Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-02-08

Sensational Testimony Before the Sen.
ate subcommittee

ate subcommittee.
ARCHITECT AvERY's SHARP CRITICISM OF METHODS
N THE SUPERVISING Architects OFFICE
FRERET REPORTED TO HAVE SAID HE WOULD
WRECK The p-D OFFICE
The investigation into the methods and man.
igement OF the Office of the supervising archi-
teet OF the Treasury was resumed yesterday by
the subcommittee Of the senate committee on
public buildings and grounds. There were
present Senators Spooner. Morrill,, Daniels,
Pasco, and Stanford, the first named, chairman
of the subcommittee, conducting the examine
ton Of witnesses
ARCHITECT AVERT A WITNESS.
Mr.. E. T. Avery was the first witness. He
testified that he was an architect. and was en-
ployed in the Office of the supervising architect
OF the Treasury. He had knowledge of outside
work being done by employees of the Office on
public buildings. but he had done none him
self. Mr.. Won inertia, the chief dTaughtsman,
had proposed such work to him. but the wit
ness had at first declined the offer. but subse-
quently, on its being renewed by Mr.. Roberts,
another employe, witness had agreed to it, and
subsequently saw Mr.. Won inertia on the sub
iect. Won inertia told him that it would be
necessary to get
SOME OUTSIDE FRIEND TO TAKE THE CONTRACT.
The witness and Roberts had called
at the Offices of two architects
that same evening, but had not found
them in. and then it was pro-
posed by Mr.. Won inertia, to have the con-
tract taken in the name of the witness son
Austin. a boy Of seventeen, who had spent two
Office. Mr.. Roberts wrote out a proposal
(Which was signed by the witness SOM, but
was not presented to the Secretary of the
Treasury for his approval. The building
MI fna
at Helena, Ark. 1t was to cost S6000O
and the witness was to get for the plans and
drawings $500. The reason why the proposal
was not presented was because witness and
Roberts became
D1sTRUsTFUL AS TO IT'S HONESTY
and propriety They had not been discouraged
by Won inertia; on the contrary, Won inertia had
made similar suggestion to him afterward,
but witness had at once declined.
''To SERVE Mr.. FRERET."
In answer to inquiries as to what interest
Won inertia had in having this work done in this
way. and in resorting to such makeshifts to
evade the law, witness said the understanding
in the Office was that it was to serve
Mr.. Freret, the supervising architect. because
Freret wanted to have the work done in time
to include all of the public buildings embodied
in his annual report, so that when he went
ont of office all of the buildings should be
under contract and his name should appear in
the annual report as the architect.
Witness was asked whether any such
work had been given out in the Office
since this examination began. and stated
it as his understanding that q contract for
plans and drawings had been recently given to
Mr. Pedone. an Italian sculptor and modeller.
Pedone had come from Venice few years ago
and had got position under the last super
vising architect, Mr.. Bell. He was
FRIEND OF THE ITALIAN MINISTER
lala Of Nv Tor
as a sculptor and modelIer. but witness knew
nothing of his qualifications as an
architect or designer of public buildings.
He was told that Mr. Hubbard, typewriter
and stenOgrapher in the Office. had also taken
contracts for furnishing plans and drawings for
public buildings at Tallahassee, Fla. and
StatesviIle. N O. Hubbard was not (strictly
speaking) an architect although he had done
some work in that lne for the Baltimore j.
Ohio railroad company. Witness was inquired
OF as to young Mr.. Freret and said that he was
not an architect and not skilled draughtsman
Sketches had been made on tracing paper for
the Ottumwa Iowa) building and handed over
TO Mr.. Freret. who worked them up on white
paper in order TO send them to the Secretary
for his signature.
no NECESSITY FOR HAVING WORK DONE OUTSIDE
THE OFFICE.
To the question whether there was anv ne
csssity for having these plans and drawings
NO44S OOtsluc VI tuC O14lCt. tue N4lUebS TT pleu
in the negative. The Office force was not SO
crowded as not to be able to do it ALL For a
year and half all the necessary drawings
have not been made in the Office. presumably
on the score of economy. but the failure to do
so put the contractors to great disadvantage
and led to increased cost in the construction
of buildings.
Full-sized detailed drawings are not
furnished. as is the custom in all frst-class
architects Offices in the United States and was
the practice before Gel. Freret took hold of
the Office.
THE ARCHITECTS POSITIVE INSTRUCTIONS
were not to make any fuIl-sized detailed draw
ings in the Office. Going back to the Helena
building, witness said the cost of preparing
the plans in the Office of the supervising archi-
tect would have been about 1870 Witness
said that the interior finish of many of the
buildings Is drawn from stock sheet of a very
inferior design. which greatly reduces the
labor and cost OF preparing the plans con-
tracted for. This system of contracting, Will
lam A. Potter. member of the American In
stitute of Architects. had denounced as
tending to most disastrous state of things
Witness said the architect had sold plans made
IN the office TO contractors all over the coun-
try. becoming common property. One set of
plans that witness had made had been photo
autographed and forty sets sold for 50 apiece
This
HAD NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE
IN the once OF the supervising architect.
The money went into the treasury of tn
United States. The witness had several sug-
gestions to make respecting changes in the or
ganization of the office and the method of Sc
lecting sites for public buildings In the latter
particular. witness said that if anv honest in
dependent man was chosen to select sites he
would wish he were dead before he had chosen
many. In numerous cases commissions of repu-
table. responsible men had been chosen and il
turned out that they were interested in certain
sites.
The committee took a recess until O'Clock.
CIvIL-sEBvIcE REFORM WITH A VENGEANCE.
After the recess Mr.. Avery continued his tes-
timony, and in its course he was severely criti-
cal of Col. Freret's administration Of the Office.
Witness said he had conversed with those who
prepared the civil-service examinations for
Office appointments, and il was their intention
to make the examination so difficult that no
one who would compete could pass The MEN,
Der Of the civil-service board who was to ex-
anime the papers in behalf of the architects
ONCE said that II anyone did succeed in passing
the examination he would be discharged by
COL freret shortly after appointment Witness
said that when Col. Freret was letting out con-
tracts for the plans of buildings there was no
rush OF work in the Office.
OTHER WITNESSES
The next witness was v A. Hubbard an
emplOye who was another of thosa ,rbo +ool.