JEFFERSON AND LATROBE

49

Few people had such an enduring

influence on the Capitol’s early history as Thomas Jefferson. He nurtured the compromise that led to passage of the

Residence Act and counseled President Washington throughout the process of selecting a design

for the Capitol. He presided over the conference

that put one man’s floor plan into another man’s

exterior elevation. As president he approved the

congressional action abolishing the old board of

commissioners, freeing him to personally direct

future construction. Until his retirement in 1809,

Jefferson managed affairs at the Capitol with the

same care and attention he lavished on his beloved

Monticello, and later on the University of Virginia.

Working with the president was B. Henry Latrobe,

an architect of exceptional ability and experience.

Theirs would be an association without parallel in

the history of the Capitol.

The act of Congress abolishing the board of

commissioners transferred its duties to a superintendent of the city of Washington. On June 2, 1802,

Jefferson appointed Thomas Munroe, the clerk of

the old board, to the new office. Munroe was

apparently a man of few words: his entire annual

report for 1802 ran just two sentences. He

recorded that there were about 830 private buildings in the city—100 more than the previous

year—and that the condition of the public buildings had not materially changed.1

Although Munroe did not report any problems

with the public buildings, the roofs of the President’s House and the Capitol needed repair. They

were said to be “so leaky as to threaten both

edifices with ruin.”2 On February 12, 1803, New

York Congressman Samuel Mitchill offered a resolution in the House of Representatives calling for

an investigation into the state of the public buildings: he said they were near a state of “ruin and

dilapidation.” In addition to maintenance problems, the House was about to gain thirty-eight new

members as a result of the 1800 census and the

admission of Ohio into the Union. John Dawson of

Virginia wanted a provision added to provide more

space for the future accommodation of Congress.

A colleague from the Old Dominion, Richard Brent,

said that an architect had already estimated the

cost of finishing the south wing beyond what had

already been spent for the “oven.” The estimate,

he believed, was $40,000. Either George Hadfield

or James Hoban prepared the estimate but there is

no record of what it covered. The figure was too

low to finish the south wing and more likely indicated the money needed for one season’s work.

CHAPTER TWO

Section of the South Wing (Detail)

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1804

Library of Congress
50 History of the United States Capitol

On March 3, 1803, President Jefferson

approved an appropriation of $50,000 for the

“repairs and alterations in the Capitol . . . for the

accommodation of Congress in their future sessions.”3 It was understood that $5,000 to $10,000

was meant for repairs to the Capitol and President’s

House while $40,000 to $45,000 would be available

to begin construction of the south wing. Coming

twelve years after passage of the Residence Act,

this appropriation was the Capitol’s first.

Soon after he signed the appropriation bill, Jefferson wrote B. Henry Latrobe, America’s foremost

architect/engineer, offering him the position of

“surveyor of the public buildings.” The job was not

a permanent government office, but a temporary

position necessary to carry out the intent of the

appropriation. The president informed Latrobe

that the appropriation was to be expended under

his direction, but that Munroe would keep the

accounts and provide administration. He wanted

work to begin in April, so if Latrobe accepted the

position, he should make a “flying trip” to start

ordering stone from Aquia.4

Along with his official letter, Jefferson enclosed

a private note saying that he expected another

appropriation for the south wing in 1804, which he

thought would be enough to finish it. (Why Jefferson thought it would take only two years to build

the south wing is not easily understood.) While

Latrobe’s work on the south wing might therefore

seem short-term, other projects in Washington suggested the “probability of a very steady employment for a person of your character here.” Jefferson mentioned his dry dock proposal for the Navy

Yard as one example of potential projects that could

earn Latrobe additional income.5 Although the president had known Latrobe since 1798 (both were

members of the American Philosophical Society),

their collaboration had begun over plans to build a

dry dock to house twelve frigates at the Washington Navy Yard. In 1802, Jefferson asked Latrobe for

help in designing the dry dock because the architect’s work on the Philadelphia waterworks had

Statue of Thomas Jefferson

by Pierre Jean David d’Angers, 1833

Received in 1834, the bronze portrait of Jefferson was the first statue placed in

the Capitol’s rotunda. It was a gift to the nation from Uriah P. Levy, a Jewish naval

officer who admired Jefferson’s stand on religious freedom. Levy and his family also

honored Jefferson by preserving Monticello, which they owned from 1834 to 1923.

Jefferson hoped the public buildings in the federal city would educate fellow citizens about classical architecture, elevating their taste at home and their reputation

abroad. As secretary of state, as president, and in retirement Jefferson nurtured these

high-minded aspirations in a variety of ways. He thought that by examining the Capitol,

for instance, Americans could acquaint themselves with correct examples of Roman and

Greek architecture, and apply the lessons at home. Thus, the Capitol would help spread

classical architecture across America. During his retirement, Jefferson approached the

design of the University of Virginia with the same regard for its potential for architectural education. (1971 photograph.)
Jefferson and Latrobe 51

given him experience in hydraulics. Jefferson

thought the dry dock would save the expense of

maintaining a large fleet by having ready fewer but

better maintained ships. A huge structure 175 feet

wide and 800 feet long would be built with a roof

modeled on that of the Paris grain market, the

Halle au Bled. Ships raised and lowered in the dry

dock would use technologies similar to those

employed by Latrobe at the waterworks.6

Congress never funded the dry dock, but Jefferson was doubtless struck by Latrobe’s beautiful

drawings for it and the project afforded him ample

opportunity to observe architectural talents that

were complemented by a keen and sympathetic

mind. Writing from Philadelphia, Latrobe replied to

the president’s offer, saying that the recent failure

of his business partners made it impossible for him

to give an answer immediately. He would, however,

come to Washington soon and give his reply in person. He left little doubt what the answer would be

when he concluded: “My sincere wish is to be

employed near you, and under your direction.” 7

Jefferson’s decision to hire Latrobe to build

the south wing was the beginning of one of the

most fascinating collaborations in the history of

American architecture. It was, however, a blow to

George Hadfield, who wanted to be restored to his

former position at the Capitol. Hadfield’s hopes

were raised after Jefferson’s election brought to

the presidency a man who had over a decade previously enjoyed an intimate friendship with his sister, Maria Cosway. Within weeks of his inaugural,

Jefferson received a letter from Hadfield pleading

“the case of an artist.” Hadfield recounted his suffering at the hands of the old board of commissioners, and his mortification at seeing his

buildings credited to the board when its members

were responsible for his ruin. He wanted the president to know that he would endeavor to make himself useful, and “obtain a substance in a country

which I have chosen to spend the remainder of my

life in.”8 Commissions for a barracks, an arsenal,

and a jail were awarded to Hadfield during Jefferson’s term, but the prized commission for the Capitol’s south wing was given to Latrobe.

Portrait of B. Henry Latrobe 

by Charles Willson Peale, ca. 1804 

The White House Collection

Born near Leeds, England, Latrobe (1764–1820) studied

engineering under John Smeaton and architecture under Samuel

Pepys Cockerell. During Latrobe’s early career he designed a few

large houses and was offered other work, but future prospects in

Great Britain were hampered by an economy stagnated by the

Napoleonic Wars. After the death of his first wife, Latrobe set

sail for America in 1795. A few years in Virginia were followed by

a move to Philadelphia, where he designed the Bank of Pennsylvania, the country’s first neoclassical building displaying a Grecian order and one of his best works. He later provided the city

with its first municipal water system.

At the invitation of President Jefferson, Latrobe became the

fourth architect to test his skill at the Capitol and was the first

to develop a comprehensive vision of the building’s architectural

potential. Though he disliked the exterior, he found plenty of

opportunities to improve on it. He devised a new interior plan

that was spectacularly inventive, overcoming numerous obstacles

imposed by the existing work. During restoration work following

the War of 1812, he created a series of neoclassical interiors that

are among the finest in the history of American architecture. His

designs for the House of Representatives (now Statuary Hall),

the Senate, and the Supreme Court brought the antiquities of

Athens to the Capitol and helped associate the young republic

with that ancient cradle of democracy.

Three years after leaving the Capitol, Latrobe died of yellow

fever in New Orleans and was buried there in an unmarked grave.
52 History of the United States Capitol

A SOLID FOUNDATION

On April 4, 1803, Latrobe made his first

report on the conditions at the Capitol

and the problems with the arrangement

of the south wing. Like Hadfield’s seven years

before, Latrobe’s first observation concerned the

relationship of the building’s plan to the exterior

elevation, which produced a “radical and incurable

fault.” The problem was the location of the House

and Senate chambers in the basement. A grand

stair on the west would lead to the principal floor

but would force legislators to immediately descend

an interior stair to reach the main rooms. The portico on the east front seemed to require a grand

flight of steps, but that too would lead only to a

narrow passage to the galleries overlooking the

two chambers. A “poverty of design” plagued the

Senate, the House, and the rotunda, because each

was formed on the same idea: a one-story arcade

carrying a colonnade. One was semi-elliptical (the

Senate), one was fully elliptical (the House), and

one was circular (the grand vestibule or rotunda),

but their different shapes could not compensate

for the monotonous repetition of arches and

columns. These problems worried Latrobe, but he

had no solutions to offer quite yet.

Turning to the south wing’s plan and accommodations, Latrobe said they were inadequate, expensive, inconvenient, unsafe, and unattractive. There

was nothing about the interior arrangement that

warranted approval. The plan did not provide any

committee rooms, nor were there offices for the

Speaker, the clerk, the engrossing clerks, or the

doorkeeper. There were no fireproof storage rooms

for records or “closets of convenience” (a common

euphemism for privies). The plan did not provide

adequate lobbies or galleries. All of these facilities

would be necessary for the smooth operation of

business in the House of Representatives. External

walls of the south wing were sixty-five feet high and

could not be supported from within due to the

absence of interior partitions. The dome over the

chamber would exert dangerous pressure on these

high, thin walls, and Latrobe said that he did not

have the courage to build it. He admitted that the

chamber’s thirty-two columns would be visually

striking, but he questioned the effect of arranging

the colonnade on an elliptical plan. After working on

a schematic design for an elliptical ceiling he found

it impossible to devise suitable decorations. He estimated the cost of the columns and the entablature,

all made of sandstone, at $62,000. The entablature

would be disproportionately expensive because half

of all the stones had to be cut on different radii. If

the entablature were circular, by comparison, all

stones would be cut on the same radius. So much

money would be spent on the columns and the elliptical entablature that the rest of the wing would

have to be built with inferior materials and would

not be as permanent or magnificent.

Occupying fifty-six handwritten pages,

Latrobe’s first report was a devastating evaluation

of the Capitol’s plan, particularly as it concerned

the south wing and the elliptical colonnade. (It is

clear that the architect was unaware of Jefferson’s

significant role in the design of the House chamber

developed during the conference of July 1793.)

Latrobe proposed an alteration to the plan that

would save money and better provide for the business and comfort of the House. To illustrate the

alternative scheme, Latrobe presented a ground

plan (now lost) of the new arrangement. The

design was in the form of a half-domed semicircle

without columns. Windows in the south wall and a

large lantern in the center of the ceiling would provide the room with light and air. Three hundred

sixty members could be accommodated, a number

somewhat larger than provided in the elliptical

plan. The configuration of the room was “that of

the ancient theater (exedra), a form which the

experience of ancient and modern times has established as the best for the purpose of speaking, seeing, and hearing.” A lobby eighty feet long behind

the Speaker’s chair could also be used as a retiring

room for members. Access to the galleries was provided by separate lobbies and stairs that kept the

public from interfering with members. Committee

rooms, offices, storage space, and privies were provided around the perimeter of the hall or in the

“recess,” Latrobe’s term for the hyphen connecting

the wing to the center building.

Latrobe’s report concluded with an evaluation

of the structural problems plaguing the north wing.

He discovered that no provisions had been made to

ventilate the foundations and warned that unless

openings were made the wooden timbers, flooring,

and joists would be consumed with dry rot. The

roof and its shingle covering were sound, but leaks

could be traced to bad gutters. He condemned the
Jefferson and Latrobe 53

quality of the lead lining the gutters and found

their defects difficult to pinpoint due to the tar and

sand coating. Some gutters discharged into a

rooftop cistern that was not provided with a drain.

Latrobe could find no purpose for the cistern and

recommended its removal. He also suggested placing new down spouts discretely on the outside

walls to replace those built into the walls. The four

skylights leaked badly and should be protected by

lanterns with vertical sashes and closed tops. In

Latrobe’s opinion, the skylights were a disgrace to

the men who built them. He generally disliked skylights, calling them “great evils,” because “in summer they heat the house, and in winter they

become darkened and often broken by the snow.”9

While Jefferson studied the report, Latrobe

appointed John Lenthall clerk of the works. This

appointment, dated April 7, 1803, was necessary

because Latrobe anticipated long absences from

the city overseeing work on the Chesapeake and

Delaware Canal. He needed a trustworthy deputy

to take charge of the day-to-day operations at the

Capitol, and in Lenthall he found a perfect partner.

With approvals from both Jefferson and Munroe,

Latrobe empowered his clerk of the works with

control over all workmen, to hire and fire them

without appeal. Contractors’ performance would

be evaluated by Lenthall, who would bring any

problems to the attention of the superintendent.

There were already contracts for freestone from

Aquia, local building stone, and scaffold poles. A

mason named Timothy Caldwell had been hired to

tear out the foundations left over from the 1790s.

Contracts for sand, lime, lumber, and hauling were

still needed. Lenthall was to supervise the foremen

of laborers and masons and to serve as the head

carpenter. Work paid by measurement was measured by Lenthall. Accounts paid by Munroe were

authorized by his signature. In short, Lenthall was

invested with all powers necessary to make him

absolute master of the works.

Construction of the south wing began with the

demolition of the old foundations. Latrobe discovered that stones had been loosely thrown in the

foundation trench without mortar and without

being made to bear upon each other. He determined that they would have to be removed down

to the “first offset,” which he was told was well

built.10 The existing footings were five feet eight

inches thick and would be increased four more feet

to measure a total of nine feet eight inches. While

the final plan had not been settled, Latrobe’s penchant for vaulted construction required massive

foundations to bear the loads that would be

imposed on them.

Just two weeks after his appointment, Lenthall

was summoned by Jefferson to discuss the pace at

which demolition was proceeding. The president

thought that the work did not have sufficient

“spirit,” but he was assured that all the old

stonework would be removed in two days and the

new foundations would begin soon. Twenty-three

weeks remained in the building season and Jefferson suggested dividing the stonework into twentythree portions to ensure that it did not fall behind

schedule.11 The outside walls would rise, fencing

in the “oven,” while the president considered

whether to retain the original plan or to approve

Latrobe’s revisions.

Writing from Philadelphia, Latrobe instructed

Lenthall on May 5, 1803, to “pull up or knock down”

the stonework in order to build “my plan.” The bad

stonework in Thornton’s plan was “new proof of

the stupid genius of its Author.” 12 This characterization of Thornton was the first of many times the

architect denounced the doctor, whom he considered nothing more than a charlatan. Latrobe tended

to blame Thornton for all the faulty construction

he encountered at the Capitol in addition to the

countless faults he found in its design. For his part,

Thornton tended to take credit for all aspects of

the Capitol design, even Hallet’s plans for the wings.

Both strong-willed and self-assured, Latrobe and

Thornton embarked upon a collision course that

eventually landed them in court and would ultimately reflect little credit upon either man.

A discrepancy that Lenthall noted in the elevations of the north wing added to Latrobe’s already

low opinion of Dr. Thornton. The west elevation

was sixteen inches shorter in length than the east.

For the sake of appearance and consistency,

Lenthall wanted to know if it was best to repeat

the mistake in the south wing. Latrobe determined

that unless his east and west walls matched precisely, the internal vaulting would be thrown off. It

would be better to suffer a small evil on the outside in order to have the advantage of working symmetrically on the interior. And since the central

conference room (a feature not yet discarded)

would project beyond the western walls of the two
54 History of the United States Capitol

wings, the fact that they did not exactly match

would hardly be noticeable.13

Just when Jefferson and Latrobe decided to do

away with the conference room is not precisely

known. Both surely recognized the architectural

problems that room created, chiefly how to cover it

with a roof that did not conflict with the dome over

the rotunda. Design issues aside, the president had

no use for the conference room because of his

republican views and his aversion to speaking publicly. Unlike his two predecessors, Jefferson chose

not to deliver his annual message before joint sessions of Congress. Instead, his secretary carried

the message to the Capitol where a clerk read it to

representatives and senators. This saved Jefferson

the necessity of making a speech and avoided the

annoying spectacle of legislators coming to the

President’s House en masse to make their reply.

Endless speeches, courtly bows, tedious protocol,

and pointless ceremony were all things the third

president found objectionable in the previous Federalist administrations, and he intended to eschew

them as far as possible in his. The trappings of

monarchy had no place in a democracy, where all

citizens were supposed to be equal. As his biographer Dumas Malone pointed out, Jefferson may

have promoted classical public buildings as “civic

temples,” but he wanted no part in “glorification of

rulers.” 14 Because the conference room in the Capitol was intended as a stage for presidential pomp

and pageantry, it would crumble to dust before Jefferson would appear there. His notions of republican decorum were better served by simply staying

home. (Jefferson’s policy continued until 1913,

when Woodrow Wilson went to the Capitol to

deliver his annual message in person.)

