New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-03-06

\ An
TIE TARsNEY LAW NOT ENFORCEp-KEASoNS
. WHY IT SHOULD NOT De REfhNLLp'
Washington. March (SpeciaD-AlthtuSh 1t IS
wei understood that tho sup ryiiiAg Arcnitect "l
the Treasury, jeremiah ORcurkc cf Newark. ~ D.
&c decidedly opposed 10 the execution Ct the Tarsnfy
law Of last year. providing an expert supervision
Of all plans r Government buldif g. ard has urged
Secretary Carlisle to ask the repeal Of tAe Ia" d!
Congress the Secretary has as yet taken no formal
steps 70 annul the act and is provisions are c'hSs-
ouentiy as binding upon the architects once as
ever Indirectly, however. the law he's been prac-
tic,llv nulnsd by the failure Of the Treasury Dc
partrent SO far TO submit FIR approval 10 the Ame!-
can institute Of Architects any plans whatever for
new public buildings.
MIR C'Kcu rlSe, Of course. regards the new law as
menace - the growth and expansion Of his own
burssu for he believes that The Tarsney bill Will
lead eventually the preparation Of all plans Ter
public buildings b. outside architects. and the I'M
fation CT government work II mere alterations ana
repairs Secretary Carlisle is inclined to support
Ny O'Rovrke in his contention that the Treasury
architects should continue 10 do all the Government
work as formerly; but the pressure q artistic ana
enlightened public opinion may do mucn at this
junc;ure II remove the Sec-2tary's prejudices and
prevent his recommending the repeal Of a law oo-
vicusly passed in the interest OF hSaer Pdo!c
taste.
Tire Ta-sney bill has been more less criticised
br Government architects here. and s Cd many
statements have been made in regard 10 its effect
ana TO the motives which led 10 IFS berS enacted into
law IN instructive and apparently unbiased opin-
an the rnc;iv,s urde:l, rg the measure and its
pro5abie results Is contained in tire following state
rnent made o. James G. Hi, member Of tie Amer
icln Institute Of Architects, ana also for several
years the hccd Of the office Of the Supervising Archi-
tect Il the Treasury:
been said that the Tsrsnsy bin is framed in
once. Th!s Is untrue. The original bll q when
rms wine the ed the w cd % by rce
two three years age and VINO In his annual re-
Relieving the supervising Arehec,'s icc Of the
work of designing the leading prbl;c buildings If The
is of the leading architects IN New-York City,
when he was Surprising Architect discussed this
said tnen that the method In vogue for preparing de-
H believed that the vital point Of any system which
might be adopted mus; be 10 remove the power from
simply to these of supervisory nature
~, am9 3 other reasons advanced for this change.
routine work when occupies the attention Of the
Spss sing, AaSh;ec' Inc very nature Of the
ne is at no time free from in'er:gption eaye him
X rsaara S'Y make ' my report SSTS Of
Ie5p c1sq attention ten to l5ese
% woaS in them Fs fh n in this
tect OF duty which he absolutely has not the
and that is that the architects who are urging
this measure are doing because they hope 10
gain some profit from it in the way Of commits
slons: Their motives however. are entirely un-
selfish. and one would doubt this Cor an in
slant who knows the men who are the most active
IN forwarding this measure For example. there
is Mr.. Hunt. who the architect of the Ad-
ministration Building at the Fair Mr.. Mckm, OF
McKim, Meade & White. who designed the Agr
cultural Building; Mr.. Post. the Liberal Arts
Building; Mr.; Peabody. Of Peabody & stearns the
Sullivan the Transportation Building. These are
leading men in the profession, and their business
is of such character that it Is not necessary
for them TO lobby bill through Congress in order
TO Increase It, l have omitted 10 mention Mr.
Burnhsm, the president Of the Institute. who was
the architect In charge of the Fair. The only
advanced, and that is the improvement Of the
that public sentiment is on the side OF this law