The Washington herald., 1909-05-28
ASHFORD IS NAMED
is CITY ARCHITECT
Building Inspector Chosen
by Vose Of Two TO One.
ASSUMES DUTIES ON JULY l
Commissioner MacfarIand Favored
Won Nerta, and Issues Statement.
Board VIII Probably Announce
Successor to Inspector To-day.
Davis Mentioned for the Berth.

Following a conference lasting threi
hours. the District Commissioners yes
terdsy announced the selection OF Snow
den ashford. building inspector, as munt
oipal ARCHITECT. the appointment TO be
come effective July L
Mr Ashford's selection was urged by
Engineer Commissioner Juds0n, and was
approved by Commissioner West. Com
missioner Mcfarland favored the sp-
pointment BY Oscar Won Nerta, but was
overruled by the majority.
The Commissioners said last night they
had not considered the selection OF s
man 70 III the position made vacant BY
Ar. Ashford's promotion The name OF
Inspector OF Plumbing Davis has been
suggested. however. and it is known TWO
Of the Commissioners are not unfavorabIe
10 his appointment Announcement OF
tbs selection probably viii be made to-
day.
JudsOn Submits Report.
Engineer Commissioner Judson nomi-
mated 8Ir. Ashford for the position OF
architect, setting forth his reasons for
SO doing In lengthy report which he
read 10 his confreres. Maj hudson first
quoted the act OF Congress giving the
Commissioners authority 70 appoint a
municipal architect at a salary OF $3.50
tie appointment 10 become effective July
1 Re then mentioned the name Of the
building inspector.
Mai Judson declared he had given the
matter careful consideration. and had
nominated 8Ir- Ashford because he be-
lieved he might obtain the best results in
the way Of suitable school buildings with
the money that Congress may make
available for their construction and main
tenanee
Mr. Ashford's wide experience as in
spector Of buildings and his observation
Of school buildings IN every part OF TIA
country were pointed out by the En-
gineer Commissioner. He also mentioned
the faithfulness with which AIr. Ashford,
as Inspector Of buildings, discharged his
Official duties. often being required 70
work late al night to finish work that
accumulated through the lack OF proper
inspectors and assistants
The work OF rehabilitating the old
schooIhouses OF the District. following
the investigation into the CoIIinwood
disaster, was mentioned IN the report.
attention being called 10 The rapidly
and ingenuousness shown BY the build /
ing inspector in recommending and su-
pervising repairs and changes The Lu- !
cretia Mott School, recently completed /
under the supervision OF Mr.. Ashford, |
was held Up as a model edihce for school /
purposes
Mai Judson declared that because Of ]
his brief residence in Washington he re-
quested the appointment OF an advisory 1
committee This committee was COM
posed OF James Knox Taylor, supervis- /
ing architect Of the Treasury; James 4
Rush Marshall, president. Of Washington
Chapter Of American Institute Of Arcbi-
tects; Capt. James F. Oyster. president
Of the board Of education. and Capt
William Kelly, assistant 70 the Engineer
Commissioner The committee recon-
mended AIr- Ashford as first choice for
the position BY a vote OF TO /
school Architects Quoted.
Mai Judson said several weIl-known
school architects IN other large cities
have expressed their admiration for the
work Of Mr.. Ashford and have freely
indorsed him as an architect Of ability
and resource Commissioner West ap-
proved the recommendation OF the En-
gineer Commissioner.
Commissioner 8Iacfarland wrote Noted"
q; the paper and gave the following ex-
planatioR Of his failure 70 favor Mr
Ashford for the position:
Judsoa's motion because. first, I wanted
tho selection made from the best Wash
ington architects without requiring the
appOintee 70 give Up private practice.
I understand that the men in similar
positions In Boston, Chicago. and St
Louis were selected IN that way. The
report OF the advisory committee states:
First, that in the judgment OF the
committee, II consistent with the regula- q,
fiOns Of the District and law that gov
ems the work a man could be selected
who would not be required TO devote his
entire time 10 the Office q wider field OF /
choice would be obtained by the consid- j:
Grafton Of G1en already practicing their
profession in the city no suggestion as !
10 the particular person being made.
Then. if 7 was restricted to the two {
men recommended BY the advisory com
nittee. Mr.. Ashford and Mr. Won Nerta, ! |
preferred the latter, Il for no other
reason, because OF his larger experience. s
and because he was the one recommend
ID BY all the committee. I
I regret that our action could not be I
unanimous as il is IN ninety-nine cases :
9ut Of 100. but at rare intersIs questions I
must be decided by a majority vote
The advisory committees report. named
M Ashford first choice and Mr.. Won
Serta second choice. The second choice
vas named for the reason that ct hav-
ng become evident in the discussions Of
7our committee that It might be deemed =
BY the Engineer Commission ;
7 70 nominate Mr.. Ashford, the com
nittee has named a second choice" {