In the fall of 1803, the wife of Congressman

Samuel L. Mitchill heard that the Senate adjourned

for three days so its members could attend the

horse races that were such a popular pastime in

early Washington. Without an apology her husband

replied: “The Senate actually did adjourn for three

days, not on account of the races . . . but merely to

admit a mason to plaster the ceiling of their chamber, which had fallen down a few days before.”

Mitchill then confessed that he and a number of

ladies and clergymen were at an “exhibition of the

speed of horses,” but claimed the recreation was

needed because members had worked so diligently

on the “Louisiana business.” 15 Latrobe asked

Lenthall about the ceiling’s tumble and wanted to

know the cause of the accident.16 Luckily, the room

was empty at the time the ceiling fell and no

injuries were reported. It was, however, yet

another indication of the shoddy workmanship

plaguing the north wing.

RETHINKING 

THE SOUTH WING

L atrobe reviewed his first year’s accomplishments in a report to Congress on

February 20, 1804. He had been in

Philadelphia or Delaware during much of the 

previous summer and fall but did not believe his

absence from Washington affected the work

there. The building season had not produced dramatic results and he blamed the slow progress on

wet weather, which flooded the freestone quarry,

and the lack of workmen, who were not easily

reassembled for the resumption of the Capitol’s

construction. Work ceased when Congress convened in mid-October, cutting short the building

season by six weeks. The perimeter walls of the

south wing reached only half the height of the

The Capitol As It

Appeared in 1803

Conjectural 

Reconstruction, 1989

During Jefferson’s

first term, the Capitol was

a peculiar patchwork of

unfinished pieces. The

north wing was joined to

an elliptical hall (nicknamed the “oven”) by a

low wooden gangway. The

little brick structure was

a temporary accommodation for the House of 

Representatives that was

so hastily and badly built

that Latrobe propped 

its walls with strong

wooden braces.
Jefferson and Latrobe 55

ground floor, yet were high enough to block some

of the light to the “oven.” Lenthall added a roof

lantern to help compensate for the loss. He also

relaid the floor to accommodate the 142 members

of the Eighth Congress. Stout braces were installed

to shore up the walls, which threatened to collapse under the weight of the roof. In all, $555 was

spent to repair the temporary House chamber. For

the Senate, a stove was added under the floor to

help heat the room, the cellars were plastered to

control dampness, and vents were cut through the

foundations to expel trapped moisture that threatened to destroy the wooden joists and flooring.

The roof and skylights were also repaired.17

Soon after the House of Representatives

received Latrobe’s first annual report, it responded

with questions about plans for its future accommodation in the south wing. A committee asked Latrobe

to describe the original plan of the Capitol,

specifically the part that was intended for the House,

and to give his opinion regarding opportunities for

improvement. Latrobe replied with a description of

the original plan for the south wing as a three-story

room, about 108 by 84 feet with an elliptical arcade

supporting columns that in turn helped support the

A Section of 

the House of Commons Dublin

by Rowland Omer, 

Engraving by Peter Mazell, 1767

The first building designed specifically to

accommodate a bicameral legislature was the Parliament

House in Dublin (1728–1739) by Sir Edward Lovet

Pearce. The House of Commons consisted of a one-story

arcade supporting two-story columns supporting, in

turn, an entablature and a domed ceiling. This

arrangement was cited as the prototype for the House

chamber depicted in the “conference plan” of 1793.

Jefferson envisioned the ceiling with tapering skylights

like the ones he admired at the Paris grain market.

Ecole de Chirurgie

[School of Surgery]

Engraving by ClaudeRene-Gabriel Poulleau

In Jacques Gondoin’s

Description des 

ecoles de chirurgie:

Paris, 1780

Boston Athenaeum

In Latrobe’s opinion,

the best form for a legislative chamber was

semicircular in plan covered by a half-domed ceiling. One of the precedents

cited was the surgical 

theater in Paris, considered an excellent room

for speaking, hearing, 

and seeing. It was also an

appealing classical form

that recalled the architecture of ancient Rome 

and Greece.
56 History of the United States Capitol

roof. To visualize the design, he told his readers to

imagine the Senate chamber doubled and formed

into a complete ellipse. The description was followed by a list of eleven objections, including the

absence of committee rooms or offices, and the need

for such things as privies and fireproof repositories

for records. All of these objections had been

expressed to the president, but now Congress

learned of them as well. Major improvements to the

plan, which the president was then considering,

involved raising the hall of the House to the second,

or principal, floor and devoting the first floor entirely

to offices and committee rooms. The change would

not alter the exterior appearance of the wing.18 The

idea of moving the hall of the House to the second

floor occurred to Latrobe after the president

rejected his semicircular plan as too great a departure from the original elliptical configuration.

President Jefferson had the authority to

approve the changes that Latrobe proposed, but he

did not want to exercise that authority without Dr.

Thornton’s concurrence. To smooth the way,

Latrobe arranged a meeting with Thornton to

explain his proposals. It was not a pleasant

encounter. Using a defense first employed against

Hallet, Thornton dismissed Latrobe’s objections 

to the plan by saying that any and all difficulties

could be overcome unless those in charge “were

too ignorant to remove them.” He abruptly refused

to discuss the subject further except to say that he

considered Latrobe unfit to execute the plan. His

manner, tone of voice, and expressions were highly

offensive to Latrobe, who had not expected to be

treated so rudely. Latrobe left with a determination

to resign but thought better of it by the time he

wrote Jefferson an account of the meeting.19 The

president regretted that it had been a failure. He

was still ambivalent about the proposed changes to

the plan and observed (from firsthand experience)

that “Nothing impedes progress so much as perpetual changes of design.” He also thought the chamber devised in the “conference plan” would be

“more handsome and commodious than any thing

which can now be proposed for the same area.” The

Halle au Bled dome would doubtless make it the

finest room in America. And while its structural

problem presented “difficulties to the Executor,”

the president said that “it is to overcome difficulties

that we employ men of genius.” 20

Jefferson’s letter was meant to coax the architect into giving up his quest for changing the plan

of the south wing. Latrobe’s mind, however, was

made up. His job now was to demonstrate how a

domed chamber could be accommodated in a twostory space built atop a floor devoted to offices and

committee rooms. On February 28, 1804, Latrobe

promised Jefferson that he would soon send drawings of the south wing and pleaded for the office

story: “If the house be raised to the level of the top

of the basement story, I will withdraw all further

opposition to the colonnade and its elliptical

form.” 21 He began working on the drawings soon

after returning to Delaware. Latrobe bemoaned his

latest challenge in a letter to Lenthall:

I am laboring at the plan, retaining the elliptical

colonnade. My conscience urges me exceedingly to throw the trumpery, along with my

appointment into the fire. When once erected,

the absurdity can never be recalled and a public explanation can only amount to this, that

one president was block headed enough to

adopt a plan, which another was fool enough

to retain, when he might have altered it. The

only discovery which I have made in elaborating the thing . . . is that the Doctor was born

under a musical planet, for all his rooms fall

naturally into the shape of fiddles, tambourines,

and Mandolins, one or two into that of a Harp.22

It is evident Latrobe was unaware that Dr. Thornton did not draw the plan of the wings that included

so many rooms shaped like musical instruments.

Most of the credit (or blame) for that belonged to

Stephen Hallet. Latrobe also thought the domed

rotunda was George Hadfield’s idea, when in fact it

was the one part of the plan that Thornton could

rightly claim as his own.23 Such was the confused

state of attribution, even at that early date.

On March 16, 1804, the House of Representatives passed an appropriation of $50,000 to continue work on the south wing. The appropriation

was sent to the Senate, where dissatisfied members

sought to kill or amend it. Robert Wright of Maryland proposed removing the capital to Baltimore as

a means to scare local citizens into making more

comfortable accommodations available to legislators. After a day of debate, Wright’s bill was

defeated. Soon, another proposal was offered by

Joseph Anderson of Tennessee. He wanted the

President’s House transformed into the Capitol and

a house rented for the president. The Senate
Jefferson and Latrobe 57

agreed, but the House refused and the appropriation languished in congressional deadlock.24

When Latrobe learned of the proposal, he

blamed the “Blockheads” in the Senate.25 On the

last day of the session, Anderson reported that the

conference could not agree on his recommendation and advised deferring it until the next session.

Faced with causing work to stop, the Senate disagreed with Anderson’s report and dropped its

objections to the appropriation. It was approved

on March 27, 1804. Construction would continue

on the Capitol and Jefferson could stay in the President’s House.26

Two days after the appropriation was signed,

Latrobe sent Jefferson a roll of drawings for the

south wing illustrating his latest idea for the House

chamber. The most important drawing showed the

elliptical colonnade converted into “two semicircles

abutting upon a parallelogram.” The slight alteration offered several distinct advantages: it would

be less expensive; it could better accommodate

chimney flues rising from below; and it could give

the location of the Speaker’s chair a “decision of

character.” Yet, the curving colonnades preserved

“the principal, and the great feature of the original design.” In the first story, Latrobe provided six

committee rooms and a large room for clerks. The

spaces deep within the wing, without access to

natural light and ventilation, were devoted to

fireproof record storage vaults, privies, and furnace rooms. The principal way to the chamber

would be through a series of domed vestibules,

vaulted lobbies, and a staircase closely confined by

thick masonry walls. Proceeding along this path,

encountering a variety of spacial experiences,

lighting conditions, and “scenery,” would be one of

the special architectural treats offered by Latrobe’s

new plan.

Along with the plans, Latrobe sent two sections of the wing, both of which showed the House

Plan of the Second, 

or Principal Story

of the South Wing

by B. Henry Latrobe

1804

Library of Congress

In place of an elliptical chamber, Latrobe

designed two semicircular

colonnades connected by

a “parallelogram.” In the

area between the wing

and the rotunda he

planned a committee

room, a parlor, a courtyard, and a circular

vestibule ornamented

with stone columns.
58 History of the United States Capitol

chamber in its newly proposed configuration. One

drawing illustrated the ceiling held by columns

based on the ancient Tower of the Winds in Athens.

He suggested that the capitals be made of cast iron

with the lower range of leaves attached to the bell

by rivets or screws. (Such an idea was prophetic,

but metal column capitals would not appear at the

Capitol until 1828.) A second section showed the

chamber in the Doric order, which the president

apparently preferred, accompanied by a long

explanation regarding the difficulties with its

entablature. It was impossible to regulate the

metopes and triglyphs without violating the rules

governing their disposition. The Tower of the

Winds order was easier to work with, and would

produce a richer effect in any case. Latrobe placed

the drawings into the president’s hands asking him

to acknowledge his hard work even if he did not

approve the results.27 Working in his temporary

quarters in New Castle, Delaware, Latrobe took

just three weeks to conceive the new design for

the House chamber, arrange an office story, and

consider which order to use. Communicating these

ideas through beautifully rendered drawings made

Latrobe’s efforts all the more remarkable.

Jefferson received the drawings at Monticello

on April 6, 1804, and wrote Latrobe three days

later with his general approval. Moving the chamber to the second floor was finally accepted, but he

wanted more time to think about the shape of its

colonnade. The plans for the recess were also

approved, but its construction was postponed

Plan of the 

Ground Story of

the South Wing 

of the Capitol

by B. Henry Latrobe

1804

Library of Congress

Latrobe’s plan provided six committee

rooms, a large office for

the clerk, indoor privies,

and other useful facilities

not found in earlier plans.

Committee rooms were

placed along the east

(bottom) and west (top)

walls with windows that

provided light and air. The

middle parts were occupied by furnace rooms,

record vaults, and passageways. Structural considerations imposed by

the chamber above

resulted in an unusually

complex arrangement.

Despite British

incendiaries and minor

remodeling, most of the

office story survives

today, containing some of

the Capitol’s oldest interior features.
Jefferson and Latrobe 59

Section of the South Wing, Looking South

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1804

Library of Congress

Shown in the center of the drawing is a seated figure of Liberty later modeled by

Giuseppe Franzoni. The statue presided over the Speaker’s rostrum (not shown) and,

along with the drapery and carved eagle, helped give the chamber a strong focal point.

Sketch of a Section

of the South Wing

of the Capitol of

the United States

at Washington, of

the Doric Order,

Roman style

by B. Henry Latrobe

1804

Library of Congress

To demonstrate that

the Doric order would 

not work for the House

chamber, Latrobe drew

this section showing the

distribution of metopes

and triglyphs belonging 

to the entablature. He

could not make the

metopes square, as dictated by the rules of classical architecture, and

felt therefore that the

Doric order was unworkable. President Jefferson,

also a stickler for architectural rules, subsequently abandoned Doric

in favor of Corinthian.
60 History of the United States Capitol

because the appropriation covered the south wing

only. On the matter of what order to use in the

chamber, Jefferson acknowledged the problem with

the Doric entablature and concluded that “we must

make this [room] Corinthian, and do the best we

can for the capitals and modillions.” The drawings

were returned to Latrobe with the president’s appeal

to push mightily and finish the outside by summer.28

TROUBLE 

WITH THORNTON

S oon after Jefferson approved the

revised plan of the south wing, the

“oven” was demolished. Pulling down

the unsightly and unsound building was a victory

for Latrobe and his aspirations for a House chamber that would be a credit to himself, the president, and the country. Dr. Thornton, however, saw

matters quite differently. The Capitol’s original

design had been sanctified by George Washington’s

blessing and was being altered for no reason.

Thornton did not appreciate the improvements

made to the interior architecture or the practical

accommodations provided in the revised plan. Nor

could he remain silent when criticism was heaped

upon the Capitol’s plan, which was one of Latrobe’s

special talents. Latrobe’s report to Congress containing the scathing (and entirely justified) critique of the original plan was too much for

Thornton to take. On April 23 he responded by

declaring Latrobe’s report insulting, uncivil,

ungentlemanly, and false.29

On April 28, Latrobe poured out his scorn and

anger in a letter to Thornton. He reminded the 

doctor of his rude, insulting behavior when they 

discussed alterations to the plan of the south wing, 

a pattern of conduct that was repeated whenever

they met. Despite “the confusion of your conversation, and the rubbish of your language” Latrobe 

tried to keep Thornton informed about his

thoughts regarding the Capitol but was continually

rebuffed. “Those who despise you most in Washington,” Latrobe wrote, “can bear witness to my

perseverance in this resolution.” In one of its

calmer passages, he said:

Open hostility is safer, than insidious friendship. I cannot therefore regret the declaration

of War contained in your letter . . . I now stand

on the Ground from which you drove Hallet,

and Hadfield to ruin. You may prove victorious

against me also; but the contest will not be

without spectators.30

Each man continued to pelt the other with

insults for nine years until a court of law put the

matter to rest. Confident in his professional skills

and prerogatives, Latrobe was matched against a

master of slander whose attacks occasionally took

the form of sarcastic little poems that were circulated around Washington. One such rhyme

involved the grave of a woman of ill repute named

Moll Turner, whom Thornton imagined had been

led to ruin by Latrobe:

The monument of poor Moll Turner!

Whose clay so soak’d that Hell can’t burn her.

How died poor Moll?—Moll died of spleen,

Because she found Latrobe too keen:

In other words, he broke Moll’s heart,

He so out play’d the blackguard part!

What! Out-matched Moll?—yes, rough or civil,

He can out-jaw—out-lie the Devil.

Hell dries the clay of poor Moll Turner,

And waits Latrobe as fuel to burn her!31

As if Thornton were not making life miserable

enough, Latrobe’s relationship with the president

faltered during this period. The architect convinced

Jefferson that the “oven” had to be removed before

work resumed on the south wing in the spring of

1804. Jefferson was hesitant to approve demolition, thinking the House of Representatives could

meet in the little building for one more session.

But the arguments in favor of its removal were

strong and the president relented. The House

would be returned to the library in the north wing

for its next session. Jefferson spent the summer

away from Washington and upon his return in the

last week of September he found no progress at

all on the interior walls, which were supposed to

have been built simultaneously with the outside

walls. That was the premise upon which he had

permitted the “oven” to be demolished. According

to Lenthall, who took the brunt of the president’s

displeasure in Latrobe’s absence, the problem was

sickness among the workmen. Jefferson dismissed

the excuse, saying that replacements should have

been employed.

The real problem was the result of a misunderstanding of the president’s wishes. Lenthall

thought Jefferson wanted work concentrated on
Jefferson and Latrobe 61

the outside walls, which were then up to the attic

window sills. With little time remaining in the

building season, Jefferson ordered all efforts redirected at the cellar walls so there would be something new to show where the old building had once

stood. Overall, more effort would be needed to

finish the south wing, which was falling behind

schedule: “Nothing but the greatest exertion can

render possible the completion of the work the

next year, and the cramming of the Representatives into the library a second and long session,”

Jefferson wrote.32

Jefferson ordered Latrobe to return to Washington as soon as possible. He arrived on October

11 and immediately wrote the president an apologetic letter to explain his long absence. His wife’s

mother had died suddenly. Commitments had

detained him in New Castle. When traveling with

his son to Baltimore, where the lad was enrolled in

a “French Academy,” sickness detained them en

route. Such were the circumstances surrounding

Latrobe’s summer away from the Capitol. Having

sent letters and drawings to Lenthall, he did not

believe that he had neglected his duty, but he suspected that his absence had cost him the president’s confidence.33 Despite the apologies and

explanations, Latrobe’s part-time approach to his

Washington work was beginning to cause problems.

