Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-05-03
SISTERS TROUBLED
Question Of Completing q
Building
NEAR THE UNIVERSITY
MAKES CENTRAL PORTION TO
WING OF TRINITY COLLEGE
Change in Building Regulations Made
by Congress Since Plans were
First Drawn.
NEAR THE UNIVERSITY

serious problem faces the Sisters OF
| Notre Dame, who conduct the Trinity Col
| iese Tor girls at Michigan avenue, just this
side of the Catholic University, and. ac-
| cordfng to Sister Georgiana in charge the
| unfinished building with its Jagged edges
and homely brick, must remain as 1t is
The case Is peculiar. 1t appears from a
| statement made today by Col Biddle. En-
| gineer Commissioner OF the District that an
| original permit was asked for and granted
| for the wings Of the Trinity College build
| ing. and that these wings We're constructed.
leaving the central portion to be built at a
| later period, when the college authorities
| had more money. But in the interim Con-
| gress passed an act requiring that build
| lngs to be used as dormitories over sixty
feet in height must be freproof Now
| the Sisters of Notre Dame have applied for
| a permit to complete their building. but
| the permit was refused.
Sister Georgiana. in letter to the Com
| missioners. explains the situation as fol-
| lows:
This decision evidently due to a
misunderstanding of the facts of the case
| which had not perhaps been presented with
| sufficient detail and ciearness. The permit
| even for an addition to a building. but for
| the completion of a structure which had
been left In essentially unfinished con-
| dition and which had practically been APP
| proved of a whole when the former
building permit issued. IN 1903
LAS the partition wall could not be left
| in its exposed condition without serious
detriment to itself and TO the rest of the
building there nothing left for us to
| do but to go with the work in question.
Now We have come 10 stage at which a
| permission from the District Commissioners
| to complete this front portion of the central
section of the building according to the
| original plan is absolute necessity.
| I'VE are peculiarly placed with regard to
this section of the center of the building.
A friend is erecting IL and she has from us
| in writing detailed statements of the diff
| ferent stories, the rooms We supposed they
| would contain, their uses, etc, and all OF
this was furnished to her before We knew
| anything of this new ordinance. Contracts
| have been drawn up and signed, she has
pledged herself to be responsible for the
| payment of the present portion. she is
| thousands of miles away from US, no
| amount Of writing would ever make ii clear
| to her, and would find ourselves again
| just where we were when the difficulty
| arose about the chapel. Should She learn
| that we were restricted in the erection of
| the building | fear We would have repe-
| tition of the chapel difficulty. \ lady pledg-
| ed herself to erect the chapel, work was
| commenced, she advanced a certain sum
of money, difficulties arose about the con-
| struction: the lady in question withdrew
| her contract. This was nearly six years
| ago and the founda tons of the chapel still
| lie there to tell the tale.
| Now, we do not want to lose what was
! offered for this part of the front section
! We knew nothing of the ordinance when
| the negotiations were being made. and con-
| sequently We respectfully solicit an excep-
ton of the present ruling in our case.
Should the District Commissioners re-
| fuse to grant our petition. then this sec
| ton OF the building has to remain as 1t is.
| We have no money to put into it. our
| present income is barely sufficient for our
current needs, and besides this are bur.
| dened with heavy debt"
Mr.. Ashford's Views.
| The matter was referred to Snowden Ash
| ford, the building inspector, who says in
reply:
1.-The plans were returned to the con-
| tractors who submitted them with notice
that since the erection OF the wing of the
| building put up in 1903 the act of Con-
gress regulating the height of building was
amended in February, 1904, to read that
| residence dormitory shall be erected to
| a height of more than five stories, or sixty
| feet 1t is my recollection that this amend
ment was brought about at hearing con-
corning building at the Catholic Univer-
| sity, and the question of limiting the
| height of the buildings in the group under
| control of the Sisters of Notre Dame dates
| back to 1899. when Captain Craighill filed
! an opinion on the subject allowing height
| of Seventy-five feet, as dormitories were
not then mentioned in the law.
| THE assistant inspectors are aware of
| the inflammable nature of these buildings,
| and 1 am sure that they are not safe for
| sleeping quarters for any considerable
number of people. A recent fatal fire in
| Canada, where from ten to twenty per-
ished In convent, might be repeated here.
especially as the dormitories on the top
| floors. Under the circumstances 1 could
| not see my way clear to authorize the con-
struction of dormitory over sixty feet
| high, and ten months after the law had
passed prohibiting them"
Supported by Col. Biddle.
| Col. Biddle supports Mr.. Ashford. He
| says:
I'm October last application was made to
| build the central portion OF the building
! which Is separated from the wings by
| brick wall, and the inspector of buildings
| Informed the applicants that in accordance
with the recent act Of Congress, II the
| building was to be used for dormitories it
should be fire proof. The applicants stated
under those conditions they would put It
up in accordance with the original plan.
that Is. not hreproof, and leave out the
dormtories.
1.-THE permit Of October last. granted upon
| the application of the Sisters of Notre
Dame OF Trinity College. distinctly pro-
v1des that there shall be no dormitories, and
| the erection of the building has been pro-
| ceeded with under that permit. Now, after
| the building is well advanced. the applicant
| requests that the permit be so changed as
| to allow the use Of the building for DOR
mitories.
ut does not seem to me that the Commits
S1onerS should. under these circumstances
and in violation Of the act of Congress. al
| low the use of the building for dormitories.
The act OF Congress was passed at the re-
quest Of the Commissioners having espe-
| cially in view the building Of the wing
where dormitories were allowed in a nom
| flreproof building over sixty feet in height
| and 1t was thought to be dangerous.
LAS far as l know there is no reason why
| the central portion Of the building should
not be built under the regulations-that is,
| 1t should be hreproof or not used for DOR
mitories II 1t Is not"
Naval Orders