New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-14
ApCNJTFCTS AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

Nuch interest and satisfaction will be caused
by the announcement that Secretary Gage Is
resolved 10 take advantage Of the Tarsney act
and obtain plans for public buildings by COM
not,ion During the last Administration strong
nrcssuro was exerted to induce the Secretary
of tho Treasury to pursue this course. ana
controvorsy was developed ever the Federal
building at Buffalo which attracted general at
tcntion Mr. Carlisle appeared at first to be
in hearty sympathy with the purpose OF the
act. but either his opinions changed or he saw
difficulties In the way which he did not care
to encounter. 1t may be remembered 'na' 'heie
was sharp correspondence between the "e'ic
tary and the presideE. of the American lhsttu'e
of Architects. which ended abruptly win 'he
formers refusal to hold any further commuhica-
lions on the subject with Mr.. Burnham. Inc
prevailing impression was that Mr.. Carlisle did
not come out Of that engagement with nying
colors. He certainly did not come out OF II In a
mood for yielding 10 the arguments IN 1avor OF
his exercising the authority which the law gave
him though il IS fair to say that he subsequent
ly showed his approval of the general PROPOSE
ton to employ the talents of private archl'ec's
ON public buildings by endeavOring to have the
law modified.
The Tarsney act was never wholly satls1ac-
tory to those best qualified to estimate its merits
though the president of the Institute contro-
versaliy remarked that the only amendment IL
needed was one requiring the Secretary OF the
Treasury TO put it into operation But by that
he probably meant merely t. indicate his sense OF
the importance OF making a beginning. The act
certainly has defects one Of which Secretary
Gage has found somewhat embarrassing. There
is no provision for defraying the expense to which
unsuccessful competitors will he put in making
plans and specifications AMI It was apprehended
that this risk of loss in money as well as time
might prevent the adoption Of the new system.
But upon an official representation OF the case
leading architects have expressed a willingness
10 compptc and trust to Congress to reimburse
them for their outlay Secretary Gage there
upon has announced his intention TO solicit the
submission of designs for the next important
building which the Government is required 10
erect. and the Tarsney act will therefore he put
Oh trial before long.
This Is Il welcome outcome or the pr0tracted
effort to raise the standard Of Government archi-
lecture and the first practical operation under
the law will be watched with deep interest by
intelligent citizens. 1t cannot be disputed that
the old system has dotted the country with pub
lie buildings which are not merely ugly. but i'll
adapted to the purposes that they were meant
TO serve: though it would DE unjust to lay all or
even most Of the blame upon the Supervising
Architects of the Treasury under whose dlrec-
ton they have come into existence. The fault is
rather with system which may have answered
well enough in an early period of our history
but which was long ago Ouigrown 1t was never
intended that the head of the office, presumably
a man Of rank in his profession. should he alb
sorbed in administrative details, while TO his
draughSmen was ntrusted Of necessity the task
Of making new designs or working out more or
less unsuccessful variations Of old models.
That. however to great extent. has come to be
the unavoidable practice Of the office The re-
ouirements of Federal business have grown
enormously, and the most eminent architect in
the world could not achieve satisfactory results
if hampered by such conditions as surround the
Supervising Architect of the Treasury.
II the new system which Secretary Gage in
tends to initiate should avail merely to improve
the quality of Government buildings. making
them credit 10 the country instead Of the re-
verse It's introduction would be most commend
able But 1t Is confidently believed that 1t will
also diminish the cost and expedite the process
of construction. There Is no obvious reason
why private experience should not be repeated
in the Government service. II the architect whose
design has been accepted is held to similar re-
sponsibllity Following the controversy in
which Secretary Carlisle was involved three
years ago. The American Architect" printed a
detailed comparison obtained from a variety OF
| sources, by which it appeared that there Ia an
average difference In cost Of more than 60 per
cent IN favor Of private buildings and Of from
| 300 TO 800 per cent in time. Even If large
deduction from these figures be made-whch
| we do not by any means assume TO be neces-
| sary-there will still remain an ample margin
| TO justify the belief that the new method will
be not less profitable than credltable to the
country.