Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1883-12-05

Ed. PosT iSTxLLroENcER:

Ed. PosT INTELLIGENCE:
l notice in yesterdays Chr01icbe
ding at architects as a class which Is OF
so sweeping a nature and-so far at
least as our local architects are con-
csrned-so utterly false, that l cannot
ALLOW it 10 pass uncontradicted. True,
the Chronicle Is careful to place it in the
clipping" column. thus Striking the
responsibility in some measure: bat l
am, nevertheless. of the opinion that
its insertion indicates a petty spite and
malicious intention on the part either OF
the sheet itself or some of the wire
pullers who, II Is well known. dictate Its
policy IN every wav. and without whose
consent its editor dare not cali his sonl
| his own.
The architect Is paid by commls-
sion on the amount spent. and there
| fore IL Is his interest TO make that
amount as large ~ possible, says the
article in question. Now. every man
who knows anything IL aware that an
architects reputation among those
| likely TO employ him rests, not less on
| his ability to do his work with AS little
expense to the oweer than on his pro-
fessionsl capacity and skill, and. If he
| were to work Ok the line indicated IN
the Chronicle article, he would speedily
find his business falling off as the direct
and inevitable result of such a penny
wise and pound foolish policy. The
| percentage, moreover. II must be re-
| membered. is necessarily but verv
trivial matter Ia him the architect In
comparison with the Importance to the
owner of the building of the sum on
which it (tho percentage is commls-
sion II is therefore clearly matter of
the highest Importance To the architect
to protect his employer. Not only so.
but it would be professional suicide for
him to do otherwise.
Besides, is it not an easy thing for the
owner to limit the amount, and thus
effectually protect himself if he deems
il necessary: ergo the writer of the state
: ment objected to did not know whereof
he was writing.
1T almost invariably happens. adds
\ this wisehead, that the architect is
j paid second commission by those
c whom be employs, and thus becomes
c their slave" Observe that this Is a re-
c Fiction not only on the integrity of ar
{ chltects as class, but on all the bust
: ness men who supply building mate
r rails. Now, AS matter of fact | know
s this statement to be absolutely untrue
c | am satisfied that no architect III Sc
C attic has ever received a cent of such
Judas-wa9e, nor are the upright mer-
. chants of the city capable of pursuing
= such cutthroat way of doing business
!, A. to the conclusion drawn In the clos
c in, words of the above quOtati IN, "ht
c has becomes their slave" its logic is as
= Conspicuous rs its truth-hy its ab
N Sence.
" I'm almost every article used in build
) iug "a house there Is a trade price and 1
general public price," BY the trad,
q price we understand the price at which
h the wholesale d. aler disposes of he ar
nc ticle to the retail dealer, and the publ,
q price means that at which it can be SOLE
to the consumer. This being the case
~ the architect would be guilty of tn
3 grossest injustice aud most unbusiness
4 like tyranny if he Insisted on the OWne
5 of house (whO is the cOnsumer) get
a til.g the goods at the trade" price, a
the Ch,onicie article suggests. here i
such rule AS " Live aud let live" upol
which no one can infringe without ma
terial injury and injustice. Besides
this distinction of prices. ii is to be oh
served, obtains in every branch of com
merce, and is not restricted to the sal
of building materials 10y any ma ,ner O
means.
The closing sentence is SO palp.bl
j. absurd and childish that il does not dc
serve the slightest notice.
In conclusion, sir, let me say that it Al
o CUES but a very shallow brain, and phe
l. nOmenal absence of ordinary jndemen
,! on the part of the individual who make
I; the reprint selections in the Ch,ouicl
r to find him choosing such grossly libel
r. Gus reflections on an honorable and re
d spectacle class of business men, (
whose talent, taste and skill our cit
y owes so much of her beauty and pre-
N eHinence among her rivals. The arti
W Gle, however, Is not credited, and ina
Ia possibly be original. If SO, the offens
~ is the more glaring and unjustifabl,
r Ii it be the outcome of petty persona
1t malice, then it WAS doubtless inserte
X at the instigation Os some one VIII
D. would be glad to SEQ return to til
T. "eheap and nasty" system of "ever
he man his own architect" to the dry
TO goods box style of editioe or the sever
re simplicity of the log shanty.
d, All have to say further is that til
ID whole article is tissue of slanderou
y falsehoOd and the writer a maliciou
re- ignoramus. ARCHITECT.
~ SEATTLE, Dec. 5, 1888.