Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-03-05
GOVERNMENT ARCHITECTURE
The New Law Explained and Defended by
an Architect.
An Absence of Hostility to the Office
of the Supervising Architect-The
Force of DrauEhtsmen.

The movement in the direction Of improv-
ing the architecture of public buildings Is
centc-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 AMI 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 couhly 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 or less criticised,
and good many statements made in re-
gard TO its effect and to the moti-es which
led to its pelnS enacted into 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.. Hill is
member of the American Institute of
Architects, 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
vlsing architect Of the Treasury Depart
ment. 1T has been said" remarked Mr.
Hin, that this bill is framed in a spirit of
hostility to the supervising architects Of
nee IhiS is, of course, un true The original bill
OF which this is the outcome was prepared
by Mr.. James II. Windrim, who held the
office of supervising architect two or three
years ago, and who in his annual report
favored the idea of competition This Dlan
or relieving the supervising architects s Office
or the work of designing the leading public
buildings of the country is not a new one
Mr.. William 4. 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
1875. 'e'i
fs.nu nx,T
lie said then that the method in vogue for
preparing designs of public buildings had
many radical defects. He believed that the
'ilal point or any system which might be
adopted must be to remove the power from
.he supervising architect and restrict his
duties simply to those of a supervisory m
tu"e Among other reasons advanced for
thls change, Mr.. Potter stated was the
itlitiense amount OF routine work which oc-
cuples the attention of the supervising arcb-
ltect: The very nature of the duties which
ueFoNe upon him, and the fact that he is
at no time free from interruption laavas
MN no opportunity for the proper srudI, of
tne designs which he is required to make
III my report of the year 1876 | called
attention TO these recommendations of a.
fotter, and expressed my hearty conc',r'
renee IN them. The change proposa1 l.,
inns law would simply relieve the sunervis-
ing architect of duty which he absolutely
Suppose, for example that the aasirps
ana plans for all the large public bui;din~c
We're prepared outside of the office Of tI %
supervising architect. There would he stiu
~ .ti. large volume OF work demanded by
the necessary repairs and alteration x,l,icb
are constantly being made in existing build
lngs, in the supervision of the erectio, Of
the large buildings planned by private
archllects, ana IN addition the erection of
great many small buildings / imagine
that 1t would be necessary to retain. n ms
law should go into effect considerable
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 II wouIi
hardly go below that limit
Entirely UnseIfsh.
There is another point which is somo-
times made. and that is the architects who
are urging this measure are doing SO
because they hope to gain some profit from
1t in the way of commissions Their mo-
uVes, however, are entirely unselfsh, 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 building at
the fair; Mr.. McKim of McKim. Meade
ana White. who designed the agricultural
building; Mr., Post, the liberal arts buid-
ing; Mr.. Peabody of Peabody and Stearns
the machinery building, and Mr. Adler Of
Adler and Sullivan, the transporta zion
pulldlng. 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 II. I 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 architectura
OF this country. 1t is believed that publi,
sentiment Is on the side of this law There
is no hostility on the part of it's advoc,,es
towards any one. There is a friendly re-
gard felt for the supervising architect, and
II Is mistake to suppose that those who
are IN favof OF the law are arrayed either
against the supervising architect or his
ONCE. As have stated. the law will rot
aboiish the Office of the supervising archi-
tect nor do away with the custom of en-