The second session of the Eighth Congress convened on November 5, 1804. A week later Jefferson

instructed Latrobe to write a report on the progress

made at the Capitol, giving an estimate of the probable cost of finishing the south wing. He detected

opposition in Congress to further appropriations

due to the slow pace of construction. After the

report was submitted, Latrobe was expected to

brief key members to give them the information

necessary to secure the appropriation.34 Writing

from Wilmington, where he was attending a meeting of the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, Latrobe promised to have the report ready

upon his return to Washington.35

Latrobe’s report was finished on December 1

and, after some judicious editing by Jefferson, transmitted to Congress five days later. After discussing

the repairs made to the roof of the President’s

House, Latrobe turned to the Capitol, beginning

that section with a long explanation of the reasons

why more progress had not been made during the

past building season. “The first and principal of

these,” he wrote, “have been the time, labor, and

expense of pulling down to the very foundation all

that had been formerly erected.” Sickness and rain

were retarding factors as well. While he acknowledged it would have been best to carry up the inside

walls along with the outside ones, he explained that

building the outside walls kept the stone cutters

from being idle. (This excuse may have been valid,

but was not what the president wanted.) He

reported that the southern half of the cellar was

finished, and while it might not appear significant,

the work there had been considerable.36

Latrobe’s report did not contain an estimate

for completing the south wing, but it asked for an

appropriation exceeding the usual annual stipend

of $50,000. In a letter to the chairman of the committee to which the report was referred, Congressman Philip R. Thompson of Virginia, Latrobe stated

that $109,100 would be needed to finish the wing

and $25,200 to build the recess. He reasoned that

Seating Plan of the 

House of Representatives 

in the Library of Congress, 1804

Library of Congress

Following demolition of the “oven” in the spring of

1804, the House of Representatives was again obliged to

hold its sessions in the north wing. This plan (with west

at the top) shows the Library of Congress arranged to

accommodate 142 members of the House.
62 History of the United States Capitol

one appropriation of $100,000 would guarantee

that the House would occupy its new chamber in

December 1805.37 Latrobe would soon regret making a promise that he could not keep, but it helped

secure the appropriation because no representative wanted to be crammed into the library any

longer than necessary. On January 25, 1805, Jefferson approved $110,000 for the south wing and

another $20,000 to repair the north wing and other

public buildings.38

ITALIAN SCULPTORS

Encouraged by the generous appropriation,

Jefferson and Latrobe now acted upon the

idea of using allegorical as well as architectural sculpture in the House chamber. Skilled

modelers and carvers were needed to carry out the

scheme. It would be necessary to look to Europe

for artists who might be enticed to Washington by

the promise of steady and reasonably well paid

employment. Two days after Jefferson’s second

inaugural, Latrobe wrote Philip Mazzei asking for

“assistance in procuring for us the aid of a good

Sculptor in the erection of public buildings in this

city, especially the Capitol.” Mazzei was an old Italian friend of the president who had come to Virginia in 1773 and settled near Monticello. Mazzei

was interested in growing Italian olives and grapes

in America, and became friends with his famous

neighbor. He returned home in 1785 but saw Jefferson occasionally in Paris. Now, twenty years

later, Mazzei was the person Jefferson thought best

able to recruit sculptors for the Capitol.

Latrobe described the kind of work that would

be expected from the persons engaged in the

sculptural program. First, he needed someone to

carve twenty-four Corinthian capitals, two feet,

four inches in diameter and an “enriched” entablature 147 feet long. Next was a colossal eagle for

the frieze with wings extending twelve feet, six

inches. Wages offered the best carvers ranged

from $2.50 to $3.00 a day, while assistants could

expect $1.50 to $2.00. Although only skilled sculptors would do, he also wanted men who would feel

comfortable in Washington:

There are however other qualities which seems

so essential, as to be almost as necessary as 

talents, I mean, good temper and good morals.

Without them an artist would find himself most

unpleasantly situated in a country the language

and customs of which are so different from his

own, and we could have no dependance on a

person discontented with his situation. For

though every exertion would be made on my

part to make his engagement perfectly agreeable to him the irritability of good artists is

well known and is often not easily quieted.39

The American consul in Leghorn would arrange

passage for the sculptors, who should be prepared

to sign a two-year contract. Single men were preferred, but if married men were selected they were

welcome to bring their families to America. Upon

conclusion of the work return passage would be

provided by the American government.

Before closing his letter Latrobe asked Mazzei

if he could find out how much Antonio Canova

would charge for a seated figure of Liberty nine

feet high. If the marble were too heavy for a

transatlantic voyage, perhaps Canova would model

a plaster statue that could be more easily shipped.

It could later be carved in American marble. If

Canova refused the commission because of his age,

could he recommend another first-rate sculptor?

Jefferson had not always approved the notion

of stone columns with stone capitals for the House

chamber. Just a year earlier he asked Latrobe if it

would be possible to make the interior columns of

brick with a coating of plaster. He cited Palladio as

one authority who approved of this practice and

indicated that there were such columns in Virginia

twenty feet tall that were executed by a “common

bricklayer.” 40 Such shortcuts were anathema to

Latrobe, who strove to build with only the finest,

most long-lasting materials available to him. While

he won the fight for stone columns, his preference

for capitals modeled after those at the Tower of

the Winds was overruled. Jefferson preferred the

Roman order of the Temple of Jupiter Stator

(known today as the Temple of Castor), which

came highly recommended by Palladio. Its sculptural complexity helped create the need to import

skilled carvers.41 A final decision on which order to

use had not yet been made, and Latrobe still hoped

that he could introduce a Grecian order in the

House chamber.
Jefferson and Latrobe 63

UTILITY VERSUS

BEAUTY

W hile Jefferson was satisfied with

construction progress, he was disappointed to learn of Latrobe’s

concerns regarding the Halle au Bled dome over

the chamber. Of all the things Latrobe could object

to, the ceiling based on the Parisian grain market

was the most dear to the president. It had made an

indelible impression upon his mind while he was

living in France, and from his earliest involvement

in the Capitol he had hoped to recreate it over the

House chamber. The long, tapering ribbons of glass

set between the ribs of the dome would dazzle the

room with light, surprising the visitor with unexpected brilliance. Latrobe wrote the president on

August 31, 1805, with a list of reasons to abandon

the scheme and drawings to illustrate his points. He

showed how light would enter the hall during different times of the day and at different times of the

year. Sunlight would be annoying during the winter

and troublesome in summer. But the real problem

was the difficulty of preventing leaks. Each of the

twenty skylights was five feet wide, fifteen feet long,

and made up of forty panes of glass. With a total of

800 panes and 2,400 joints, the skylights were guaranteed to leak. It would take just one leak dropping

water on the head of a congressman to disrupt the

whole House. Frost would make leaks unavoidable,

while “careless servants” clearing snow off the roof

would surely break the skylights. A hail storm would

break the glass in a minute. Even if the skylights

did not leak, condensation would drip from the

cold glass. Other difficulties were mentioned, such

as the price and quality of glass or the use of blinds

to control sunlight, but keeping water off members’

heads was Latrobe’s primary concern.42

Jefferson was distressed to learn that Latrobe

thought it impossible to build a watertight dome

over the House chamber with the skylights that he

so admired. Yet, despite a deep sense of regret, he

was prepared to yield the point. He reiterated his

contention that the Halle au Bled dome would have

made the chamber the handsomest room in the

world.43 But, uncharacteristically, Jefferson left the

decision to Latrobe. This put the architect in the

unenviable position of choosing either to disappoint the president or to soak members of the

House. He declined to make the choice, suggesting

to the president that they review the topic in the

near future.44

Latrobe spent most of the fall of 1805 in

Delaware. While there, he searched his mind for a

solution to the skylight problem and by midNovember had developed a variation of the Halle

au Bled dome that he thought just might prove satisfactory. Instead of a continuous expanse of glass

between the ribs, Latrobe proposed a range of five

graduated skylights resembling coffers but with

glass backs. Twenty ranges would be necessary

bringing the total number of “panel lights,” as he

called them, to 100. Because each panel was small

enough to be covered by a single sheet of glass, the

problem with joints was virtually eliminated. Wire

Halle au Bled

In L. V. Tie ́ry’s 

Guide des amateurs et des e ́trangers vouageurs a` Paris (1787)

Jefferson was “violently smitten” by some of the newer buildings in Paris when

he was American minister to France (1785–1789). He was particularly taken by the

grain market and its wooden dome, finished just before he arrived in France. He

regarded the Halle au Bled as “the most superb thing on Earth.” Its dome and tapering

skylights literally dazzled him. Jefferson proposed such a dome for the President’s

House (in his anonymous competition entry of 1792), the Capitol (over the House

chamber), and the Washington Navy Yard (over the dry dock). A variation of the 

Halle au Bled dome for the Capitol’s south wing was the only one built.
64 History of the United States Capitol

screens could protect the glass from hail or careless servants. The new arrangement approximated

the visual effect that the president wanted but

avoided many of the problems. Latrobe sent

Lenthall a detailed drawing of the proposed ceiling

on November 25 but wanted to wait until he

returned to Washington before telling Jefferson

about the new plan.45

Just before the roof drawing was sent, Lenthall

received detailed drawings for the wooden trim of

the rooms in the office story. The paneled window

jambs in the “squint eyed” committee rooms (modern day H–109 and H–153) were troublesome, and

Latrobe encouraged his clerk to come up with better designs if he could. Due to the thick mass of

masonry at the southeast and southwest corners of

the wing, Latrobe was obliged to connect end windows with interior rooms via jambs that were

splayed at a steep angle, earning the rooms their

“squint eyed” nickname. The architect wanted to

pave the corridors with marble and floor the offices

and committee rooms with wood, but he feared

that he might have to yield to Jefferson’s preference for French tiles. Window shutters would not

be made to match those in the north wing, which

Latrobe considered “ill framed and ill paneled.”

Shutters with three equal flaps worked best, but,

again, he left the details for Lenthall to decide.46

Designs for the window sash, frames, doors, and

trim were settled and the carpentry work could

proceed while Lenthall tinkered with details.47

On December 22, 1805, Latrobe finished his

third annual report. He began by blaming the “limited resources of this City” for disappointing his

hope of seating the House in its new chamber. He

explained that a number of large construction projects in Washington and Baltimore were competing

for a limited supply of materials and workmen.

Problems with the quarry also delayed the work.

Yet, the cellars and the office story were finished,

and most of the columns for the chamber were

received although none had been installed. Of the

$110,000 appropriation, a balance of $34,605

remained, and Latrobe wanted an additional

$25,000 for the wing and $25,200 for the recess.48

Annoyed by the architect’s broken promise, a committee of the House instructed the president to

have their new chamber ready next year without

fail.49 Congress then appropriated $40,000 for completing the south wing and the recess.50

House Chamber Ceiling and Roof Details

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1805

Library of Congress

Latrobe struggled to reconcile Jefferson’s desire to recreate the Halle au Bled

dome over the House of Representatives with his own hopes for a watertight ceiling. 

In the fall of 1805, he hit upon the idea of using “panel lights,” which promised to give

much the same effect but could be made watertight. This sheet shows a reflected plan

(bottom) of half of the ceiling with fifty individual “panel lights” along with waterproofing details.
Jefferson and Latrobe 65

FRANZONI AND ANDREI

W hile in Philadelphia, Latrobe

learned that Giuseppe Franzoni

and Giovanni Andrei, two sculptors recruited by Phillip Mazzei, had arrived in

Washington at the end of February 1806. Mazzei

turned out to be a diligent agent who was

delighted to help his old friend Jefferson. He

scoured the Italian countryside looking for sculptors to work in America, traveling to Rome and

Florence before finding two excellent artists

whom he thought would exceed all expectations.

Mazzei described them as well tempered, not too

old or too young, and “republicans at heart.” They

had good morals and even tempers, and they were

more than capable of performing the work

expected of them. Both Andrei and Franzoni could

model and carve marble. On the matter of the figure

of Liberty, Canova did not have the time to make it,

but Mazzei mentioned it to Bertel Thorvaldsen, the

great Danish sculptor who worked in Rome. (He

later discovered that Thorvaldsen’s fee was astronomical.) Franzoni could certainly make the statue

of Liberty as well as anyone, but Mazzei thought

that it should be carved in Rome, “where the mind

of the Artist is sublimed . . . by the sight of so many

and so grand Objects.” 51

Latrobe immediately set Franzoni to work on

the enormous eagle for the frieze above the

Speaker’s rostrum. Having never seen an American

eagle, he modeled the body and head from 

memory, producing a distinctively un-American

–looking bird. To give Franzoni a better idea of the

appearance and character of an American eagle,

Latrobe wrote Charles Willson Peale in Philadelphia

asking if he could send a drawing of the head and

claws of the bald eagle, the “general proportions

with the wing extended and especially of the

arrangement of his feathers below the wings when

extended.” The eagle that Franzoni started looked

Italian, Roman, or Greek, but Latrobe knew that

unless it became authentically American it would be

“detected by our Western Members.” 52 Peale

promptly sent a box containing the head and neck

of the “American white head eagle, that was not

bald, ‘tho commonly called so.” Peale promised that

a drawing of the wings and feet would soon follow.53

After working on the sculptural decorations for

two months, Andrei and Franzoni had proved themselves complete masters of their art. Jefferson and

Latrobe were delighted with the prospect of further enrichments for the House chamber. Unsolicited, the sculptors were given a pay raise, free

housing, and the right to take apprentices. The

president ordered these extraordinary measures

to make them content in their new jobs.54 Latrobe

wrote Mazzei an especially warm letter of thanks

for his efforts on behalf of the Capitol and art in

America. Mazzie was told that Andrei would model

the “roses and foliage and capitals” while Franzoni

would do the figural sculpture, although much of

this would not be needed for some time. Between

the two, Latrobe “distributed the department of

animals to Franzoni and of vegetables to Andrei.”

The letter concluded with a “very prolix” account

of the federal city, in which the author heaped

scorn on the designs of the Capitol and President’s

House that were selected by the first president.

“General Washington knew how to give liberty to

his country,” Latrobe wrote disdainfully, “but was

wholly ignorant of art.” Thornton and Hoban were

treated in a similar fashion: the first was “very

ignorant in architecture,” while the second produced “a badly mutilated copy of a badly designed

building near Dublin.” Further, L’Enfant’s plan had

in it everything that could retard the city’s growth.

According to Latrobe, the only reason the government moved to the federal city was to win southern votes in President Adams’ reelection bid. The

history of the city preceding the Jefferson administration, particularly before 1803, when Latrobe

became the surveyor of the public buildings, was a

“Gigantic Abortion.” 55 It was not unusual for

Latrobe to vent his opinions among family or close

associates, but unloading such indignation on

Mazzei, whom he had never met, was unwarranted.

In an effort to keep construction on schedule,

Jefferson asked Latrobe to predict the progress

that would be made from May 1 to October 1, 1806,

and to report actual progress every two weeks. The

architect projected that by the first of July all the

columns on the east side of the House chamber

would be installed, the west architrave would be

up, and all of the first-story window sash would be

in place. The report filed for that period, however,

shows that although the columns were in place

only half of the architrave was up and none of the

sash was in.56 Work was falling behind schedule.

Blagden could use at least six more stone cutters
66 History of the United States Capitol

and the president urged Latrobe to hire them in

Philadelphia, paying traveling expenses and beginning their wages from the day they started off for

Washington. But Latrobe soon discovered that

master stone cutters were hard to find at any wage

and thought that he might have to hire less skilled

hands. He also tried to recruit cutters from New

York but held out little hope for success.57 Five

stone cutters were eventually found in Philadelphia, three came from New York, and six more

were expected from Albany.58 Yet, despite these

successes, the president found the stone work

falling more and more behind and holding back

the carpenters and plasterers. He now wanted at

least twelve cutters, saying that “every day’s delay

in their arrival still must add to the number to be

sent on. Price must not be regarded.” 59 Unfortunately, the president’s last statement gave Latrobe

an excuse to overspend his accounts.

By mid-August all the columns were set in the

House chamber and only one rough capital

remained to be hoisted. Part of the frieze was also

completed. The increased number of stone cutters

placed a greater demand upon the quarry, which

could not keep up with orders. The recess was

under way at last, its first story complete and the

centerings struck for the second-floor rooms.60

(Centerings are the temporary wooden frames on

which masonry arches and vaults are constructed.)

A great deal of progress could be seen; however,

only a miracle would finish the new chamber by

December as promised.

