The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1895-07-03
DISCIPLINE FOR TWO.
Architects Punish ReereantS
to the Code.
QUEEN ANNE SCHOOL THE CAUSE
Directors Criticised for Unfairness-
Views of Mr.. King and Mr..
MacDougali.
QUEEN ANNE SCHOOL THE CAUSE

The council OF the Washington Chapter
OF Architects yesterday took decisive ac-
ton in reference 70 the conduct OF two OF
its members in having submitted bids for
the Queen Anne school building meet
ing was held IN the Office Of c. c. Evers.
in the New York building. and eonsidera-
ton had on complaints made against two
members who had submitted plans in COM
petition for the school building On the
statement Of facts both were expelled for
unprofessional conduct. The grounds of
this action are that one OF the two men
took part in the meeting at which sugges-
tons had been drawn for the guidance of
the board of education. and had even made
certain tons. while the other,
after the resolution had been adopted,
was furnished with copy and assented
10 the provisions in every particular.
The designations claimed TO have been
sent to the chapter were not received in
due form. nor were they received until
after the plans had been submitted. Con-
seQuently they were not accepted. The ac-
ton OF the council will be sent to the sec
rotary OF the American Institute, at Prov
idence, r. ].
In addition TO disciplining the two men,
bers. the council also expressed its disap-
prevail OF the action Of the board OF educa-
ton in allowing changes TO be made in the
plans after they had been filed with the
secretary. The following statement, signed
by George W. Billiard, of Tacoma, presi-
dent. and Charles W. Saunders, of this
city. secretary. was prepared for publica-
ton in the Post-IntehigenceT
ITO the Editor: In your last Mondays
issue you published an article concerning
the new Queen Anne school, in which the
Washington State Chapter of the Amer
lean Institute of Architects was refererd
r4ose sc
TO find its name brought in in connection
with this matter. and denies the state
ment made as 10 there being any three
cornered fight in which ii was a partici-
pant. Since the name of the chapter has
been mentioned. il seems timely that an
explanation of its position towards the
competition should be made. The board
OF education instructed its secretary to is
sue invitations 10 the architects of this
city, large majority of whom are MEM
bers OF the chapter. The terms of the IN
vitation appeared so vague and indefinite
and so absolutely one-sided that meeting
OF the chapter was called TO consider the
subject. and a paper of suggestions was
drawn up and submitted to the board OF
education through committee appointed
for the purpose.
1.-THE suggestions had In view placing all
architects on an equal footing by asking
for more definite instructions regarding
arrangement. size of rooms. heating. ven
tlating, etc; the appointment of an ex-
perienced Judge, who might assist the
board In it's decision, and the adoption OF
the secret system by which the names
OF the authors OF the plans should remain
unknown 10 the judges until the award
had been given. thus doing away with any
possibility OF fayoritism and unfairness.
by adopting these resolutions the
board would have obyiated all the objec-
tionable comment and criticism which
have necessarily developed through the
award OF the competition under its orig
inal Invitation. The school board had
plenty OF time 10 act upon the sIgges-
tions as a reference 70 dates viii show.
I'm Offering the suggestions the Wash
ington State Chapter was merely carry
ing out one Of the objects for which its
members are associated. II is in no way
antagonists to public interests, but on
the contrary IL seeks TO offer such sug-
gestions that, as in matter of competi-
ton, the best indeas may be brought out
on the fairest basis and that judgment
may he given by impartial men in the
same profession, they being the only com
petent judges of an architectural drawing
in ell It's phases.
The chapter regrets that any of it's
members or indeed. any architect. should
have submitted plans upon conditions so
unfair both TO the competitors and to
IL Is understood that the two members
referred 10 are William II. Wilcox and
A B. Chamberlin. although the officers
OF the chapter refuse TO reveal their
names.
As to the plans having been opened TO
the public before the contract was award
ed. School Director King said vest erday:
II do not see what possible objection
any architect could have TO allowing the
public 10 sec his plans after they were
placed on file with the secretary OF the
hoard. They were then public property,
TO all intents and purposes.
What I object TO Is the way the firm
Of Skillings & Corner was allowed the
privilege OF altering the plans submitted
50 as to suit the requirements Of the peo-
pie or Queen Anne Hill. while no other
bidders were allowed the same privilege.
7 feel that Il is a great injustice 10 all
the other architects who submitted plans
and specifications in good faith not 70
have given them an equal chance with
the successful firm l have nothing 10
say particularly against the architects.
but i do not think the other firms were
given "A fair ShsS."
J. r. MacDouEstil indignantly denied
having allowed Sklllngs & Corner the
privilege OF changing their plans
20 meet any requirements. He said
I'VE were suited with the plans sub
ynitted by this firm. and concluded 10 To
Rprf IN It's FAVOR. me main S*oFN or the
plans ia satisfactory. and OF course we
reserve tlae right 20 make any alterations
we think necessary. and 20 this Skiliugs
| 4 Corner agree. The roof IS TO be raised
! and some other changes made TO suit the
ueorle on the hill, Who certainly ought
| 10 have something 20 say about the mat
ter We are trying 70 treat them and all
| ssounNrted IN fair and upright manner.
Any unprriu8iced architect will say that
| we have picked the very best plan sub
| rnitte-i The whole transaction was reE7l-
/ lar. and tho criticisms made Ivy the un-
: suc~esSfSIl architects are not IN good taste
or fcurded on facts"
/ TIE terms Of the contract state that
,he successful firm 81 architeces shall re
! cesve IN return for furnishing plans and
/ Sg~rldoations per cent. OF the gross cost
/ OF the building.