The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-31

Some local monument builders and art
critics are unhappy because the regents of
the soldiers monument have intrusted the
completion of the work to Mr. Bruno
Schmitz, the original architect. AS every
departure from Mr. Schmitz's designs has
resulted in marring the monument or its en-
vironments, some of which are now being
corrected at considerable expense, there
should be general approval rather than
criticism of the action of the regents in
finally intrusting him with the work of
carrying out his original plans. Those
plans included the fountains they will be
when restored, and the groups representing
War and Peace" All these were in
tegral parts of the monument as originally
designed in the brain of the architect, and
If the harmony of the work is TO be pre-
served they should be restored in their en-
tirety. The proper thing to have done was
to have provided for the placing of the
WAR" and Peace" groups in position
when the monument reached that stage in
its construction. If this had been done
there would have been no question as to
the propriety of employing Mr.. Schmitz to
execute and supervise the work. and the
board would have saved considerable
money. The postponement of this part of
the work and the effort by the former
board to have it done in bronze instead
of stone, as the original design contem-
plated, has caused needless expense and the
present criticism. The latter is based part
Nv on legal and partly on technical grounds.
First. it is charged that the regents vio-
lated the law in employing Mr.. Schmitz to
furnish the War" and Peace" groups.
Section g. of the law of 1887, providing for
the erection of the monument, is as fol-
lows:
II shall not be lawful for any member
of the board. the architect, superintendent
or secretary. to be directly or indirectly m
terested in or to derive any profit from
any contract, employment or purchase con-
nected with the monument or with the &C
tion of the board. nor shall either of the
above-named officers be the owner or in
terested. in any claim against the board or
state growing out OF the erectlon OF sald
monument. other than FOR their cOmpenSa-
ton for their services. Any OF the above
named officers violating the provisions OF
this section. or corruptly using his official
position shall be deemed guilty of a felony,
and upon conviction shall be fined in any
sum not exceeding $1,000. to which may be
added Imprisonment III the state pIiSoiA Loi
any term not exceeding two years.
The law also provides that the architect
whose plans were selected should be SUI
pervising architect in the construction of
the monument. 1t is contended that under
these provisions the present board had no
right to employ Mr.. Schmitz, the architect
and supervising architect of the monument,
to make the War and Peace" groups.
But Mr. Schmitz's contract with the old
board ended in 1894, when, owing to re-
peated departures from his plan by the
board he resigned So far as the present
board is concerned he was an entire
stranger and as free 10 contract for the
groups as any other artist. The evident
meaning and intent of the section quoted
Is that no member of the board nor the
architect should profit corruptly in the way
of commissions, relates, percentages or
anything of that kind from any contract in
connection with the monument. 1t would
be a very forced construction to make it
apply to the employment of the original