New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-11-03
TILE CESTOM House AWARD.

THE CIE1OU HOT 81 ~ ihDs
Thouph the announcement of Secretary
cauo,n tn., decision In the matter of the new
Crs,or, IIouse plans has been deferred until
+o.dar tberc seem TO be substantial reasons for
ho,iovinc that thc aware to Mr.. Cass Gilbert
mill stond No one who knows the character
of tho influential recommendation sent TO inc
Secretary by the New-York Chapter of the IN
srtute of Architects after Its special mee'ihg
on Wednesday evening Is willing to pr drec''!
ouotod nm The subject but it Is strongly in
,mated here and confidently reported from
yyosb,ngton that the chapter advised against
rororsol If tho award. and we do not hesitate
% coy after a careful consideration Of all the
,,ro,rr focts in the case that such advice would
he iudicious and should he decisive. The moral
force Of Mr. Platt's persistent opposition mas
not been enhanced by his appeal 10 the fresi'
dent over the head of the Secretary whose
jurisdiction is complete and whose Intelligence
and impartalty are undlspued. TN the COLI
trary. that manpuvrc was proclamation 'ha'
not Justice but favor. was wanted and that u
was hoped pull" would prevail where arsu-
ment had properly failed. President Mckinney
could not afford TO change the orderly workings
of the Treasury Department in response 10
such an appeal The Tarsney law was re-
form measure designed especially TO exclude
politics from Government architecture ana give
experts chance to select competent architects.
regardless of the interests Of local contractors
or local politicians. and obtain higher grade
of architectural excellence than had been the
rule in Government work. The President could
not override Secretary Gage in this case With
out practically destroying this law without say
ing 10 architects all over the country that II was
useless for them to enter such competitions ne
canse politicians whenever their demands were
strong enough. could set aside the architectural
merit system.
Some of the arguments most strenuously
urged for upsetting the award are utterly des-
ti1ute Of reason. The talk about Mr. Gilbcrts
short residence in this city. for example Is too
silly for extended notice. New-York architects
enter into competition for Government buildings
elsewhere. If Mr.. Gilbert ought to be rejected
because he once lived in St Paul every one OF
them should be forbidden 20 take charge of any
Government work off Manhattan Island. lheh
n Norfolk instead of a Baltimore architect
should have built the Norfolk building. and IA
Camden and not Philadelphia architect should
have built the Camden building. And when the
Government wants something erected in some
place where there is no architect II should send
for the nearest mason and carpenter and let
them do the work.
II NAV be generally considered. however. that
the protest signed by number of Mr. Gilbert
unsuccessful competitors. though strangely be-
lated and sngularly unfortunate in the man
nor Of IT'S presentation as we'll as in some of its
exprcssions. IS a more serious matter. Yet it
appears to us that the strength Of this mani
festo is superficial rather than intrinsic Ger
tainly if these competitors We're dissatisfied
with the tribunal. they should not have waited
until the verdict had been recorded against
them for an opportunity to enter an objection
Moreover. their imputation of an original bias
in favor Of Mr. Gilbert on the ground of his
former professional relations with two OF the
Jury. which is undoubtedly the strongest point
in their protest is seen TO be much weaker than
they seem TO suppose when the fact is remem-
borcd not only that the comparative scarcity or
architects Of high repute always makes II dllll-
cult If not impossible. TO select competent
jury with whose members competitors nave
! not AT time or another been III close reli-
tons but that in this particular instance the
alleged advantage enjoyed by Mr.. Gilbert was
enjoyed in an equal degree by some OF his I'M
successful rivals Mr. Taylor, the Supervising
Architect Of the Treasury Department, was for
that reason one Of the judges. DO these gentle
men mean TO urge that no one Of the many ar
| chtects with whom he has had a business con
necton in the past should have been allowed
10 compete: If So why was not this point
made either against Mr.. Gilbert and several
of the other competitors when they signifed
| their intention TO submit plans. or else against
the Judges when the opportunity was given:
Examination of the case leaves no room for
doubt that the opposition is specouS where it is
not actually diSngenuous The combination Of
personal disappointment and political sclf-scck
ing does not deserve to win