Evening star., 1900-11-27
The Public Building BL ~eau.

1t was never expected that the supervis-
ing architect of the treasury would ma
the Tarsney act, providing for competltloH
among private architects when a puohc
building is to be erected, an entirely salts
factory instrument. The record of the
office did not justify the assumption that
the reform would be welcomed, or even
facilitated after adoption. Therefore there
is no reason for surprise that the 1ncum-
bent should, in his annual report, recon-
mend radical amendments which, II adopted,
would re-establish many of the Old faults
which have led to such serious delays and
difficulties. The supervising architect points
out that 1t has been found impossible TO
'co-ordinate in harmonious action with the
architect all these (governmentaD agencies
and "tnere have resulted an excessive
amount OF spondence, contradictory
reports. delay and misunderstanding with
contractors
Congress should forthwith upon assem-
bling call upon the supervising architect
for further specifications, for If the Tarsney
act has in fact resulted in increasing the
correspondence. contradictory reports, de-
Laws and MISUNDERSTANDING with Contrac-
tors there is something radically wrong
with either the law or its administration.
For under the old system these annoyances
were as legion. The Washington post office,
which is regarded a fair sample OF gov
ernment architecture and construction,
stands as monument to the friction that
can be created between the government
building bureau and lis contractors. If the
condition which this construction revealed
has been augmented through the law which
was haired as a remedy for the existing Ills,
the case does indeed demand attention.
The Star having followed the course pur-
sued with the Washington post office with
exceptional care, was long ago convinced
that tae building bureau requires radical
readjustment, even perhaps to the point or
a complete reorganization. 1t regarded the
Tarsney law only one step toward this
end ensuring a better class of designs for
the public structures. 1t did not altogether
relish the prospect that the actual work of
superv sion should be left to a bureau
which, regardless of persons and incum
bents, had been shown to be incapable of
ing the best work out of contractors
and # conserving the governments best in
Jerests at all stages. 1t is doubtless true,
as the supervising architect declares in his
report, that there should be a greater degree
Of coordination between the architect and
the supervising agency. That probably can
best be accomplished by putting the gov
ernment bureau under such an organization
tha its head can be both architect and
supervisor. To this end the office should
be made of a magnitude and attractiveness
to permit It's acceptance by men of the
highest order of ability in these two capac-
tiles.
The whole subject has never been ade-
quately considered by Congress in Iaie
years. With the post Office building stand
ing as d constant reminder of what the Old
system did not accomplish for the perpet-
uation Of high architectural ideas in public
construction, it Will be strange if this re-
port of the supervising architect does not
develop practical results.