bracing between trusses is light in weight, unsatisfactory in arrangement and detail, and generally

deficient as compared with modern designs.37

Marshall recommended removing the old roofs and

replacing them with structural steel and concrete.

He estimated that the work would cost $585,000.

Marshall made his report in November 1938,

and two months later Lynn requested funds to

replace the roofs. Hearings were held, and engineers from the National Bureau of Standards, the

Navy Yard, and the Treasury Department were

called to verify Marshall’s computations and conclusions. All agreed that the roofs were unsafe.

Instead of granting Lynn’s request, however, the

House provided a small sum to hire two additional

experts from private industry to reexamine the

question. Senator Tom Connally of Texas and Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan were

appointed to oversee independent tests conducted

by the head engineer from the American Institute

of Steel Construction and another distinguished

engineer in private practice from Baltimore. While

the test results were being analyzed, Lynn, Connally, Rabaut, and the consulting engineers

climbed up to the space over the chambers and

had a firsthand look around. Again, all agreed that

Marshall’s conclusions were correct, except that

perhaps the safety issue might be even more

urgent than generally believed.

On June 27, 1940, Congress granted the funds

needed to put new roofs over the wings. Marshall

was retained as a consultant and Lynn began making the necessary arrangements to carry out the

Hall of Columns

Some of the statues

from Statuary Hall were

placed in the hall of

columns, which proved

perfectly suited for 

the purpose.

In the 1920s a new

black and white marble

floor was installed here

and elsewhere in the

House wing, replacing

worn Minton tiles in

heavily traveled corridors. Thomas Hastings

provided the design for

the new floors. 

(1963 photograph.)
412 History of the United States Capitol

ambitious project. Before long, however, it became

clear that strains on the steel industry would make

it impossible to conduct the work while Europe

was embroiled in war. Just five days before the

roof appropriation passed, Paris fell to Nazi

invaders. Norway and Denmark had been overrun

in April, and they were followed by the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg in May. Although

the United States was at peace with the belligerents, its future was interwoven with the fate of

British resistance. In late 1940 and early 1941, the

Roosevelt administration devised ways to assist

Prime Minister Winston Churchill, with programs

such as “Lend-lease,” while staying clear of a declaration of war.

Recognizing that roof problems at the Capitol

took a back seat to more pressing global matters,

Lynn constructed temporary supports to allay fears

about the ceilings crashing down around the heads

of the nation’s legislators. After the close of business on November 22, 1940, the House and Senate

vacated their chambers until January 3, 1941. During this period, the Senate took up temporary quarters in its old chamber, while the House met in the

Ways and Means Committee room in the new office

building across the street. While the chambers

were vacant, each ceiling was jacked up and its

weight was transferred to structural steel frames

held on columns erected along the gallery walls.

Due to wartime conditions, these temporary supports would remain in place until 1949. 

During the interim, it occurred to some senators that the roof replacement might be a good

opportunity to make other improvements in their

chamber. Noise in the galleries was readily admitted to be the major source of annoyance, and

although some senators mumbled and others were

hard of hearing, the solution to the hearing problems was thought to lie in the realms of acoustics

and architecture. Lighting and redecoration were

other issues of interest. To investigate these matters, a subcommittee of the Senate Committee on

Public Buildings and Grounds was authorized to

hold hearings.

With Senator Charles O. Andrews of Florida

presiding, the subcommittee held its broad, vague,

and freewheeling hearings on October 24 and 27,

1941. David Lynn led the testimony with a description and history of the Senate chamber. He then

introduced the idea of installing a new ceiling,

one that had been devised in consultation with

five distinguished engineers representing the sciences of acoustics, structure, lighting, electricity,

and air conditioning. In addition to men of science, Lynn had consulted men of art—Francis P.

Sullivan, an architect, and Ezra Winter, a painter.

Sullivan had worked with the architect of the Capitol while the Senate office building was being

enlarged and was now serving as the chairman of

the Committee on the National Capital for the

American Institute of Architects. He helped establish the Historic American Building Survey and

became interested in the Capitol thirty years earlier through a friendship with Glenn Brown. Ezra

Winter had devised the color schemes in the

Supreme Court building and painted murals in the

new Library of Congress annex.