After an absence of ten weeks, Jefferson

returned to Washington at the beginning of October. He soon went to the Capitol to inspect the

roof of the south wing and was dismayed to find

that no provisions had been made for the panel

lights. Instead, the roof framing was prepared for a

central lantern. Jefferson and Latrobe had agreed

that a lantern could be used temporarily if the

glass for the panel lights did not arrive in time for

the meeting of Congress in December. But now it

was obvious that the room would not be occupied

that soon, and Jefferson saw no reason to build

the lantern. He wrote a stern note to Lenthall

ordering the lantern abandoned and the panel

lights built. Upon learning of the president’s displeasure, Latrobe wrote another apologetic letter

saying that the roof framing would accommodate

the panel lights but hoped the president would

reconsider using them. Twenty years of experience convinced the architect that the panel lights

would permit unpleasant light to fall upon members’ desks every sunny day and water to drip upon

their heads when the weather changed from warm

to cold. The glass for the skylights, ordered from

Germany in December 1805, had not yet arrived

and Latrobe postponed making the frames. His

apology concluded with two more objections to

this method of lighting the House chamber: it

View of the Capitol from the Northeast

by B. Henry Latrobe, ca. 1806

Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Maryland

This unfinished sketch shows the south wing under

construction standing next to the mostly completed

north wing. Although identical on the exterior, the interior finishes of the two wings were very different. 

Since the end of the north wing is shown as five

bays wide, instead of seven, this otherwise charming

sketch testifies to an imperfect memory.
Jefferson and Latrobe 67

would give the room an inappropriate “air of the

highest gaiety,” and would lack a “unity of light”

that was necessary to show architecture and sculpture to advantage.61

Despite all the appeals, Jefferson refused to

abandon the Halle au Bled dome. He was delighted

with the architect’s substitution of glass panels for

the continuous skylights because the lighting would

be milder, the light could be easily controlled by

venetian blinds, the chance of leaks was far less,

and the arrangement was original. The beauty of

the ceiling could not be doubted because the world

had already handed down its verdict in Paris. If the

experiment failed, the lantern could be built, but

Jefferson was not willing to abandon the panel

lights without a trial.62

EXPLANATIONS 

AND EXCUSES

L atrobe’s 1806 annual report was another

explanation of the reasons why the

south wing remained unfinished.

Difficulty with stone delivery was cited as the principal cause of disappointment, although “every

encouragement was offered to the quarriers to

make extraordinary exertions.” The roof framing,

plastering, and carpentry, which depended on

finishing the interior stonework, also lagged behind

schedule. Lack of an established building industry

in the infant city put a strain on those who undertook large projects such as the Capitol’s south

wing. The need to bring in materials from distant

places, such as lumber from Maryland’s Eastern

Shore or lime from New England, also tended to

retard progress. And while he had already been

granted two appropriations for completing the

south wing, Latrobe asked for more money to finish

the work in 1807.63

Latrobe had promised the president that the

wing would be ready for the House by December 1,

1806, and now found that promise impossible to

keep. Jefferson, too, was chagrined at not being

able to seat the House in its new chamber. When

the president transmitted Latrobe’s report to Congress he claimed to have taken every step possible

to complete the room and deeply regretted that it

was not possible to fulfill the commitment.64

Fearing that his annual report would not adequately explain the matter, Latrobe spent three

nights writing a pamphlet that he printed with the

title Private Letter. It was ready to distribute to

members of Congress when the session began but

was not shown to Jefferson because it had to be

rushed to the printer.65 Latrobe anticipated the

disappointment that was sure to be felt by those

who expected to occupy the new hall and knew he

would be blamed for cooping them up in the library

for yet another session. Latrobe was attacked in

the press for purposefully drawing out construction in order to keep his salary, and he was accused

of neglecting his duty during long absences from

Washington. These accusations were, in Latrobe’s

words, “extremely scurrilous.” 66 His Private Letter

was the best way to defend himself against the

storm of criticism that was brewing and sure to

break once Congress convened.

Why the south wing remained unfinished was

the main topic of Latrobe’s letter. Despite a painful

and dangerous illness he believed his duties had

not been neglected due to the hard work of his

zealous clerk, John Lenthall. As much work was

done to finish the south wing as could be done,

and no amount of money or manpower could have

done more. He regretted that anything he might

have said during the last session was construed as

a pledge to finish the hall. Latrobe apparently forgot his letter to Philip Thompson, written at the

end of 1804, in which he stated that $100,000

would guarantee completion of the hall in 1806.

He also forgot that Congress granted $110,000 in

1805 and another $40,000 in 1806 on the strength

of that promise. Although the promises were in

writing, Latrobe now claimed the pledge was a

minor misunderstanding.

Switching to offense, Latrobe embarked on

yet another denunciation of the architecture of

the Capitol and the method employed to select its

design. Architectural competitions, such as the

ones held in 1792 for the Capitol and President’s

House, were common but self-defeating. Trained

architects would never think of entering such a

race, which attracts only charlatans who win

through influence. With Dr. Thornton in mind,

Latrobe wrote:

It brings into all the personal vanity of those

who think they have knowledge and taste in an

art which they have never had an opportunity
68 History of the United States Capitol

to learn or practice—of all those who enticed

by the reward think that personal influence and

interest will procure it for them—and all those

who know of design nothing but its execution:

and it keeps out of the competition all who have

too much self-respect to run the race of preference with such motley companions.

As for the style of the Capitol, Latrobe flatly

said that it was hopelessly old fashioned. He realized that most people reading the Private Letter

would not understand matters of architectural

style, but he thought it worthwhile to instruct

them. Unless his audience was aware of the profound change in architectural thought following

the first published illustrations of Grecian antiquities in the 1760s, there would be no way that they

could appreciate the rising preference for “graceful

and refined simplicity” inspired by the “chaste and

simple building of the best days of Athens.” This

aesthetic was relatively new and contrary to the

teachings found in publications written prior to the

1760s. He was against the common practice of overloading walls with useless wreaths, festoons, drapery, rustic piers, and pilasters. If ornament did not

contribute to the strength of a building, or convey

a sense its function, it had no place in its design.

He further observed that a reliance on ornamentation was usually accompanied by a decline in art

and a general increase in artistic ignorance.

Latrobe’s statement would be better understood a generation later by devotees of the Greek

revival. But to his audience in 1806, it may have

seemed little more than an artistic temper tantrum.

Legislators were probably more interested in

Latrobe’s final topic, which was money. He was able

to show that the south wing would ultimately cost

$216,000 [sic]. While not an inconsiderable sum, it

was $61,000 less than what the board of commissioners had spent to build the north wing. And the

south wing was completely vaulted, except for the

wooden ceiling over the chamber, while plaster

was falling off rotting laths in the Senate chamber.

Stairs were stone instead of wood. The roof would

be covered with iron instead of painted shingles.

Freestone columns holding a stone entablature

carved with an American eagle were found in the

south wing, compared with decaying wooden

columns in the other wing. The architect’s ability

to provide such elegance, permanence, and convenience in the south wing for less money than

was expended to build its inferior counterpart must

surely acquit him of any blame for its slow construction. “What has been done, excepting those

parts necessarily made of wood, will be as permanent as the hill upon which the building is erected,”

Latrobe proudly proclaimed.

Despite his best efforts, Latrobe’s Private Letter failed to quiet criticism. On December 15, 1806,

one of the administration’s most acerbic critics,

John Randolph of Virginia, called on the president

to give the House a full account of the money spent

on the Capitol, the President’s House, the cabinet

offices, the Navy Yard, and the Marine Barracks.

Congressmen Willis Alston of North Carolina and

Gideon Olin of Vermont noted that such a detailed

disclosure might embarrass public officers, but

Randolph said the information was necessary to

form a standard of comparison when it came time

to vote another appropriation for the Capitol. He

wanted to know what “this sink of expense” had

cost the nation. In the case of the Capitol’s south

wing, he recalled that each appropriation made

over the past several years was supposedly the

last. Latrobe was the culprit, Randolph thought,

for it was he who had “always fallen short of the

promises made.” 67

On February 13, 1807, amid grumbles from

unhappy congressmen, the House of Representatives began debate on an appropriation of $25,000

that would hopefully finish the south wing. A separate appropriation of $20,000 was sought to buy

new furniture. Andrew Gregg of Pennsylvania

noted that Congress had been in the federal city

for seven years, and from the look of things, it

would be another seven years until their hall would

be ready. And while the south wing was not yet

finished, the north wing was crumbling around

them. Philip Van Cortland of New York did not

understand why some of his colleagues considered

the appropriation unnecessary. If none were made,

he pointed out, the building would not be finished

in “seventy times seven years.” John G. Jackson of

Virginia found it hard to believe that $20,000 was

needed to furnish one room. If the money were

granted, he thought the surveyor of public buildings would be obliged to buy “gilded chairs” and

“plated tables.” The Speaker of the House,

Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina, supported the

appropriation for furniture which, considering the

size of the new hall and the number of committee

rooms and offices, would require the full $20,000.
Jefferson and Latrobe 69

He thought reducing the appropriation might spoil

the room for want of one or two thousand dollars.

Saying that sitting in the House of Representatives

was honor enough, Joseph Lewis of Virginia

declared that he was willing to sit on a stool if necessary but supported the appropriation for new

furniture because the old would not suit. By the

time the votes were taken, the full $25,000 was

appropriated to finish the south wing and $17,000

was voted to furnish it.68

The two main issues concerning Latrobe during

the 1807 building season were decorating the vast

ceiling above the chamber and procuring glass for

the panel lights. On December 30, 1806, he wrote

John Joseph Holland, a set designer and decorator

in Philadelphia, asking him to paint the ceiling.

Latrobe described it as a “plain surface of stucco . . .

to be painted in imitation of panels enriched with

roses, and carved moldings.” Apparently they had

discussed the matter before, but the artist was reluctant to come to Washington. Trying flattery, the

architect declared that it would be a great honor to

have his building “overshadowed by Your ceiling.” 69

Holland first accepted the offer but later backed off.

Latrobe turned to Boston architect Charles Bulfinch

for help in finding someone to paint the ceiling. He

said he eventually wanted a “first-rate hand in chiaro

oscuro” from Italy or England to paint the ceiling,

but for now would settle for an artist to paint simple panels and borders.70

It is not known if Bulfinch played a role in the

outcome, but the artist who painted the ceiling was

George Bridport from Philadelphia, a native of England who was an architect as well as a decorative

painter. Although Latrobe wanted the painting

done by the time the chamber was occupied in the

fall of 1807, Bridport did not begin the work until

June 1808. It took all summer to complete. Working on a scaffold, Bridport suffered from the heat,

which caused him to lose weight and groan loudly.71

Yet he survived, and the results of his labor

delighted the architect. To the president, Latrobe

wrote: “Mr. Bridport’s ceiling will do him great

honor. I fear the Members will think it too fine, and

I doubt not but Mr. Randolph will abuse it.” 72 Bridport was paid $3,500 for the labor, paint, and gold

leaf used in decorating the ceiling.73

Glass ordered from Germany in December 1805

had still not arrived by January 1807. Latrobe gave

up hope and tried to find other sources for glass in

Philadelphia, New York, Albany, and Boston without success. He was obliged to order it from England and, failing a transatlantic disaster, expected

delivery by July 1807. To compensate for breakage,

he ordered exactly twice the quantity needed. At

the same time, he ordered a chandelier and ten

lamps for the chamber and more for the passages,

offices, and committee rooms.74

While waiting for the glass to arrive, Latrobe

directed that the panel lights be boarded over. In

mid-April heavy rains driven by high winds forced

water through the openings into the roof structure

and ruined a great quantity of the fresh plaster in

the hall. To prevent a recurrence of the problem,

Latrobe proposed to replace the wooden coverings

with $1,000 worth of lead. Again Latrobe pleaded

with Jefferson to allow him to substitute a lantern

for the panel lights: “there is no order of yours that

would add more to my happiness,” he wrote. A

watertight roof was a practical consideration that

should, in his view, overrule all other considerations—including beauty. Latrobe asked: “Can

beauty still be sacrificed to the certainty of a practical security?” 75

Jefferson would not budge from his opposition

to lanterns and lectured the architect on matters

of history, precedent, and taste. He could not recall

seeing a lantern or cupola on classical buildings

and supposed them to be invented in Italy for

hanging church bells. They were therefore “degeneracies of modern architecture,” which he found

quite offensive.76

There could be no doubt that lanterns would

never appear on the Capitol as long as Thomas Jefferson was president. The whole episode showed

Jefferson rigidly bound to his books and, like the

lawyer he was, devoted to the high authority of

precedent. Latrobe replied with a discussion of the

difference between the buildings of the classical

world and classical architecture in their epoch. He

would copy Roman or Greek buildings if they would

suit the climate or could meet modern functional

requirements. But modern churches were necessarily different from ancient temples, modern legislative assemblies and courts were different from

ancient basilicas, and modern amusements could

not be performed in open-air theaters. Liberties

were sometimes taken to adapt classical architecture to the American climate and society and the

issue of cupolas was one such case. He again
70 History of the United States Capitol

emphasized that it was not the visual effect of a

cupola that he wanted, but its usefulness.77 The

argument, however, fell on deaf ears.

July came and went without the arrival of the

glass shipment. In mid-August, Latrobe wrote the

president at Monticello to report on the leaking

roof over the House chamber, again despairing for

his reputation and his standing among members

who would soon be seated under it. He was already

unpopular and did not want to aggravate the situation by appearing to be insolent. “To place Congress at their next session under a leaky roof,”

Latrobe warned, “would be considered almost as

an insult to the Legislature after what passed at

the last Session.” Latrobe traced the leaks to brittle putty and a large buckle in the iron. Water entering through cracks caused small streams to run

down the ceiling, staining it with the rust from

thousands of nails.

Latrobe feared for Jefferson’s reputation as

well. A leaking roof over the heads of congressmen

would put them in no mood to support the president’s ambitions for the public buildings in Washington. “The next Session is to decide,” he told the

president, “not my fate only, but the whole dependance which congress shall in the future place upon

anything which may be proposed by you on the

subject of public works.” And what a pity it would

be, he suggested, to deprive the nation of Jefferson’s taste in the arts:

It is no flattery to say that you have planted

the arts in your country. The works already

erected in this city are the monuments of your

judgement and of your zeal, and of your taste.

The first sculpture that adorned an American

public building, perpetuates your love and your

protection of the arts. As to myself, I am not

ashamed to say, that my pride is not a little

flattered, and my professional ambition roused,

when I think that my grandchildren may at

some future day read that after the turbulence

of revolution and of faction which characterized the first two presidencies, their ancestor

was the instrument in your hands to decorate

the tranquility, the prosperity, and the happiness of your Government.78

Despite Latrobe’s eloquence, Jefferson

retained the panel lights. The leaks would be fixed

by shingling between them, preserving the skylights and securing the dazzling effect of the Halle

au Bled dome.79 Persistent in the cause of a roof

that would not leak, Latrobe was thwarted at every

turn by Jefferson, who was equally persistent in

the cause of beauty.

In mid-August 1807 the glass for the panel

lights at last arrived in Philadelphia. With it came

an invoice for $4,130, a great sum that promised to

cripple the Capitol’s accounts.80 But at least the

glass could be installed, and the House would finally

have use of its new chamber. Jefferson had called

Congress into session on October 26 to consider

America’s response to the outrages inflicted by

Great Britain on the nation’s neutrality during the

Napoleonic Wars. British warships routinely

stopped American vessels on the pretext that

deserters from her navy were on board. Without

proof of citizenship, American seamen were routinely forced into British service, and the call for

retaliation and justice grew stronger every day. In

an effort to avoid an open conflict with a superior

enemy, Congress and the Jefferson administration

enacted an embargo that closed American ports to

foreign trade. The legislation passed in December

1807, as members of the House of Representatives

sat under 100 skylights glazed with British glass

received a few months before the embargo took

effect. Had the sequence of events been slightly

different, Jefferson would have been forced to

abandon his skylights and allow Latrobe to light

the chamber with a lantern glazed with small panes

of American glass.

