New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1905-10-01
A DISPUTE IN NOTATION.
T0Oentietb Century Dates Make
Trouble for architects.
IRON The tribune Bureau. !

Washington, Sept. 30,-An interesting con-
troversy has arisen in Washington regarding
the date with which the architects for the House
of Representatives office building have in
scribed the cornerstone of that structure. AS
engraved. the stone bears the line "NIDCCCCv,"
whereas many of the eavans in the national
capital claim that it should read "MCMv.' and
the plain people asking why it would not
be better to inscrbe it plain 1906" that even
members of Congress would be able to read the
inscription.
Carrere &. Hastings. the architects. said
to be responsible for the unique method Of
Roman notation employed. and they maintain
that they have a precedent for this method of
indicating the date 1905 in the inscription they
placed on the New-York Public Library. They
also claim to have submitted the question to
Harvard and Yale universities, and to the
French Institute, and TO have been supported
by the opinions of all three.
Some reasonab bly, well educated professional
men in Washington, however. refuse to be awed
into silence by the weight Of these authorities
They maintain that the Roman system of
notation Is consistent and that as long as ~ is
indicated by the letters XIX. and $50 is indt-
Gated by the letters exc, there is no logical
reason for changing the form when indicating
one hundred times 10 or ten times 100. They
further insist that it IS well established rule
in Roman notation that no letter, can be used
four times in succession. the only possible eX-
ception to this rule being on watch faces. which
indicate the fourth hour with I'LL but they
explain that this is merely a perpetuated error,
first made by a. German matchmaker and that
there is no better authority for its use.
eff you write nineteen" say the expert mathe-
maticans. "by Indicating 10 and then deducting
l from TO- IL you write hundred and ninety
by indicating 100 and then deducting 100 from
the next 100, why should you not write nineteen
hundred by indicating 1000 and then deducting
100 from the next 1O0O?"
Elliot Woods, superintendent Of the Capitol,
looks Careworn and furtively glances at the
nearest exit when the subject is preached to
him, although he explains politely that 1t is
up to- Messrs Carrere s. Hastings, and that
he devoutly renders thanks to Providence that
the responsibility for that inscription does not
rest with him.
It is expected that some eminent scholars in
Congress will have not a few words to say on
the subject when they reach Washington, and
Mr.. Woods seems to appreciate that the end IS
not yet, although he is determined not to com
nit himself irreVocably to his opinion the
subject Meanwhile, the average man is
dering why the superintendent, the Congress
Committee and the architects do not solve the
problem by the easy method of going around 1t
and writing the date In plain Arabic figures.
which rural visitors could read without hesita-
ton.
John NJ. Carrere said last night that the in
scriptton was based on ample precedent, since
the Institute of France had some years ago de-
cIded that the longer method the correct
one. When similar question arose in regard
to the New-York Public Library. Mr., Carrers
University. which decided in favor Of the longer
form.