Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1892-04-10
ARCHITECTS REPLY.
rney HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT THE
LleRARy-HuiLclNo CONTRACT.
The Points Made By Messrs. Flournoy'
Hsrmsn. snd Ruf1,u in Their Answer
Taken Up and Reviewed ssriatim.

tcrfav morning discussing the terms OF tue
contract with the architect. Yesterday
afternoon the architects Of the city and
other portions of the State who protested
against the action Of the majority OF the
board in appointing an architect for the
building, adopted the following answerto
tho reply of Mcssrs. Flournoy, Ruffiu. and
Hartman to their protest:
To ne p,.bfic.--The undersigned were led
TO make public protest against the action
of the Library Commission in great part py
the criticisms and representations OF
their friends. That our complaint was
well founded is evident from the nearly
support given 10 our contention by many
of the leading newspapers OF the State. IL
was not then our desire, nor is it now. to
engage in any controversy over tue mat
ter. but there is one paragraph IN Lne
answer" of Messrs. flournoy, hufnn.
and Hartman which cannot be passed I'M
noticed. 1t is this
I'VE had no reason to believe that
resident Virginia architect would be Sc
lected in open competition on the supIis.
sion of plans in view OF the fact tnat
foreign architects had been selected py
the State of Virginia as architect OF the
Southwestern Lunatic Asylum, Mhrion'
Va, and Western Lunatlc Asylum. otaun-
ton: by the city of Richmond Tor tne
erection of the new City Hall; by me
Masons of Virginia for the erection OF the
Masonic Temple on Broad street IN tais
city. and by the Commonwealth Cluo ior
the erection of It's clubhouse on Franklin
street. and by the railroad authorities tor
the Union Depot in this city,
ARE vIsoTNIAYs SHUT QUIZ
The oninion of these gentlemen. i'm
nlied ty their selection of Mr. Poindexter,
Of Washington, is here more plainly ex-
pressed: III their opinion. there Is not
within the borders of the Commonwealth
an architect competent to design OF erect
this State building. we are gag we Ia,e
the point presented thus bluntiy anu ui-
rectly. satisfied that no lover or lustice
will snnrove such condemnation without
hearing. :,
The gentlemen practically say to us:
You have competed for several buildings
and none OF you have succeeded; there-
fore YOU shall not try again. NO matter
how much Improvement IN your art you
make hereafter. no matter against what
odds YOU contended before, the honorable
path of emulation must iemain ciosed 10
YOU" oh;too
tural CONNECTION is not always satisfactory.
not because of anything inherent IN the
principle of such competitions, but De-
cause the conditions ere not always PLAIN
lv enouph stated or strictly enough ad-
bered TO. The competitor who Is too care;
ful to keep within the limit OF cost lard
down is often outstripped by the brilliant
designer who IS not so particular ABOUT the
cost. Yes A competition Is always I'M
satisfactory to the unsuccessful compeu-
tors. but we did not realize before the
g. a c0mnQtltlOn
NOT winnine-it seems to be debarred from
further effort.
A number of cases are cited In support
of the allegation of incompetency OF VIZ.
gipia architects, because IT IS alleged that
IN all those cases foreign architects were
preferred over those resident. Let us ex-
anime them: A,
/. There was no competition for the
Union Depot. What private corporation.
Controlled to a great extent by foreign
capital, may choose to do IN such case
NAV give occasion for the free expression
OF private opinion; 1t Is not matter Tor
public complaint.
There was no competition for the Com
monwealth Clubhouse. The gentlemen
having this matter in charge were pleased
TO 90 to New York for the services OF
firm of architects of national reputa-
ton" having offered such sum to seye-
raj resident architects for the submission
of plans that the offer. We are glad to saw,
was declined with unanimity and thanks.
WE'RE IN GOOD COMPANY.
3. The Masonic Temple was. 1t is true,
carried OF by Baltimore architect. The
building is now notable ADDITION 70 ,he
architecture OF Richmond, but Its cost has
been considerably in excess of the limit
nader which plans were invited. There
were three Virginia competitors for this,
and il NAV be stated that the building ac-
cording TO the plans of any one OF these
couId have been erected within the limit
named. Paronthetically it may be men,
toned that MIR. Poindexter. the Library
Commissions appointee, was an unsuc-
cessful competitor. for this Work. as was
also Mr.. Myers, the northumberland
architect for the new City Hall: so that
the defeated resident architects were in
good company in this instance.
4. The new City Hall competition was
widely advertised. 1t was an affair of
magnitude, the actual cash outlay IN
yolyed in the preparation and submission
of plans mounting well up to $1,000. At
that time competition was comparatively
new to Virginia architects. 1t IS not there
fore to be wondered at that there was but
one resident architect with temerity
enough to contend. in this case, with
many who would doubtless be much bet
ter equipped and TO whom competitions
before municipal committees were almost
IA daily food. The architect whose plans
we're selected must have known. If he
made any estimates at all, that the build
ing could not be erected for any such sum
as the limit named by the prospectus.
5. For the asylum at Marion there was
but one resident competitor. His plans
were favorably considered and he was IN
r "a IL HIT xxvog Tnh no hfty
only his inability to be present which lost
the award to him.
6. The asylum at Staunton was not
opened to competition. -,
So much for the record upon which the
gentlemen base their opinion OF resident
Virginia architects. AS an Offset. instances
might be given, If we were disposed TO
seek this method Of free advertising, when
Virginia architects have met and van
ouisned, in open competition, architects
from other States.
WANT TO AVOID PERSONALITIES.
The gentlemen also say in their "an-
swer" that 1.-THE suggestion that Mr..
Poindexter IS an outsider and not tax
payer is ill-considered and ungenerous."
we beg TO state now. what ought to have
been apparent upon reading of our pro-
test. that nothing personal to anybody was
intended by us, and certainly no reflection
upon AIR. Poindexter (who Is personally
known to most of us) either as gentle
man or as an architect. The introduction of
Mr.. Poindexter's name in the "answer" of
Messrs. Flournoy, Ruffin, and Hartman must
be the excuse for its appearance here.
Still the fact remains that Mr.. Polndexter.
although Virginian by birth and by the
baptism of blood, Is yet, for present pur-
poses, an outsider" just as really as
those among us who are not Virginians by
birth but have become so by adoption, are
for those purposes residents" The lat
ter have cast their lot with the fortunes
of Virginia people. MIR. Poindexter has
chosen to sever his from them. There Is.
perhaps, no one among Us Ito the man.
ner born" who, if be had chosen to do
the same. could not have found bet
ter opening for his talents and 9
more ample pecuniary reward else
where. as possibly Mr.. Poindexter has
done. Mr.. Poindexter is to be con-
graduated upon being the owner OF pro-
perty upon which taxes are paid either in
this State or elsewhere. The taxes we
intended to call attention to were rather
those direct and personal taxes, which are
imposed upon US as architects and as Viz
glnians--the fee for q license to practice
the profession Of an architect and the in