DRAPERY 

AND DEFICITS

F ollowing discussions about which

order to use in the House chamber,

Jefferson abandoned his initial preference for Doric and decided it should be

Corinthian. Which example to draw upon was

another matter. Latrobe preferred Grecian models, while Jefferson was decidedly partial to Roman

ones. Eventually a compromise was struck. For

the columns, Jefferson approved using the exquisite Grecian order from the Choragic Monument of

Lysicrates, but he urged Latrobe to design the

entablature with modillions—something he

admired in Roman architecture. Latrobe obliged

and modeled a Roman entablature to go with the

Grecian columns.81 Before the chamber opened
Jefferson and Latrobe 71

Andrei had time to finish only two capitals and

would attend to the rest as time permitted. Franzoni completed a figure of Liberty, and while it was

only a model, it did the artist “infinite credit.” He

also began carving four allegorical figures to be

mounted opposite the Speaker’s chair representing

Art, Science, Agriculture, and Commerce. Marble

mantels from Philadelphia were installed in the

first-floor offices and committee rooms. As the wing

was being finished, it became something of a tourist

attraction, drawing unwanted visitors who interrupted the work and souvenir hunters who carried

off whatever they could. Latrobe asked Jefferson

to order the building off limits to anyone not

employed there. If presidential intervention was

considered too high a sanction, Latrobe was prepared to issue the order himself.82 Scaffolding was

removed from the chamber in mid-September, but

while the hall was ready for use, Latrobe thought it

still looked somewhat incomplete.83

To celebrate the virtual completion of the Capitol’s south wing, Latrobe hosted a banquet for workmen. The treat was a custom expected by the

workmen as a reward for their labors and “contributed considerably to the good humor and alacrity

with which they performed their duty.” Held on Saturday, October 17, the supper was attended by 167

people and was marred only by the conspicuous

absence of John Lenthall, who boycotted in a dispute over the guest list. All skilled hands were

invited, as were men from the Navy Yard who helped

out occasionally, but Latrobe deliberately did not

invite the lower-class laborers. Lenthall felt that all

workers should have been included and his boycott

greatly embarrassed Latrobe.84

Reaction in the press to the new House chamber was mixed. Newspapers sympathetic to the

administration ran favorable reviews, while the

Federalist press focused on the room’s faulty

acoustics. Samuel Harrison Smith, editor of Washington’s National Intelligencer, called it “the handsomest room in the world occupied by a

deliberative body.” He recalled that on entering the

hall, the spectator was overwhelmed with a “strong

sensation of pleasure, from the splendor and elegance of all that surrounds him.” 85 But the True

American and Commercial Advertiser of

Philadelphia noted that the room suffered from a

“very material defect.” A speaker’s voice was lost in

echoes and nothing could be distinctly understood.

Only by close attention was it barely possible to

gain an idea of what was happening amid the chamber’s “floating reverberations.” 86

The Washington Federalist reported that

John Randolph considered the room “admirably

suited to every purpose which would be required

except one . . . that of debate.” According to this

anti-administration paper, hearing in the House

chamber was so difficult that only a forge, a mill, or

a coppersmith’s shop would offer a less hospitable

environment for debate.87

Latrobe complained privately to Lenthall (who

had returned to the architect’s good graces) that

his original proposal for a half domed semicircular

room of a lower height would have made a much

better speaking room. He also noted that while

newspaper writers condemned the chamber’s

acoustics, “they report the debates as regularly and

minutely as if they caught every word.” 88 To his

brother, Latrobe admitted the room had an acoustical problem, but he planned to “go to work with

Tapestry &C. to destroy the echoes.” 89 Draping the

Corinthian Order

of the Choragic

Monument of 

Lysicrates, Athens

From the 1825 edition of 

The Antiquities of Athens

by James Stuart and 

Nicholas Revett

Jefferson approved

using the Grecian

Corinthian order of the

Choragic Monument of

Lysicrates in the House

chamber. (A different

entablature was designed

by Latrobe so that it

might have modillions,

which the president

admired in Roman architecture.) The details of

the order were illustrated

in The Antiquities of

Athens, published in three

volumes in London in 1763,

1790, and 1795. Jefferson

owned the first volume 

and the Library Company

of Philadelphia had a copy

as early as 1770.

The intricate capitals

were carved in the House

chamber by Giovanni

Andrei. After the room

was destroyed in 1814,

Andrei supervised replication of the capitals in marble during a trip to Italy.
72 History of the United States Capitol

colonnade would muffle the echoes and add even

more texture and color to an already splendid room.

Latrobe wrote a detailed description of the

south wing for the National Intelligencer. The

newspaper asked for the article in order to satisfy

the public’s curiosity, but Latrobe used the occasion to defend the work against slanders printed in

the Federalist press.90 Latrobe’s essay began with a

short history of the Capitol, its dimensions, and a

description of its exterior appearance and the original plan. Before describing the alterations made to

the internal arrangements of the south wing,

Latrobe thought it necessary to pay Dr. Thornton a

left-handed compliment for his talents “which a

regular professional education, and a practical

knowledge of architecture would have ripened into

no common degree of excellence.” Thus, the only

things missing from Dr. Thornton’s potential as a

real architect, Latrobe said, were training and experience. More sincere praise was given George

Hadfield’s contribution to the exterior design. His

“exquisite taste” was responsible for the introduction of the “impost entablature,” which gave “an

harmonious character to the whole mass.” While

Latrobe wanted to publicly acknowledge Hadfield,

he was probably mistaken in the instance cited.

The Capitol’s belt course (carved with a guilloche)

was more likely part of Thornton’s original design.

But this was not the first time Latrobe was mistaken about who designed what in the building’s

murky past.

With the preliminaries dispensed with, Latrobe

began a description of the wing as it was redesigned

and built: “All the apartments are vaulted with hard

bricks, and scarcely anything in the whole building

is of timber, excepting the doors, windows and

their dressings, the platforms of the House and galleries, and the roof of the Hall itself.” He was particularly proud of the plan and accommodations of

the office story because of the difficulties that were

overcome. The size of the challenge made his success all the more gratifying.

Upstairs, the House chamber “consists of two

semi-circles 60 feet in diameter . . . united by

straight lines 25 feet in length . . . so that the internal space . . . is nearly 85 by 60.” A wall seven feet

high carried the twenty-four Corinthian columns,

which were twenty-six feet, eight inches high; these

in turn, supported an entablature six feet high.

Latrobe paid high compliments to Andrei for the

skillful carving shown in the two completed capitals

and to Franzoni for his “colossal eagle in the act of

rising.” Franzoni’s personifications of Art, Science,

and Agriculture in the frieze above the main

entrance to the hall were finished; the figure of

Commerce was incomplete. They were carved in

high relief and, in Latrobe’s opinion, were “exquisitely beautiful.” The statue of Liberty behind the

Speaker’s chair was a hastily completed plaster

model that Latrobe hoped would soon be reproduced in Vermont marble. It was a seated female

figure, eight and a half feet tall, holding a liberty

cap in one hand and a scroll in the other. An eagle

stood guard to one side of the figure, its foot resting

on a crown and other emblems of monarchy and

bondage. Above the statue was a crimson silk curtain with green lining. “The effect of this curtain, of

the statue, and of the Speaker’s chair and canopy,”

Latrobe wrote, “is perhaps the most pleasing assemblage of objects that catches the eye in the whole

room.” Other subjects were covered in the article,

but the sculptural decorations seem to have been

the architect’s greatest source of satisfaction.91

A “sound committee” of the House approved

Latrobe’s plan to combat echoes by hanging heavy

flannel drapery—with black, yellow, and red

fringe—between the columns.92 Lenthall was

asked to devise something from which to suspend

the curtains, preferably a strong plank held by the

abacus of the column capital. Latrobe wanted the

curtains to hang down nearly twenty feet, reaching within seven or eight feet of the column bases.

“The thing will be handsome,” Latrobe wrote, “and

take half the echo.” He did not care if those behind

the curtains could see or hear: “Why should there

not be an embargo on Sound as well as on

Flour?” 93 The curtains were in place by the end of

February and were, according to Latrobe, both

beautiful and effective.

Usually the annual report of the surveyor of

public buildings was transmitted soon after the

opening of Congress. The 1807 report, however,

was not submitted until March 25, 1808, only four

weeks before the end of the first session of the

10th Congress. Latrobe excused the delay by saying he was unable to close the accounts because

work was still going on at the Capitol and the President’s House. In the part of the report concerning

the south wing, he listed those few details that

were needed to finish the building. The woodwork
Jefferson and Latrobe 73

Vestibule of the House of Representatives

The earliest example of a Greek order extant in America is exhibited in this small

circular vestibule, located between the rotunda and the old House of Representatives.

The vestibule was completed in 1807 and left undamaged by the fire of 1814. Paint

analysis indicates that a light straw color was originally used on the dome, coffers, 

and ornaments. (1999 photograph.)

Capital Detail

Latrobe modeled the columns after the ancient

Tower of the Winds but added a stem between the upper

water leaves. (1999 photograph.)

Tower of the Winds, Athens

From the 1825 edition of The Antiquities of Athens by James

Stuart and Nicholas Revett 
74 History of the United States Capitol

was only primed and needed to be painted. Twentytwo column capitals in the chamber and two in the

circular vestibule (today called the “small House

rotunda”) still needed to be carved and the cornice

in the chamber was not yet finished. Ten mantels

awaited installation and the pavement along the

south front needed to be laid. Latrobe praised the

work of Franzoni and Andrei and reminded his

readers that their work would take time to finish.

He asked for funds to erect the western part of the

recess containing three committee rooms and an

apartment for the doorkeeper. In addition to providing these internal accommodations, this part of

the recess was necessary to buttress the wing’s

northwest corner. Settlement in that area had been

noticeable for some years, and while there was no

immediate danger of collapse, it required “counterpoise” for stability. (It remained without “counterpoise” until 1818–1822.)

Without a hint of modesty, Latrobe’s report

asserted that the House of Representatives sat in a

room less “liable to an objection as any other hall

of debate in the United States.” After minor adjustments were made, it would be “second to none in

every legislative convenience.” But such high praise

for his own work did little to shield him from the

furious storm that broke over his accounts. Latrobe

nonchalantly reported that he had incurred a deficit

of more than $35,000 for work on the south wing

and another $4,000 deficit for furnishing it. (He

had also overspent the President’s House and public highways accounts.) At the beginning of the

1807 building season, Congress had appropriated

$25,000 to finish the south wing—all that Latrobe

asked—yet he managed to spend more than

$60,000. His success with the $17,000 furniture

budget was better, but that overrun was a grave

embarrassment as well. Latrobe soon learned that

fiscal mismanagement, whether real or perceived,

could damage a reputation beyond all that allegorical statuary and crimson drapery could redeem.

Overspending the appropriations put Latrobe

in the unenviable position of defending himself

against the administration’s friends as well as its

enemies. On April 5, 1808, the House of Representatives considered an appropriation to cover the

deficits. John Randolph condemned Latrobe’s

actions as “illegal and unjustifiable.” Joseph Lewis,

a Federalist from Virginia, took an opposite view of

the issue. He understood that Latrobe and the

workmen proceeded on their own to finish the hall

despite the lack of funds. In doing so, they were

only motivated by a desire to complete the room so

that the House could use it and be free of the tight

quarters of the library. The honorable intentions of

the surveyor of public buildings and the generosity

of the workmen justly demanded Congress repay

them promptly. The president’s son-in-law, John

Wayles Eppes of Virginia, thought that Latrobe had

“grossly abused his trust,” but worried that innocent tradesmen and merchants would be ruined if

the government failed to fund the deficits. Randolph replied that he too wished to see creditors

paid but thought the accounts should be presented

to the Committee on Claims. And while he thought

the House chamber did Latrobe “great honor,” he

reminded his colleagues that “artists were not very

nice calculators in money matters.” David R.

Williams of South Carolina, an administration supporter, gave a long speech in which he severely

condemned Latrobe and his “outrageous audacity.”

Others spoke either of Latrobe’s bad judgment or

of his devotion to duty, as the case might be viewed.

By the end of the day’s business, the House could

not agree on how to treat the deficits. On a motion

offered by Eppes, the House asked Richard Stanford, chairman of the committee handling Latrobe’s

annual report, to inquire into the circumstances

that produced the deficits. It also asked his committee to look into the wisdom of abolishing the

office of the surveyor of public buildings.94

Latrobe replied to the committee’s inquiries in

a long letter written on April 8, 1808.95 It was an

admirable defense, free of the pontifical rhetoric

that occasionally showed up in his writings. He

began by saying that he held no government office

as such, but that the surveyor’s position was necessary to carry out the appropriations for the public

buildings. As long as these appropriations were

made, it would be necessary to have an architect in

charge. He then compared his work to that of the

“unprofessional,” but “patriotic” commissioners

and showed that the south wing cost $61,000 less

than the north wing. The saving was a result of

professional management. To explain how he

incurred the deficits, and justify his actions in the

matter, Latrobe referred to the desire of the House

to occupy its chamber, its resolution asking the

president to do all in his power to have the room

ready, and his efforts to obey the command.
Jefferson and Latrobe 75

Because he was not able to have the room ready in

1806, it would have been unforgivable not to finish

it in 1807. The appropriation was fully spent by

September but the hall was still not finished, leaving the architect few options. He could dismiss the

workmen and leave the hall unfinished or advise

them of the financial situation and trust that their

labors would not go unrewarded for long.

Completion of the south wing was Latrobe’s first

duty. To his way of thinking he had not expended

unappropriated public funds but, rather, incurred

debt in the public interest. To show that the workmen fully understood the situation, he presented an

affidavit signed by George Blagden, stonecutter,

Thomas Machen, stonemason, Simeon Meade, foreman of carpenters, Henry Ingle, cabinetmaker and

ironmonger, and Griffith Coombe, lumber merchant.

The document verified Latrobe’s forthright dealings

with the men building the south wing.

On April 21, 1808, Stanford reported the

findings of his committee to the House.96 It was a full

and absolute vindication of Latrobe and his actions

that incurred debt. According to the committee

members, Latrobe pursued his duties with “laudable

zeal” and “integrity.” Considering the circumstances,

questions regarding the legality of Latrobe’s actions

were groundless.

Four days after the Stanford report was issued,

the House discussed an appropriation to cover the

debts. John Randolph, of course, spoke at length

against the measure. If the bill passed, Randolph

warned that “they might as well open the Treasury

and dismiss their accounting officers at once.” But

Stanford stated that Latrobe had acted in accordance with their resolution and had done his duty

by finishing the chamber. His actions were, therefore, fully justifiable. By a vote of seventy-three to

eight, the House appropriated $51,500 to cover the

Latrobe 

Committee Room

Latrobe’s plan for the

south wing’s office story

provided meeting rooms

for some of the five standing committees and for

the various select committees that were appointed

from time to time. Structural constraints prohibited large rooms, but

committees did not

require much space.

Shown here is a typical

committee room, which

retains its original marble

mantel and woodwork.

Today the room

(modern day H–153)

serves as the office for

the clerk of the House 

of Representatives. 

(1998 photograph.)
76 History of the United States Capitol

debts.97 On the same day, a vote was taken on funding the remaining part of the recess. That measure

failed, but $11,500 was given for finishing and

painting the interior of the south wing.98

While Latrobe enjoyed his partial victory in the

House, his financial dealings placed a cloud over

his relationship with the president. Jefferson neither claimed responsibility in the affair nor did he

blame Thomas Munroe, who was supposed to keep

track of accounts. The day Congress made good on

the deficit, Jefferson wrote the architect:

The lesson of last year has been a serious one,

it has done you great injury & has much been

felt by myself—it was so contrary to the principles of our Government, which makes the representatives of the people the sole arbiters of

the public expense, and do not permit any work

to be forced on them on a larger scale than their

judgment deems adopted to the circumstances

of the Nation.99

Latrobe considered resigning. He felt that the

attacks in the House by the president’s son-in-law

might as well have come from Jefferson himself.

Blame for the deficits had been “copiously and

coarsely heaped upon me by the friends of the

administration in the house as well as by the federalists and the third party.” Latrobe claimed that the

state of the accounts was unknown to him because

Munroe had spent the summer in upstate New York.

He had been guided solely by Jefferson’s order to

hire more workmen and finish the chamber.

Writing from Monticello, Jefferson replied that

Latrobe had no one to blame for the deficits other

than himself. Appropriations were made from his

estimates, and because these were defective, he

had not enough funds to finish the wing. When he

urged Latrobe to hire more workmen, it was on the

assumption that “it would cost no more to employ

100 hands 50 days, than 50 hands 100 days.” He

never intended to suggest that money was no

object. And as John Eppes was too independent to

be influenced by his father-in-law, Latrobe should

not consider him the president’s mouthpiece. Without mentioning Latrobe’s hint at resignation, the

letter ended on a friendly note.100

Small appropriations were made in 1809 and

1810 to keep Andrei carving the capitals in the

House chamber. With the room virtually complete

Latrobe turned his attention to rebuilding the interior of the north wing, which would be a more

difficult, and in some ways a more satisfying, task.

The arrangement of the office story in the south

wing, and the many conveniences it provided

within a difficult space, was an accomplishment

that made Latrobe proud. Although later altered in

small ways, the rooms continue to be used by the

House of Representatives to this day. The House

chamber upstairs, however, perhaps the most beautiful room designed by Latrobe, can only be viewed

in the architect’s drawings. Used only six years, it

was destroyed by fire in the summer of 1814.

THE NORTH WING

F rom the time he was appointed the

surveyor of the public buildings,

Latrobe was alarmed by the north

wing’s structural problems. Despite its recent construction, the north wing had defects more usually

associated with an older building. He condemned

the gutters lined with tar and sand, which disguised

fissures that allowed rain to pour into the building.

He disliked the skylights and wanted to protect them

with lanterns, not yet having learned of Jefferson’s

dislike for these “degeneracies of modern architecture.” In addition to water penetration, the wing was

plagued by rotting timbers and falling plaster. Each

year Congress granted for repairs a small sum that

was split between the north wing and the President’s House. Latrobe could barely keep up with the

progressing decay he found in both buildings.

At the end of August 1805, Latrobe told the

president about the sundry repairs made in the

north wing and stated his belief that one day the

entire interior would have to be removed and

rebuilt. The ceiling in the northwest committee

room (modern day S–143 and S–144), where the

Senate had met during the second session of the

Eighth Congress (1804–1805), threatened to collapse. (Ironically, it had been the dangerous condition of the Senate chamber’s ceiling that forced the

lawmakers to seek refuge in that committee room.)

