Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-28
Government Architecture.
By Glenn Brown, F. A. l. Al

| a. i. a.
| From Public Opinion.
| Although a number of the buildings erect
ed by the United States in Washington city
are designed by private architects. by far
the larger portion of government archi-
| tectural work is performed by the supervis-
| ing architect of the Treasury Department.
| He has charge of all post Offices custom
houses and United States court houses.
| of the country to the other, where they
| can sow broadcast the good or evil that
| may be in them. Before February 10 1883,
! the legal existence OF the office of the SUI
| pervising architect depended on the appro-
| priation bills from year to year
| Committees of the Senate and House and
| private investigation have clearly shown
| that these government structures compare
| unfavorabiy with buildings OF a similar
character erected by private individuals.
| The following facts have been established:
"a The architectural service of the office
costs about one-half more than the service
| of the most skilled architect.
CD The buildings have cost about ca per
cent more than private ones, which means
a loss to the government of $61 100000 since
the organization of the office.
CO Their erection has taken triple and
quadruple the time which it takes to erect
private buildings. This means loss of rent
impossible to estimate.
% The production of the inferior de-
signs which are made in this office involves
the ignoring of one of the greatest levers
we have for elevating and cultivating the
taste of the people.
There can be no reason for such state
of things except improper business meth
DDS. only men with a small practice can
afford to accept the position of superin-
tending architect, and as the architects
time is. occupied with routine and clerical
work, the most brilliant man would be
unable to produce good results. The rem
edy is easy of application. Only the best
should emDONed
should have many buildings in charge at
one time. The services of efficient men can
only be secured in the way individuals OBJ
tain Them either by direct employment or
by legitimate competition. In both cases
expert advice is necessary, and the merits
of the selection can only be measured by
the honesty, capacity education and fitness
of the parties making the award.
The committees on public buildings and
grounds of the Senate and House, in CO.
operation with the American Institute of
Architects, drafted the TarSney bill, which
became a law February 20, 1893. The OBJ
ject of this bill was to throw the govern
,nent work open to competition. The law
was not mandatory, and the Secretary of
the Treasury had the power to continue in
the old way to make use of the new
law. He declines to permit the law to
operate unless notifications are made
which he thinks necessary to perfect it.
During the last session of Congress the
McKaig bill formulated on the lines
suggested to overcome these objections.
The Tarsney bill allows the Secretary to
formulate his own regulations for COMPETE
ton and the selection of competitors. The
McKaig bill describes in detail the charac-
ter of the jury and the limitations on the
competitors. Although either the present
law the Mckaig bill if once in operation
would produce results superior to the pres
ent work of the office. neither goes to the
root of the matter.
The beauty of government buildings is
so easily enhanced, perfected or married by
the landscape work and the character and
grouping Of works of art which surround
them that all these branches should be
under the control of one department. We
should have a department of fine arts, not
to design, but to select and represent the
government in all matters of art. This de-
partment should he composed of architects
and artists, nominated at stated periods by