Providing a new ceiling was thought to be a

single solution to multiple problems. Instead of

relying on a skylight, the room would be indirectly

illuminated through cove lighting housed in an

elliptical recess in the center of the ceiling.

Artificial light would provide a dependable, even,

and steady illumination, free from the distracting

vagaries of outside weather and cloud conditions.

Removing the hard metal and glass overhead would

Senate Chamber

ca. 1949

From 1940 until work

on the new roof began

nine years later, a steel

frame supported the iron

and glass ceiling over 

the Senate chamber. The 

support was necessary 

to prevent the dangerously weak ceiling from

falling. A similar precaution was employed in 

the House chamber.
Civic Improvements 413

also improve acoustics. The new ceiling could be

made with a special acoustical plaster border

around a perforated steel center, which would permit air to fall gently and evenly into the chamber.

Noise from the galleries could be muffled by new

chairs with upholstered backs and seats that folded

without unnerving squeaks. A new color scheme

could be developed to tie the old and new work

together and give the room a more up-to-date look.

No one seemed particularly interested in

defending the architectural effect of the old ceiling or its place within the overall design of the historic chamber. Only Sullivan admitted to even a

slight hesitation in recommending a new ceiling.38

The style of the room, one of the high points in the

rococo taste of mid-nineteenth-century decorative

arts, was now indefensible to the many who preferred the sleek, modern look of steel and glass or

the nostalgic look of Williamsburg and the colonial

revival taste. In either case, Walter’s interior was

out of fashion, condemned as “Victorian,” and

therefore the very definition of bad taste in the

1930s and 1940s.

Andrews’ subcommittee reported favorably on

the new ceiling recommendation. The full committee adopted the measure in the early days of 1942,

and the Senate included a request for funds necessary to pay for it in the Legislative Appropriations Bill for 1943. Citing wartime conditions,

however, the House of Representatives struck it

out. In the meantime, Lynn and his consultants

continued to study the chambers, and in 1945,

with the end of World War II in sight, they proposed a more sweeping remodeling scheme. Senator Andrews supported the expanded remodeling

project, helping steer legislation through the Senate to authorize it. Prodded by Speaker Sam Rayburn of Texas, the House of Representatives

suddenly joined the Senate in the pursuit of a more

modern chamber. On July 6 and 10, 1945, the

House Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds

held hearings on the subject of installing a new

ceiling over the hall of the House, as well as the

idea of remodeling the rest of the room. On July

17, Congress passed legislation to enlarge the roof

project to include new ceilings over the two chambers as well as new interior designs.

Francis P. Sullivan was retained as the associate architect for the venture. Senators and 

Senate Chamber (top) and House Chamber (bottom)

photographs by Theodor Horydczak, ca. 1949

Library of Congress

These are the only known color photographs of the chambers taken prior to their

1949–1950 remodeling.
414 History of the United States Capitol

representatives on the project committees wanted

the new interiors reviewed by the Commission of

Fine Arts, a permanent legacy of the McMillan

Commission and the government’s watchdog on

design matters in the nation’s capital. The commission, in turn, made arrangements for Paul Cret

(one of its members) to serve as a consulting architect. A brilliant designer, Cret was noted particularly for his creative blend of modern and classical

idioms; however, his death on September 8, 1945,

forced the commission to look elsewhere for assistance. The commission recommended Cret’s successor firm, Harbeson, Hough, Livingston & Larson

of Philadelphia, for the job.

On February 22, 1946, the associate and consulting architects presented their plans for the

Senate and House chambers to the Commission of

Fine Arts, the architect of the Capitol, and the

members of the House and Senate committees. In

explaining their design motives in the new plans

the architects stated that

there seemed to be no point in preserving the

existing character of the architecture of the

two Chambers of the period of 1860.... There

are in the Capitol two contrasting periods of

architecture, that of the period of the Early

Republic, and that of the period of 1860; to

introduce a third and different period would be

a mistake. Therefore it was agreed to return to

the architecture of the Early Republic.39

The Commission of Fine Arts approved the

designs unanimously. While no word of dissent has

survived in the records, the commission’s swift

acceptance of the designs may have been a case of

professional camaraderie rather than good judgment. Few connoisseurs today look upon the

designs with satisfaction, nor has any student of

Federal period architecture discovered either

authenticity or wit among the details. The new

chamber designs were pastiches of vaguely classical designs, pursued without conviction or vigor,

sometimes without knowledge or even concern

about the proper disposition or scale of classical

ornament. Clearly the designers were uncomfortable with the genre, insufficiently acquainted with

either the spirit or details of the architecture they

sought to imitate. Yet, few architects of that generation could have done much better. It was a time

when historicism was undervalued by the architectural profession, and its practitioners were discouraged from studying the past. Engineering

concerns took top priority in the new House and

Senate chambers.