Now, the room’s ceiling was cracked and Lenthall

was asked to examine it. Because the laths were too

closely spaced to allow the plaster to grip properly,

the ceiling was deemed unsafe and was taken down.

A new ceiling was installed, but it soon sagged six

inches. Latrobe climbed on the scaffold and discovered a girder riddled with dry rot. He had it propped
Jefferson and Latrobe 77

up with a strong wooden partition that divided the

room in half. The situation could not wait for Jefferson’s approval: if the girder failed during the

approaching session of Congress, members of the

House meeting in the library above would have

been thrown down into the committee room, causing certain injuries and deaths.

While saving the lives of congressmen, the partition created two small committee rooms where

there had been only one before. With the Supreme

Court set up in one committee room (modern day

S–146 and S–146A) and clerks using another,

rooms for Senate committees were in short supply.

Only one room was available, and it was commandeered by the first senator who laid claim to it.

Other committees huddled together in the Senate

chamber in whatever space they could find. “Thus

a Committee on a trifling business were in possession of the room,” Latrobe informed the president,

“while the most important affairs were transacted

in a corner amidst the bustle, usually preceding

the opening of the house.” Another room could be

created by partitioning the north vestibule, a semielliptical lobby with a central door flanked by two

windows. Latrobe asked permission to build a wall

that would capture a third of the space for a committee room.101 The plan would result in two oddly

shaped rooms, and the president was unwilling to

sacrifice the beauty of the vestibule for the accommodation of Senate committees.102

Repairs were also needed in the Senate chamber. Particularly bothersome were the columns,

which were made of wood covered with a thin coat

of plaster. Cracks half an inch to an inch wide

appeared down the length of three shafts. To repair

these, Latrobe wrapped the columns with strong

linen tied in the back. Secured by these improvised

corsets, the column shafts were then freshly whitewashed. After a piece of the ceiling fell (barely

missing the vice president’s chair), Latrobe

inspected the damage and repaired the plaster.

Such patching and mending made Latrobe impatient for the day he would rid the north wing of its

rotting timbers and rebuild it with brick arches and

vaults. Only such drastic measures would secure the

interior from the legacy of bad materials and workmanship. The rebuilding would also present an

opportunity to reconfigure the floor plan to better

accommodate the Senate and the Supreme Court.

While he despaired for the structural integrity of the

Senate chamber, Latrobe told the president that he

looked forward to “the period at which your idea of

raising it up to the next story can be carried into

effect.”103 Now that the House chamber was on the

principal floor, Jefferson apparently wanted the Senate raised to that level as well. Raising the Senate

finally resolved the old disagreement between

Thornton’s exterior elevation and Hallet’s interior

plan. (One must wonder at Jefferson’s thoughts as

the chambers were relocated to the principal floor

during this period.) A one-story room for the

Supreme Court would be built below the Senate,

occupying what had been the lower portion of the

old chamber. Other areas, such as the Library of

Congress, committee rooms, and lobbies, would be

retained in place but reconfigured by the necessities

of vaulted construction.

In his 1805 annual report, Latrobe informed

Congress of the decayed state of the north wing’s

interiors, which hardly came as news. A survey of

the structure revealed alarming failures in 

the floors and timbers that were the result of

“extremely injudicious” construction methods

aggravated by widespread dry rot. Cracks in the

library ceiling were investigated, but no structural

defect was found. Minor repairs were made but

substantial work would be postponed until after

the south wing was completed.104

By the end of 1806, the condition of the ceiling

of the room in which the House sat rattled the

nerves of more than one of its members seated

below. David R. Williams of South Carolina was

sufficiently alarmed to offer a resolution to pull the

ceiling down or otherwise secure it from what

appeared to be imminent collapse. The motion

stirred a lively discussion among the members,

some of whom doubted Latrobe’s earlier assurance

of the ceiling’s safety when it looked so insecure. A

section of plaster had already fallen, while other

parts “swagged.” The clerk of the House made his

own investigation and found the ceiling mostly

secure, but some sections also looked dangerously

weak.105 Adding to the mounting concern, the cornice and part of the ceiling over the central lobby

fell. More cracks appeared in the Senate columns,

and the ceiling appeared ready to fall again. It was

beyond repair and was accordingly re-plastered on

new laths. Disasters became routine and convinced

even recalcitrant legislators that reconstruction

was necessary. Members of the House were 
78 History of the United States Capitol

anxious to leave the cramped and decayed library,

especially when they saw what awaited them in the

south wing.

Latrobe’s 1806 annual report gave the first

detailed account of what he and the president had

in mind for the north wing’s new interior. A set of

plans was submitted with the written report. The

whole ground floor (called the “office story” in the

other wing) was reserved for the Supreme Court.

The Senate would move upstairs, having use of the

second and third floors. Visitors to the Court would

enter through the north door, while those on Senate business would use the east door. Thus separated, neither body would interfere with the

workings of the other.

The report also covered logistical matters. As

soon as Congress adjourned in March 1807, Latrobe

proposed to begin demolition of the eastern half of

the wing, preserving much of the brick partition

walls but removing all the laths, plaster, and timber

from the cellar to the roof. The first phase would

involve gutting the Senate chamber, the unfinished

room above it, the east vestibule, the staircases,

the central lobby, and the north vestibule. When

Congress reconvened in the fall, the House would

occupy the south wing, the Senate would meet in a

committee room, while the Supreme Court would

continue to use a first-floor committee room or the

library. With his usual optimism, Latrobe promised

that the work could be done quickly, particularly

because it would be protected by the roof. He

claimed that the eastern half of the wing would be

finished by the time Congress convened in 1808.

Work on the western half would begin in 1809 and

would be finished a year later. Thus, the entire

north wing would be rebuilt in only three years. To

get the job started, Latrobe asked for an appropriation of $50,000.106

When the House reviewed the reconstruction

plans on February 13, 1807, confusion gripped

those who did not understand Latrobe’s report or

the drawings accompanying it. Some thought the

plans called for the Senate chamber to be divided

in half so that the Supreme Court would meet in

the upper part of the old room. Others thought a

new Senate chamber would replace the library in

the western part of the wing. David R. Williams of

South Carolina was certain the changes were proposed so the Senate would be in a physical position

to send bills literally downward to the House. “If

the alteration really takes place . . . ” he said, “this

House will be about fifteen feet lower than the Senate.” 107 How he reached that conclusion is unfathomable, but it demonstrated the architectural

Ground Plan of the North Wing 

of the Capitol of the United States 

shewing it, as proposed to be altered, 

on the Ground Story

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1806

Retaining as much of the brick partition walls as he

could, Latrobe reconfigured the plan of the north wing

to accommodate a vaulted interior. This plan (with east

at the top) is a preliminary scheme that would be more

fully developed.

Latrobe separated those with Court business from

those attending sessions of the Senate. The north door

(left) was reserved for the Supreme Court and the east

door (top) was exclusively for the Senate. Although this

plan does not yet show columns in the east vestibule,

Latrobe later designed “corn cob” columns for that

space to support the weight of its vaulted ceiling.
Jefferson and Latrobe 79

illiteracy flourishing in the House that day. While it

is not surprising that some were unable to understand the floor plans, Latrobe’s clearly written

report should have been intelligible to all.

At the end of debate, the House decided not to

vote for any alterations. Instead, it granted $25,000

for a new roof and other repairs to the north wing.

Alarmed, Latrobe wrote Pennsylvania Senator

George Logan warning that if the appropriation

passed in its current form, the Senate would be left

with all the problems plaguing its chamber and committee rooms. The chamber needed to be cleared of

arches and columns that obstructed views and

blocked voices, but this was beyond the scope of

repair work. He hoped the Senate would loosen the

wording of the bill to allow some alterations. Yet,

the Senate retained the language of the House

appropriation, and the bill was approved by Jefferson on the last day of the session, March 3, 1807.

Finishing the south wing for the House of Representatives kept Latrobe busy during the 1807

building season, and he could hardly spare carpenters to re-roof the north wing until they were no

longer needed on the other building. Rainy weather

and a shortage of workmen meant that there was

only time and manpower enough to re-roof about

half the wing.108 When the center part of the roof

was stripped off, Latrobe found the timbers in an

advanced state of decay. All the floors and ceilings

of the Senate chamber, the library, and the lobbies

were discovered to be rotten as well. Because of

time constraints and the limits of the appropriation, Latrobe could do nothing to the chamber or

the library, but focused instead on the central lobby

and oval stair hall directly under the part of the

roof being replaced. In those spaces, Latrobe

removed the timber floors and laid stone or brick

floors on new vaults carried by the old walls. The

coved ceiling and wooden skylight over the oval

stair hall were removed and replaced by a “solid

brick cupola . . . crowned by a lantern light.” (Considering the president’s silence, the lantern presumably could not be seen from the outside.) The

weak, decayed principal staircase was merely

propped up for the time being.109

What little was done to the north wing in 1807

was just enough to show how much work was

needed to put the building into first-class condition. Without debate Congress appropriated

$25,000 on April 25, 1808, “for carrying up, in solid

work, the interior of the north wing, comprising

the Senate chamber.” Congress granted these funds

at the same time it made the appropriations to

cover Latrobe’s public debts. While this period may

Plan, shewing the alterations proposed 

in the principal Story of the North Wing 

of the Capitol

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1806

By using a simple color code, Latrobe indicated

walls to be added or removed in rebuilding the north

wing’s interior. On this and companion plans, Latrobe

also showed early ideas about the center building. The

rotunda was depicted with heroic niches in the angles

and stairs leading to the room below, called variously

the “crypt” or the “lower rotunda.” Gone was the circular conference room from the Hallet–Thornton plans,

replaced by a square projection with a central colonnade.
80 History of the United States Capitol

have been a low point in the architect’s popularity,

the appropriation for the north wing was a small

but a welcome vote of confidence.

LIBEL

T he day after the appropriation for

the north wing passed, Latrobe

opened the National Intelligencer

to find a letter from Dr. Thornton publicly attacking him. Considering the unflattering way Latrobe

had depicted Thornton in print, this assault should

not have come as a surprise. But its severity and

fanatic assertions were shocking. Supposedly, the

letter was in response to Latrobe’s description of

the south wing, printed in the Intelligencer on

November 30, 1807, in which he “had the presumption to assume the character of a public Censor.”

To defend himself Thornton described Latrobe’s

reports to Congress as “full of miscalculations and

misrepresentations.” He denied Latrobe’s assertion

that the design of the Capitol had been improved

by George Hadfield and defended the original

design and parts of the composition that Latrobe

criticized. In his writing, Thornton used a sort of

verbal smoke screen that is difficult to follow,

employing maxims and rules of his own invention

that had a ring of authority. For example, Thornton

wrote about a small feature of the Capitol’s elevation—the shallow arch in the center bay of each

wing—and greatly exaggerated its significance. He

said the arch was “bold” and so “neatly equidistant” that it produced a “fine effect and great harmony.” Sounding profound, Thornton proclaimed:

“Minute beauty may terminate where grandeur and

Plan of the 

Principal Story of the Capitol. U. S.

by B. Henry Latrobe, ca. 1808

Library of Congress

Latrobe’s overall scheme for the Capitol was presented in this drawing. It 

shows the south wing as finished, the north wing that was undergoing a partial

reconstruction, and the center building that was not as yet approved or funded. The

rotunda was labeled “Hall of the People” with the notation that it was intended for

“Impeachments, Inaugu[r]ations, Divine Service, General access to the buildings.”
Jefferson and Latrobe 81

sublimity commence.” Beneath the rhetoric, there

was no real meaning to the statement.

There was similar bombast about the oak

foliage above the arched windows. Next came the

matter of education and experience: “Because I

was not educated as Architect, am I therefore to

permit Mr. Latrobe to decide upon my merits or

demerits? —No.” After all, Thornton had traveled

in Europe, was acquainted with the best buildings

from antiquity, and knew something about the

orders of architecture. As a profession, medical

doctors examined a variety of subjects during their

course of study, and it was common for them to

pick up one or two other specialities later on.

Thornton proudly reminded readers of the Intelligencer that Claude Perrault, the architect of the

Louvre, was also a doctor.

The latter part of Thornton’s attack was pure

fantasy. He claimed that Latrobe had been educated not as an architect but as a “carver of chimney pieces in London.” Thus, an upholsterer had as

much right to call himself an architect. The next

fabrication was about Latrobe’s immigration to

America as a “Missionary of the Moravians.”

Rather than to design churches, Thornton said, his

rival was sent to this country to build up the Moravian church. These silly taunts paled in comparison

to the story about George Washington’s lack of faith

in Latrobe. Thornton said that a “very respectable

gentleman now living” asked Washington why he

did not employ Latrobe and was told: “Because I

can place no confidence in him whatever.” Thornton’s next accusation was that the architect had

changed his name. Using satire, sarcasm, and wit,

Thornton then ventured into a wholesale condemnation of Latrobe’s south wing. The sculptural group

over the Speaker’s rostrum was ridiculed in a manner that nicely illustrates Thornton’s style of attack:

To embellish the room, he had the Eagle carved

so often, that it equals the Ibis in the Tombs of

the Egyptians, but they are as much like the

Harpies as Eagles. The one on the Frieze of the

Entablature is so flat, that the country people

mistake it for the skin of an owl, such as they

nail on their barn doors: Glumdalca, [queen of

the giants in Fielding’s farce Tom Thumb] fabricated of straw, and plaster of Paris, to represent the Figure of Liberty resting on the Eagle,

is taken for a gigantic representation of Leda

and her Swan: and the minikin eagle over the

Speaker’s head, is taken for a Sparrow.

The gate at the Navy Yard, the wall around the

President’s House, the Bank of Pennsylvania, and

the Philadelphia Waterworks shared Thornton’s

scorn. His final ridicule was directed at the gate

into the president’s garden: “Though in humble imitation of a triumphal Arch, it looks so naked, and so

disproportionate, that it is more like a monument

than a Gateway; but no man now or hereafter will

ever mistake it for a monument of taste.” 110

Latrobe’s response was swift and calm. Writing to the Intelligencer on April 26, 1808, he

characterized the abuse as “coarse” and regretted

that his previous references to Thornton had been

“too flattering.” People who knew Thornton would

pay no attention to his latest rant, but it was due

his family as well as himself to refute some of the

more atrocious accusations. The stories about carving chimney pieces and missionary work were both

groundless, although he would not have been

ashamed if either were true. He recalled his last

visit with Washington at Mount Vernon, during

which time he had no favors to ask nor did his host

have any to grant. “The whole story,” Latrobe

wrote, “is a malicious fabrication—impossible in all

its circumstances of time and place.” He defended

his design for the Bank of Pennsylvania against

Thornton’s assertion that it was nothing more than

a copy of a Greek temple. Thornton’s observations

were stupid and he was “too ignorant, vain, and

despicable for argumentative refutation.” 111

Strangely, President Jefferson did nothing to

stop these men from airing their differences in public. Both held positions in the administration and

would have yielded to a presidential command to

desist. But Jefferson remained quiet. The next volley was lobbed by Thornton in the Washington Federalist of May 7, 1808, in what was an amplification

of his earlier letter. In it Thornton railed with gusto,

skewering Latrobe with his special brand of contorted sarcasm. In one passage, Thornton expanded

upon his assertion that Latrobe’s career in London

was spent carving mantels:

To call him a carver of chimney pieces was

meant to shew that his high assumption of the

character of an architect has not been of long

standing. His mode of behavior to me must have

originated in his old habits of carving chimney

pieces. He cut and hewed at me in a very rough

manner, in private (in his private letters to Congress) then polished and smoothed down to

give a kind of gloss, in public; but I had not
82 History of the United States Capitol

forgotten the chisel strokes in private, and

understood better than the public his subsequent meaning.

The letter concluded with a story that stretched

Thornton’s credibility to the limit. He said that he

had accepted a challenge to a duel, but when he

went to the field, Latrobe was no where to be found.

For three days, Thornton waited with his second

and surgeon, unaware that Latrobe had been “bound

over to the peace.” He returned to town and sent a

note saying that while the matter was now settled,

he was nonetheless ready to take up the challenge

again. Latrobe, the coward, failed to reply and

Thornton concluded: “I received no answer, and

despise his threats, as much as I despise the man.” 112

The Washington Federalist carried a short

reply from Latrobe saying no more would be heard

from him due to a libel suit filed on his behalf

against Thornton. Thus a jury would decide

“whether the Doctor be an original inventor, or

only a second hand retailer of falsehood.” 113

Latrobe’s complaint, filed on May 28, 1808, asked

for $10,000 in damages plus court costs.

