Evening star., 1894-03-05
GOVERNMENT ARCHITECTURE
The New Law Explained and Defended by
an Architect.

The movement in the direction Of improv
ing the architecture of public buildings is
cente-ed largely in the bill which became
law about one year ago. and which author
ICES the Secretary of the Treasury to obtain
from private architects designs ana plans
for public buildings. Since this measure
was placed on the statute books the proper
method for CARRYING the law into execution
has been considered both by the architects
of the country and the officials of the Treas
ury Department So far no plan has been
agreed upon and the authority conferred by
the law has not vet been exercised by
the Secretary of the Treasury.
The bill has been more less criticised,
and good many statements made in re-
gard to its effect and to the motires which
led to its nelng enacted into a law. An in
teresting opinion of both of these phases of
the question was given today to a Star. re-
porter by Mr.. James G.. Hill. Mr. Hin is
member of the American Institute of
Archltcc's, an organization which mas been
prominent IN advocating some measure of
this character, and he was also for several
years at the head of the office of the super
Vising architect of the Treasury Depart
ment. 1T has been said" remarked Mr.
Hill, that this bill is framed in spirit of
hostility to the supervising architects Of
nee. This is,of course untrue. The original bill
| or which this is the outcome was prepared
by Mr. James H. Windrim, who held the
once or supervising architect two or three
years ago. and who in his annual report
favored the idea of competition This plan
OF relieving the supervising architects Off %
OF the work of designing the leading public
DuliulnsS OF the country Il not a new one
Mr.. William A. Potter, who Is one of the
leading architects in New York CITY. when
ne was supervising architect discussed this
matter in his annual report for the wear
1879. e 'eai
radical Defects i'm Present Method.
He said then that the method in vogue for
preparing designs of public buildings had
many radical defects. He believed that the
vital point of any system which might he
adopted must be to remove the power from,
| the supervising architect and restrict his
duties simply to those of supervisory ma
ture. Among other reasons advancaJ s.
thls change, Mr.. Potter stated NC ~
immense amount of routine work which o.
teupies the attention of the s,,pervisinc q -
1e',o; ne very nature of the duties which
| ueFoiVe upon him, and the fact that he e.
at no time free from interruntiop ,o 20
MN no opportunity for the proper stuSI, -
| the designs which he is required TO nal. VI
a.tan.,S my report or the year 1876 1 called
attention TO these recommendations os ~
fotter, and expressed my hearty coro',,.
renee In them. The change pronocad a.
.hls law would simply relieve the sunerviSi
rs oiehieect OF a duty which he absolutaIy
mas not the time to perform
suppose, for example. that tbe d,s,,r.,z
anu plans Tor all the large public buiidin.rS
were prepared outside of the office of tbs
SuperVlslng architect. There would he stiII
leIt large volume of work demar5a5 ~
the necessary repairs and aItera tinrs i y
are constantly being made in existing hrIIa
lnSs, In the supervision of the erectio, of
lne large buildings planned by private
architects, and in addition the erection oe
great many small buildings / Imagine
that 1t would be necessary to retain. If fhis
law should go into effect a considero HE
percentage of those employed in the
draughtman's division. Perhaps the force
would be decreased fifty per cent in The
| course OF the next year or So but il would
hardly go below that limit
Entirely UnseIfsh.
There Is another point which is somn
| times made, and that is the architects who
are urging this measure are doing So
because they hope to gain some profit from
IL IN the way of commissions Their mo-
tives, however, are entirely unselfish. and
no one would doubt this for an instant
who knows the men who are the most
active in forwarding this measure. For
example, there is Mr.. Hunt, who was the
architect of the administration buildiny of
the fair: Mr.. McKim of McKim. Meade
and White, who designed the agricultural
building; Mr.. Post the liberal arts build
ing MI PEABODY OF Peabody and Stearns
the machinery building, and Mr. Adler of
Adler and Sullivan, the transportation
building. These are leading men in the
profession, and their business is of such a
character that it is not necessary for them
to lobby bill through Congress in order
to increase IL / have omitted to mention
Mr.. Burnham, the president of the institute.
VINO was the architect in charge of the fair
The only motive for favoring this law
Is the one which is advanced. and hat is
the improvement of the public architecture
or this country. 1t is believed that public
sentiment is on the side of this law There
is no hostility on the part of it's advocates
towards any one. There is friendly re-
gard felt for the supervising architect, and
1t Is mistake to suppose that those who
are in favor of the law are arrayed either
against the supervising architect or his
office. AS l have stated. the law will rot
abolish the office of the supervising archi-
tect, nor do away with the custom of en-
ploying large force of draughtsmen."
GEORGETOWN'S COLLECTOR.