The Commission of Fine Arts made a few suggestions to improve the designs. Its members

thought that Brumidi’s painting in the House chamber (Cornwallis Sues for Cessation of Hostilities

Under the Flag of Truce) should be removed for

its immediate preservation and eventual relocation. They recommended that a covering of fabric,

rather than acoustical tiles, be installed to muffle

sounds coming from the gallery.40 For the Senate

chamber, they suggested minor adjustments to

simplify the ceiling’s ornaments and to lengthen its

central ellipse. Niches were eliminated from the

upper walls of the House chamber and marble

plaques substituted in their place. Sculptural

embellishments and appropriate quotations were

recommended for both chambers.

Work was expected to begin during the summer of 1947, but inflation in a construction industry

still recovering from the effects of the war put project financing into jeopardy. Only one bid was

received, and the company frankly admitted that its

offer contained a large contingency to allow for

fluctuations in the marketplace. The bid was

rejected and Lynn recommended deferring the project for a year until conditions became more settled. 

On October 28, 1948, ten years after Thomas

Marshall first reported on the condition of the

roofs, the Consolidated Engineering Company of

Baltimore was contracted to rebuild the roofs and

remodel the chambers. To minimize disruption,

work was divided into two phases. In the first

phase, which began in June 1949 and ended in

December, the old roofs were removed and the

new ones built, the new ceilings were installed,

and the gallery level was remodeled. The lower

parts of the chambers were remodeled in the second phase, which ran from July to December 1950.

As the work neared completion, the Washington press corps greeted the new chambers with

unquestioning approval. One article claimed that

the chambers now had a “theatrical splendor” and

told its readers that the new “Technicolor” halls

would be opened for inspection soon. No complaints of noise from the gallery were expected

because of the new “non creaking seats” and

because the floors had been covered with “soundmuffling linoleum.” Rich, deep wood paneling
Civic Improvements 415

awaited members of the House, whereas the vice

president’s podium in the Senate was now Italian

marble instead of the old walnut desk used formerly. The chambers were ready for the “persnickety” inspection of legislators “in the same critical

manner as an aging actress tests her lighting.”

Those who had already seen the work told the

architect of the Capitol that they liked the renovations, which would put the Congress on par with

the Supreme Court and the White House.41 Both

chambers were finished on schedule and were

ready for use on the first day of 1951.

At the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue the

White House was in the midst of a complete interior reconstruction undertaken by the Truman

administration. The old sandstone walls, built and

restored by James Hoban, were propped up from

within while a new steel and concrete structure

was prepared for installation. Some of the interiors by McKim, Mead & White, installed in 1902 by

Theodore Roosevelt, had been removed, reconditioned, and reinstalled. Other interior features

were new, but very little (except the floor plan)

remained from the early history of the house. As

was the case with the House and Senate chambers, the President’s House underwent its own

transformation, incorporating a new structure

wrapped within old walls. In this period, the urge

to preserve the past was not as strong as the love

of modern amenities, nor as motivating as a frightening report from a structural engineer. By midcentury, “progress” was more about originality

and innovation than about the classicism and harmony that had been the goals of idealistic architects and planners fifty years earlier. Nevertheless,

although its day had passed, the City Beautiful

Movement had, in fact, transformed Capitol Hill

into an especially pleasing enclave of classical

grandeur, one of the more notable successes of

that high-minded movement.

Senate Chamber

1998

The bravado of Walter’s high “Victorian” chamber

gave way to a vaguely “colonial” look that post–World

War II designers found comfortable and reassuring.

House Chamber

1995

With the colorful ceiling removed and other nineteenth-century decorations banished, the House chamber was redesigned in a so-called “Early Republic” style. Electronic

voting was added in 1973 and television coverage began in 1979.