A FATAL ACCIDENT

W hile lawyers prepared their cases,

Latrobe began work on the east

side of the north wing by demolishing all the flooring and ceilings from the cellar to

the roof. As a public exhibit, he laid out rotten 

girders, plates, and joists for all to see. Although he

had hoped to reuse it, Latrobe also tore out the

brick arcade in the Senate chamber after discovering the piers were built on wooden plates, which

were rotten. The arcade was also found to be laid

out on a partly circular, partly elliptical plan and it

would have been nearly impossible to contrive a

uniform vault to spring from it.114 A month earlier,

Jefferson had told Latrobe to leave the arcade in

place and reuse the old wooden columns unless it

was clear that they could afford stone columns.115

Jefferson’s instructions were shaped by his dread

of incurring another deficit, a fear that surely

clouded his judgment. Impractical and unwise, the

shortcuts were mercifully ignored.

Latrobe’s plans for reconstructing the interior

of the north wing were as inventive and daring as

anything he had attempted before. Unlike building from the ground up, this job involved preserving the outside shell and most of the interior walls

and inserting a vaulted structure within that tenuous envelope. The new work could not depend

on old walls for support. Rather, the new skeleton

was used to strengthen the outside skin. Like

builders in the Middle Ages, Latrobe used the outside walls as screens that performed virtually no

structural function. Instead of transferring structural loads via exterior flying buttresses, the north

wing vaulting was supported on new interior

columns and piers built within inches of the old

walls. Each room presented its own challenge,

and Latrobe’s solutions were as ingenious as the

problems were difficult.

During the summer of 1808, while Latrobe was

in Philadelphia, Lenthall pushed the work with

Lower Plan of the Original Senate Chamber Prior to

Reconstruction (top). Supreme Court Vaulting Plan (bottom)

Comparing “before” and “after” plans illustrates the transformation that took

place within the existing walls of the north wing. In creating the Supreme Court chamber, Latrobe built new masonry supports to hold heavy ceiling vaults while imposing

little additional weight or lateral pressure on the old walls.
Jefferson and Latrobe 83

great energy. By the second week in September all

the arches and vaults were in place, including those

over the Supreme Court and the Senate chambers.

To cover the Senate, Latrobe devised a half dome

sixty feet in diameter springing from a new, semicircular western wall to a stout arch built against

the old east wall. Thus, the room’s plan was similar

to the previous Senate chamber but was slightly

smaller and no longer had a flat ceiling. It was also

unencumbered by the former arcade that took up

space and blocked views and voices. At the crown

of the brick dome were one semicircular and five

circular skylights protected from the weather by a

wooden monitor roof. Latrobe planned to paint the

underside of the monitor roof with imitation coffers, thus giving it the appearance of a second

dome. In a final sleight of hand, the source of light

feeding the skylights from the roof was hidden

from view.

The floor of the new Senate chamber rested

on the vaults covering the Supreme Court.

Because the Court was only one story high, the

rise of its dome was quite shallow compared with

its span. Latrobe planned to divide the semicircular dome into nine tapering sections with conically

shaped vaults between stone ribs. To build the

vaults, each section would require its own center,

which Lenthall thought was too expensive and

time-consuming. He devised a simpler, cheaper

plan by which a smooth half dome could be constructed without ribs and support the Senate floor

above by means of annular vaults built upon its

haunches. While Latrobe did not care for Lenthall’s

simplified structure, he approved it in deference

to his clerk’s experience. Lenthall had, after all,

devised the centerings upon which all the vaults,

arches, and domes in the south wing were built,

and he knew as much about this type of construction as anyone.

By the end of July, the carpenters completed

the centers in the Supreme Court. Once masons

finished laying bricks on the framework and the

mortar dried, Lenthall began removing the centering but detected an unaccountable warp in the new

arch built against the old east wall. He immediately

raised the centering and allowed the masonry to set

for another two months. On Friday, September 16,

the framework was safely removed from under the

east arch and, despite some suspicious vandalism,

he began dismantling the large frame under the

half dome on Monday. Soon after the centering was

lowered, workmen heard a loud noise—a frightening cracking sound—that sent them scrambling out

windows and doors just before the whole ceiling fell,

bringing down tons of brick and mortar. Lenthall

was the only one who did not make it to safety.116

News of the fatal accident spread through

Washington like wildfire. Even before Lenthall’s

body was recovered rumors were being spread by

North Wing Principal Staircase

Conjectural Reconstruction, 1989

This unusual stone stair was built in the north wing’s oval hall in 1808, heavily

damaged by the fire of 1814, and not rebuilt during the subsequent restoration.

Latrobe’s design was probably inspired by Sir William Chambers’ Navy Staircase

(also called the Oval Stair) located in Somerset House, London. 
84 History of the United States Capitol

Latrobe’s enemies, and the editor of the Monitor,

a friend of the administration, wanted to publish a

true account of the accident.117 Latrobe wrote the

newspaper a few hours after the ceiling fell, saying

that men were at that moment clearing debris hoping to find Lenthall alive—the chance of which

was faint. By the time the piece was published the

coroner had determined that Lenthall’s death was

an accident.118

Despite the tremendous force of the disaster,

the vaults over the Senate chamber were not

injured. The half dome stood firm, presenting an

extraordinary sight when viewed from below.

Latrobe began rebuilding the courtroom as soon as

the rubbish was cleared. Funds were low but a

number of private citizens were willing to cover

the unforseen expense and all the workmen offered

to donate a week’s labor to “render the Mischief

invisible by the meeting of congress.” Instead of a

single arch along the east wall, Latrobe built three

arches carried on stout stone columns and

pilasters. The dome was designed with ribs as he

originally intended. All the material was on hand,

and Latrobe felt the work could be finished in a

month.119 Like so many of his past predictions, this

one also proved overly optimistic.

On December 1, 1808, President Jefferson

transmitted Latrobe’s sixth annual report, the last

of his administration, to Congress. Most of the

report dealt with the north wing, its reconstruction, and Lenthall’s accidental death. Latrobe

blamed the disaster on the two annular vaults carried on the back of the shallow dome that were

intended to support the floor above. These structures literally broke the back of the Court’s ceiling.

In allowing Lenthall to proceed, Latrobe claimed,

his better judgment yielded to arguments of economy. At the close of the 1808 building season, much

progress had been made on rebuilding the Supreme

Court vaults, but they were not finished until the

spring of 1809.120

To continue work on the north wing, Latrobe

asked for an appropriation of $20,000. He also

wanted $25,000 to reconstruct the west side of the

wing containing the Library of Congress as well as

various committee rooms, offices, and storage

rooms. This side of the wing was riddled with rot

and the library was too small for the books already

on hand, which were piling up in heaps.121

Details of the Supreme Court Chamber

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1808

Library of Congress

On September 26, 1808, one week after John

Lenthall was killed by the collapse of the vault over the

Supreme Court chamber, Latrobe finished this drawing

showing how the vault would be rebuilt. Instead of a 

single arch along the east wall, the architect designed a

three-bay arcade carried on columns and piers as shown

in the upper half of this drawing.
Jefferson and Latrobe 85

Latrobe described the facilities provided in his

design for the Library of Congress. It would hold

40,000 books arranged in three tiers against the

walls while two rooms were available for unbound

books, pamphlets, and printed copies of the laws.

A private reading room was provided for members

of Congress. Not said was how magnificently the

library would be lighted through an arched window

facing north, which would not be seen from the

outside. Nor did Latrobe mention that his design

would employ columns with papyrus capitals, battered alcove openings, and other references to the

architecture of the ancient Egyptian world, which

nurtured the arts of paper making and writing.

Most members of Congress would have found the

library exotic and unfamiliar. It was the earliest

American design in what would afterwards be

called the “Egyptian revival,” one of the favorite

styles for nineteenth-century cemeteries, prisons,

and libraries. Latrobe’s library design, however,

never got off the drawing board.

On December 12, 1808, Senator James Lloyd, a

Federalist from Massachusetts, introduced a resolution inquiring into the amount of money

expended on the public buildings in Washington

and asking how much more would be needed to

finish them. The following day, Stephen Bradley of

Vermont offered an amendment confining the

inquiry to the President’s House and Capitol. The

amended resolution passed and Bradley and Lloyd

Design of the

Library of Congress

of the United States

by B. Henry Latrobe

1808

Library of Congress

Aplan at the bottom of the sheet illustrates structural

modifications to firstfloor rooms that were 

necessary to accommodate Latrobe’s new library

room shown in the upper

plan. The most captivating

part of the drawing, however, is the section of the

library shown at the top

of the sheet. In this 

drawing, exotic papyrus

columns, splayed openings,

and cavetto cornices give

the design its Egyptian

flavor. Latrobe indicated

sunlight from a large

north-facing window

spilling from right to left

across the room. To make

the drawing more appealing, there are books on

the shelves, a map above

the fireplace, and framed

pictures between the

alcoves.
86 History of the United States Capitol

joined Samuel Smith of Maryland as members of a

committee appointed to conduct the inquiry.

Thomas Munroe reported that the north wing had

cost $371,388, while $323,388 had been spent on

the south wing. These figures supported Latrobe’s

repeated contention that his professional skill was

responsible for delivering a better building for less

money. But the committee was more interested in

learning about future funding requests. Latrobe

presented these figures in the form of a chart,

which is reproduced below.122

Legislators found the figures frightening. The

country was in the throes of economic depression

brought on by an embargo that closed American

ports to foreign commerce. Customs receipts

dropped 55 percent: the loss to the federal treasury has been estimated at $9.3 million.123 New England was the hardest hit region and her citizens

stirred up loud protests against the administration’s policies. By the opening of Congress on

November 7, 1808, Jefferson had received more

than 200 petitions protesting the embargo; 90 percent were from Massachusetts.124 The administration’s policies, meant to punish England and

France, were barely felt by those nations while

maritime interests at home suffered badly. While

hindsight would show its nurturing effects on manufacturing and industry, the embargo was despised

as an economic and political failure.

The state of the nation’s finances was not

encouraging. On January 5, 1809, when Senator

Andrew Gregg of Pennsylvania reported on a funding bill to complete the wings, the part aimed at

rebuilding the west side of the north wing was

immediately struck out by a vote of twenty to ten.

Twenty thousand dollars was granted for finishing

the Senate chamber and Supreme Court, and an

additional $6,000 was given for carving column

capitals in the hall of the House. Thus, the Senate

withheld about two-thirds of the funds Latrobe

requested. The amended appropriation was

returned to the House, which deferred action until

it passed legislation to strengthen enforcement of

the embargo.

The 10th Congress adjourned on March 4,

1809, but the press of business made it clear that

the next Congress could not wait until fall to meet.

The opening of the 11th Congress was pushed up

to the fourth Monday in May. Anticipating a long

session that might extend well into the summer,

the Senate asked Latrobe to investigate relocation

into a more airy chamber. When the request was

made, the Senate was sitting in a small committee

room on the first floor of the north wing (modern

day S–146 and 146A). While the room was a comfortable accommodation during winter, the

prospect of using it in summer was unpleasant.

Latrobe responded with the idea of building a pavilion in the library space constructed with light frame

walls and boards covered with painted or papered

canvas. Although dilapidated, the library was high

and airy enough to accommodate such a pavilion,

and the room only needed to be cleared of the

chairs and benches left over from the last term of

the Supreme Court.125 Ornamental painter George

Bridport designed and installed the temporary

chamber, receiving $950 for his efforts.126

RETURN TO

MONTICELLO

F or the 1809 building season Latrobe

was granted funds to continue work

in the north wing, to pay for the Senate’s temporary pavilion, and to continue carving

column capitals in the House chamber. Jefferson

signed the appropriation on the last day of his presidency, March 3, 1809. The following day James

Madison was inaugurated in the House chamber.

Although Jefferson remained in the President’s

House another week, he “vacated it without regret,

and with unfeigned joy took the road back to Monticello.” 127 Latrobe’s correspondence with Jefferson

1809 1810 1811 1812 1813 Total

Finish South Wing $6,000 $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 $1,000 $20,000

Paving and Steps $5,000 $3,000 $8,000

Finish South Recess $18,000 $6,000 $24,000

E. Side, North Wing $20,000 $1,500 $21,500

W. Side, North Wing $25,000 $15,000 $40,000

Finish North Recess $30,000 $18,500 $48,500

Center Building $100,000 $100,000 $25,000 $225,000

Landscaping $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $10,000 $25,000

Total $69,000 $66,500 $127,500 $113,000 $36,000 $412,000
Jefferson and Latrobe 87

did not end with the president’s retirement, but

the two men never saw each other again. While

Jefferson maintained his interest in the public

buildings in Washington, he never returned to see

them. His retirement ended the extraordinary

patronage of a president whose involvement in

public architecture remains unequaled in the country’s history. Latrobe’s dealings with subsequent

chief magistrates would be stilted compared to the

cordial, almost fraternal relationship he had 

with Thomas Jefferson. And while they often disagreed on such things as skylights and lanterns,

their six-year collaboration ended in mutual admiration. In a memorable tribute to Latrobe, the

retired president wrote:

I shall live in the hope that the day will come

when an opportunity will be given you of finishing the middle building in a style worthy of the

two wings, and worthy of the first temple dedicated to the sovereignty of the people, embellishing with Athenian taste the course of a

nation looking far beyond the range of Athenian destinies.128

On June 12, 1809, Latrobe assured Vice President George Clinton that there was no doubt that

the Senate would sit in its new chamber at the

opening of the next session of Congress. But he

needed an additional $5,000 to cover the expense

of re-vaulting the Supreme Court and raising the

wooden passage connecting the north and south

wings. Now two stories high, the gangway allowed

passage between the wings on the principal floor

where both the House and Senate chambers were

now located. Ten thousand dollars would also be

needed to buy furniture, carpet, and new draperies

for the Senate. The old desks were not suited to

the new chamber and Latrobe wanted to replace

them with new ones that were double, one desk for

two senators.129 With unusual ease, an appropriation for $15,000 was passed on June 28, 1809, the

last day of the session. Sixteen hundred dollars

was added to cover the higher-than-expected

expense of fitting up the temporary Senate chamber and providing it with furniture.130

Temporary Senate Chamber

by George Bridport, 1809

Library of Congress

For what promised to be a long, hot summer session, Philadelphia architect and

decorative painter George Bridport designed a temporary chamber located in the middle of the Library of Congress. For four months, the Senate met in the elegant pavilion, pitched like a tent in the center of the library room.
88 History of the United States Capitol

One likely reason for Latrobe’s success in

obtaining additional appropriations was the popularity of his “corn cob” columns, which had just

been put up in the east lobby of the north wing. To

carry the weight of the vaulted ceiling, Latrobe

positioned sandstone columns a few inches from

the old walls and designed them with capitals

carved with American ears of corn. Bundled corn

stalks recalled the fluting of a conventional column

shaft and the necking was portrayed as rope. The

corn order was an instant success. It was universally admired because it was undeniably appropriate and there was nothing esoteric about it. It was

beautiful as well. On August 28, 1809, Latrobe sent

the model of the corn capital to Jefferson and told

him that it generated more praise than other, more

splendid works at the Capitol. Congressmen nicknamed it the “Corn Cob Capital” for the sake of

alliteration, he supposed, but he did not think the

name very appropriate.131

Using the corn order in rebuilding of the east

lobby scored a public relations coup. Latrobe

turned a structural necessity into a popular attraction that continues to delight visitors to this day.

Interestingly, the lobby is rarely—if ever—compared with its counterpart in the south wing, which

has no columns at all. There Latrobe was able to

build the vestibule with walls strong enough to

support the weight of its vault without columns. Its

geometry is strong and simple, and ornamentation

is restricted to a few plaster moldings. There are

Corn Column

Perhaps Latrobe’s most popular achievement during his years at the Capitol was his

design for corn columns. Carved by Giuseppe Franzoni from Aquia Creek sandstone,

they were installed in the east vestibule of the north wing during the spring of 1809.

The fluting of a conventional shaft was recalled by bundled corn stalks. On the capital,

husks were folded back to reveal the cob and kernels of corn. (1971 photograph.)

Detail
Jefferson and Latrobe 89

no eye-catching features, yet the spacial experience is eminently satisfying.

By the end of June 1809, the second vault over

the Supreme Court was finished. Plasterers completed their work two months later. Although the

ceiling in the Senate chamber was first reported

uninjured by the collapse of the Supreme Court

vaults, workmen were apprehensive about its 

security. To allay their fears, Latrobe had about

one third of the vault rebuilt and reinforced the

supporting walls. With some of the boldest hands,

his son Henry (who was appointed clerk of the

works following Lenthall’s death) removed the centering on August 25, 1809, “an exertion of industry

and courage which has seldom been equaled by

any set of men.” Latrobe considered the ceiling a

daring feat and told the president that it was one

of the most extraordinary vaults ever attempted.132

The Court was about to take possession of the

first room designed for its use. Since moving to

Washington in 1801, the Court had been accommodated in various ways. It first met in a poorly furnished and inconvenient committee room (modern

day S–146 and 146–A). When work began to rebuild

the interior of the north wing in 1808, it moved to

the library on the second floor. That room was so

“inconvenient and cold” that the Court moved in

the spring of 1809 to Long’s Tavern located just

east of the Capitol. When construction began on its

own room in the Capitol, there was alarm among

real estate investors around Judiciary Square who

had supposed the Court would soon be located

there. Even Jefferson thought the Court’s accommodation in the Capitol was temporary. He thought

the Court would eventually move to Judiciary

Square and its room in the Capitol would become a

court of impeachment.133 But the Court never

moved to Judiciary Square and continued to borrow space in the Capitol until 1935.

The usual scarcity of workmen and difficulty

with delivery of materials caused a brief delay in

the opening of the new Senate chamber, which was

used for the first time on Saturday, February 10,

1810.134 The semicircular chamber was essentially

an indoor theater reminiscent of ancient Greece

and Rome. Latrobe had used a similar plan for the

anatomical theater he designed for the University

of Pennsylvania’s medical school, which was completed in 1806. That, in turn, was based on Jacques

Gondoin’s 1769 anatomy theater at the Ecole des

Chirurgie (School of Surgery), the first á la

antique room in Paris. Latrobe thought Gondoin’s

theater was “one of the most beautiful rooms and

perhaps the best lecture room in the world for

speaking, hearing, and seeing.” 135 From a report by

leading French architects, Latrobe learned that

they considered the shape and form of a domed

semicircle “the best adapted for the purposes of

deliberation.” 136 In 1803 he had proposed such a

room for the House of Representatives and was

overruled by the president. But Jefferson approved

a domed semicircle for the Senate because it was

not too different from the original plan, and it may

also have reminded him of a famous landmark in

his beloved Paris.

In his annual report for 1809, Latrobe again

asked for funds to reconstruct the western half of

the north wing; again he was denied. What was

already under way could be finished, but the country was in no condition to pour money into new

construction when the federal treasury was under

such a severe strain. On January 11, 1810, a committee of the House reported that “it is not deemed

prudent at this time, when a resort to loans may

be necessary for the support of the Government,

that any improvements whatever should be made,

which can be, with any sort of propriety, dispensed

with.” 137 Clouds of war gathered as efforts to force

England and France to respect America’s neutrality failed. First the embargo closed American harbors to all foreign commerce. Then, at the

beginning of the Madison administration, the NonIntercourse Act opened ports to all nations except

England and France. In May 1810, the Macon Bill

No. 2 reopened trade with these two nations but

threatened non-intercourse with one if the other

agreed to respect neutrality. This last measure

practically guaranteed war with one of Europe’s

great powers. None of these efforts would prevent

war, and the economic hardships they brought prevented Latrobe from proceeding much further with

his plans for the Capitol.

For the 1810 building season, Latrobe

requested $77,500 but was granted $27,500. Work

was limited to the columns in the House chamber

and finishing work on the eastern half of the north

wing. The appropriation passed and was signed in

the last hours of the session, so late that Latrobe

had begun to fear that nothing would be given at

all. With so little money Latrobe dismissed all but
90 History of the United States Capitol

six or seven workmen and supplemented the building fund by selling surplus sheet iron, old desks,

and other worn-out furniture. Aggravating the

money problems, Latrobe discovered that furniture

for the Supreme Court could not be charged to the

Court’s contingency fund, but was taken instead

from his building accounts.138

The Italian sculptors were kept busy despite

the scarcity of money. Andrei continued carving

capitals in the House chamber and Franzoni worked

on a figure of Justice for the Supreme Court and

caryatids for the Senate. With two orders of columns

and six caryatids Latrobe’s sculptural program for

the Senate was especially varied and ambitious.

Positioned along the east wall under the visitor’s

gallery, the caryatids were carved figures that personified national prosperity and accomplishment—

Arts, Commerce, Agriculture, Science, Military

Force, and Civil Government.139 Unlike the ancient

caryatids of the Erechtheion in Athens, Latrobe’s

figures did not support the structure above but

stood in front of sandstone piers that did. For the

western entrance to the chamber, Latrobe designed

a screen of four Ionic columns with monolithic

shafts. They were ordered from James Traquair’s

marble yard in Philadelphia and were probably

delivered carved and ready to install. The columns

President’s Chair &c. Senate U. S.

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1809

Library of Congress

This sheet of details includes front and side views of

the canopied rostrum, as well as its framing plans. What

seems to most interest Latrobe, however, is the design

for the tripods (top) intended to hold Argand lamps

flanking the vice president’s chair.

Details of the

upper Columns in

the Gallery of the

Entrance of the

Chamber of the

Senate U. States

by B. Henry Latrobe

1809

Library of Congress

S’pecial guests of the

Senate were accommodated in a small gallery

over the western vestibule

that offered an intimate

view of the proceedings

below. The gallery was

screened by small marble

columns with magnolias

incorporated into the capitals. Formerly thought to

be cotton, the magnolia

design was Latrobe’s second American order. The

magnolia columns did not

survive the fire of 1814.
Jefferson and Latrobe 91

supported a small gallery intended for special

guests that was screened by four dwarf columns.

For these diminutive columns Latrobe designed

his second American order, drawing upon the magnolia flower for the capital. Andrei carved them,

undoubtedly welcoming the change from the

Corinthian order that he had been working on for

three years in the south wing.

For the want of money, very little was accomplished in 1810. In his annual report Latrobe

alluded to some unidentified improvements made

in the Senate chamber, but the plastering on the

east wall was not up and the draperies still had not

been installed. Because the sculptors were mainly

occupied in the south wing, their work in the Senate remained incomplete.140

Despite the economic conditions of the country, Latrobe bravely asked Congress for more

money. The west side of the north wing was so

View of the Capitol from the Northeast

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1810

Maryland Historical Society, Baltimore, Maryland

Latrobe’s elegant drawing illustrates his vision for the Capitol’s completion. A

variation of the center portico, flanking colonnades, and grand stair would eventually

be built. The dome, however, would ultimately be built from a different design.
92 History of the United States Capitol

A. West Elevation of the Capitol

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1811

Library of Congress

B. South Elevation of the Capitol

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1811

Library of Congress

C. West Approach to the Capitol

by B. Henry Latrobe, 1811

Library of Congress

D. Model of Latrobe’s Capitol Design, 1994

Made during the last days of his first Capitol campaign, Latrobe’s studies for the west (garden) front included a design to fill the 170–foot gap

that then existed between the north and south wings. He proposed a rectangular building with a central nine-bay colonnade. It did not shelter an

entrance like its counterpart on the east (carriage) front, providing instead a grand balcony overlooking the city and the Virginia hills beyond the

Potomac. Entrance from the west was through a gate house, flanked by a pair of residences for the doorkeepers of the House and Senate. This

entrance structure was inspired by the ancient Propylaea, the entranceway to the Acropolis in Athens. Between the doorkeepers’ residences and the

Capitol, were private yards where the families could dry laundry and grow vegetables. As seen in both the west and the south elevations, Latrobe

intended for masonry terraces to accommodate the Capitol on its sloping site.
Jefferson and Latrobe 93

riddled with decay that repair was impossible and

funds were sorely needed to begin reconstruction.

Money was also needed to finish the recess, which

was necessary to prop up the sagging corner of

the south wing. Stone platforms would also be

built at the north and south ends, and the sculptors needed to keep working. He also asked that

the building fund be reimbursed the $2,432 spent

to furnish the Supreme Court. Money was needed

to buy glass, repair the grounds, and pay salaries

and contingencies. In all, Latrobe asked for

$47,432 and Congress denied the entire request.

WORK STOPS

On March 3, 1811, the 11th Congress

adjourned without making an appropriation for the Capitol. Work stopped,

such as it was, bringing an end to the first phase of

Latrobe’s Capitol career. Near the close of the next

session, an appropriation was made to clear up

past debts, to complete the sculpture in the Senate chamber, and to pay the return passage of the

two Italian sculptors (which they did not take).141

Latrobe was granted $1,811 for his salary up to

July 1, 1811, when his duties as surveyor of the

public buildings ceased. The legislation styled

Latrobe as the “late surveyor,” which he unaccountably took as a “public stigma.” 142 The appropriation was approved on July 5, 1812, less than

three weeks after the United States declared war

on Great Britain.

Latrobe’s standing among congressmen and

senators was never high. He was accused of extravagance and wasting the public’s money, and all the

facts and figures supporting his claims of economy

could not erase the impression of undue excess.

His estimates, whether for construction costs or

completion dates, were generally misleading. The

commissioners had built a plainly finished wing

that suited the simple taste of most legislators.

There seemed to be no official dissatisfaction in

Congress with the style of the north wing’s interior

finish, but the grandeur of the south wing was

often construed as wasteful, contrary to the American notion of thrift. Legislators generally thought

luxury had no place in the seat of a republican

government. Criticism based on the perception of

extravagance caused Latrobe much uneasiness.

Outside Congress, the Federalist press

attacked Latrobe for a wide range of misdeeds,

including insubordination, incompetence, waste,

and complicity in Lenthall’s death. Latrobe tended

to attribute these articles to Dr. Thornton, but

some were written by other enemies, including

James Hoban and John P. Van Ness, a prominent

local businessman and civic leader. In October

1808, Hoban, using the pseudonym “A Plain Man,”

blamed Latrobe for the faulty design of the vault

that killed Lenthall. Latrobe’s absences from Washington while “arching experiments” were underway were unforgivable, and blaming Lenthall for

his own death was a “mean subterfuge.” He

accused Latrobe of forging ahead with the wholesale reconstruction of the north wing’s interiors,

while ignoring the president’s wish to preserve the

columns and arches from the former Senate chamber.143 This charge was often repeated and troubled Latrobe considerably. The charges appeared

again in 1809 in an article by John Van Ness, who

signed himself “An Humble Citizen.” He accused

Latrobe of not following Jefferson’s instructions in

regard to the north wing and simultaneously

demonstrated that the architect’s enemies did not

lack passion. Van Ness wrote:

Let it not be said that nothing can escape your

covetous grasp. That whenever an appropriation is to be expended, there you are. By turns

the architect; the importer, the commissionbroker; the upholsterer; the carriage purchaser

&c. &c. Now soaring aloft on the cleaving wings

of your transcendent genius; then crawling like

a reptile through the humble dust: alternately

acting the rampant lion, and the fawning

spaniel. Unfortunate versatility, if you please! 144

To reassure himself that he had understood

Jefferson’s wishes, Latrobe wrote the ex-president

asking him to recall the instructions regarding plans

to rebuild the old Senate chamber. Jefferson replied

that inquiries of that nature made “appeals to memory, a faculty never strong with me, and now too

sensibly impaired to be relied on.” Details may elude

him but his general impression was that Latrobe

performed his duties with “ability, diligence, and

zeal.” He was not, however, sufficiently guarded

when it came to money. In the matter of the new

Supreme Court and Senate chambers, Jefferson

was certain that what had been built was from the
94 History of the United States Capitol

plans that he approved. Jefferson continued with

friendly remarks on the architect’s skill, which must

have lifted Latrobe’s spirits considerably:

Besides constant commendations of your taste

in Architecture and science in execution, I

declared on many and all occasions that I consider you as the only person in the U.S. who

could have executed the Representatives

chamber or who could execute the Middle

building on any of the plans proposed. There

have been too many witnesses of these declarations to leave any doubt as to my opinion on

this subject.145

Without building funds the post of surveyor of

the public buildings simply evaporated into thin air.

Informally, however, Latrobe continued to provide

counsel in matters regarding the Capitol. In 1812

he certified the account of John Rea, an upholsterer hired by the Senate to make curtains for its

chamber. Blue and yellow cambric, silk fringe, and

tassels were used to make the window treatments.146 In February 1813 Speaker Henry Clay visited the architect to discuss improvements for the

House chamber and was given a full explanation of

the events surrounding its design and construction. The Speaker was particularly concerned

about the approaching summer session and wanted

to know if something could be done with the skylights. Past remedies for too much light and heat

included throwing canvas tarpaulins over some

skylights or closing others with blinds. During the

summer, nearly 90 percent of the skylights were

partially blocked and the one operable skylight

was totally inadequate for ventilation purposes.

Feeling vindicated, Latrobe said the roof framing

had been prepared for a lantern, and if it were

built, the problems would be solved. There was

also the matter of adding forty-four more seats to

accommodate the increased membership in the

House resulting from the 1810 census.147

Clay asked Latrobe to write his ideas in a

report, which the architect duly sent to the

Speaker on February 4, 1813. All of his suggestions were approved and the House appropriated

$5,000 to put them into effect. But President Madison hired someone else to install the new chamber

floor and nothing was done about the skylights or

lantern because funding would not permit it. Madison told Latrobe that he could not engage him for

work because of his low standing with members.

Latrobe recalled the conversation in a letter written to his business associate, Robert Fulton:

He then said at once, that I was so unpopular,

and such strong prejudices existed against me,

that he could not venture ever to employ me,

altho’ he believed the prejudices to be

unfounded: that nobody doubted my Skill or

my integrity, but that I was thought extravagant, a waster of public money, and all the rest

of the Trash that has as little foundation, as the

stories told of yourself or any other man of talents not generally understood.148

THORNTON SILENCED

T he first session of the 13th Congress

opened on May 24, 1813, with the

House sitting under the glare of the

noonday sun streaming through the skylights that

had given Latrobe so much worry. A month later,

in the splendid courtroom in the north wing,

another of Latrobe’s vexing problems was finally

settled. The case of Latrobe v. Thornton was

decided in the Circuit Court of the District of

Columbia on June 24, 1813, more than five years

after it was initiated. To give their lawyers the

facts of the case, both the plaintiff and defendant

wrote notes with their interpretations of the events

that led to the suit. Latrobe’s memorandum to Walter Jones and John Law was a brief account of his

first meeting with Dr. Thornton in 1798, his opinions on the design of the Capitol, his appointment

as surveyor of the public buildings, and the ensuing troubles. Some details were in conflict with the

sequence of events, but generally Latrobe’s

affidavit was direct and dispassionate. He wanted

his lawyers to concentrate on one particular aspect

of Thornton’s libel and “the rest would come in a

corroborative of the attempt to destroy that professional reputation on which the support of my

family, as well as the peace of my mind, and my

acceptance in society depend.” 149

By contrast, Dr. Thornton’s twenty-three page

note to his lawyer, Francis Scott Key, was rambling and not very helpful.150 Stories in Thornton’s

newspaper attacks, such as Latrobe the chimneypiece carver or Latrobe the Moravian missionary,

were from men who either had recanted or were
Jefferson and Latrobe 95

now dead. To defend the missionary story, for

instance, Thornton wrote:

I heard that Mr. Latrobe came out to this country as a missionary or agent to the Moravians, a

very worthy and religious Sect; but Mr.

Nicholas King being also dead prevents my

proving this, and some other points that would

have borne very hard on Mr. Latrobe’s architectural abilities. But Mr. Latrobe is not

excluded from being an architect by his moravian uniform. However I think I have rather

libeled the moravians by supposing he could

be sent on so honorable a mission.

In another passage Thornton made fun of

Latrobe’s unfortunate luck with vaults and arches

that fell. While accidents did occur, Thornton’s

exaggeration of them was used to question

Latrobe’s claims as a professional architect: 

It is well known the arches of the Penitentiary

House in Richmond fell, the arches at the Treasury office of the U. S. fell twice, & the cost of

that work was 13,940 Dolls. & the estimate only

$8,000! Can an architect make such blunders?

The arch at the Capitol fell, & killed poor

Lenthall! If Mr. King had lived the secret of that

work would have been known & shown to be

Mr. Latrobe’s [fault] & not Mr. Lenthall’s as

Latrobe pretended. The arch at the Secretary

of State’s office fell and after the failure in the

construction of so many arches who can with

propriety call him an arch—itect?

Page after page of similar explanations and

excuses were lightened by puns and double entendres. Thornton sometimes turned to verse:

Description

He’s about six feet two,

Of an ash coloured hue.

His face is of brass—

His Eyes cas’d with Glass

not to see

as do we

But, because they are green—

To prevent being seen.

When e’er he walks bye

He looks in the sky,

Like one in a wonder,

As Ducks do in thunder.

His manners are blunt, 

And his Laugh is a grunt.

A half dozen other poems of similar merit were

incorporated in Thornton’s defense, and it may

have seemed to Key that his client considered a

$10,000 libel suit nothing more than a joke. Indeed,

Thornton proposed to address the court in verse,

following a recital of his “Epitaph” of Moll Turner,

the woman supposedly ruined by the plaintiff:

Judges & Jury of the Court,

I pray that you’ll excuse my sport,

In giving poor Moll’s Epitaph,

And hope I shall have no denial,

In substituting in this trial,

Instead of Fines—a General Laugh!

Year after year, Thornton and Key were able

to postpone the trial by claiming that one witness,

Ferdinando Fairfax, was unable to attend court.

Fairfax was Thornton’s witness to the claim that

Washington had no confidence in Latrobe. After

the delaying tactics could buy no more time, the

case was tried in the summer of 1813 and Thornton was found liable. For unexplained reasons

Latrobe did not press damages, but the moral victory was priceless. The court awarded Latrobe one

cent plus costs. Thornton was silenced at last. But

there would be little time to savor victory. In

November, Latrobe left Washington to embark

upon the next phase of his career, one he hoped

would bring the financial security he longed to

provide his family. As an agent of Robert Fulton’s

Ohio Steamboat Company, he would spend sixteen

months in Pittsburgh, enduring one of the most

disappointing episodes of his life.