The New York herald. [volume] (New York, N.Y.) 1920-1924, 1920-12-10

orally is followed throughout the coun-
try. II is put forth merely as guide
OF what. in the opinion OF the leaders OF
The profession, an architects services
are worth.
From 1914 to date the fee has in
creased about zoo per cent. keeping
pace with the general advance in the
cost of building. hasn't it?'' Mr.. Inter
rnyer asked. The witness said that was
true and explained that not only had the
architects costs advanced that amount
but that the period for construction had
been heightened. greatly adding to the
cost OF overseeing.
do you regard this minimum charge
Zee as fair and ethicaiT' Mr.. Unternyer
asked, and the witness said he did abso-
lutcly. Mr. Fenner declared repeatedly
he would not accept the interpretation
and insinuation which Mr.. Untermyer
was making that the minimum charge
was mandatory and imposed upon all
members.
rsNhat chance has a young man. Just
entering the profession, against firm
like yours If he is compelled to charge
the same fee you do?" Mr. Untermycr
asked. The young man can disregard
cor3pietely the institutes guidance II
10 wishes so to do and no one In the
IrofessIon viii think the less OF him or
'xrown down" upon him. the witness
aid.
'Instead OF being professional prac-
dee / think it is an unprofessional prac-
tee and one of the elements IN the high
cost OF construction" Mr.. Unterniyer
said. II am making fight against this
yractice for the young men OF the pro-
fession. VIII you recommend or agree
that the minimum charge code be done
sway with entirely?"
FNfr. Fenner said he would not consent
20 the abolition of the rule. because he
vas certain II worked for the best In
terests of the profession.
sand Board Man Obstinate.
Mr.. Engle, who had been on the stand
n the forenoon and declined TO produce
Ms audits of the Sand Board accounts.
was recalled in the afternoon and had
another opportunity to obey. He still
refused. taking the position that he had
acted In a confidential capacity as an
employee and could not supply the in
formation unless II was released by the
board
xThen the witness was asked whether
he would produce his annual report on
the affairs of the board Again he de-
clined Mr.. Untermyer pulled a docu-
asked the witness whether that was a
true copy of the report he would not
produce. Engle was amazed but said
with laugh that the report was correct
and It was offered in evidence. Its con-
tents we're not made known.
AIRS Helen Macdonald. the youthful
cterk in the Sand Boards office, pro-
duced all the cards and records she had
BEEN instructed to give 70 the committee
bot insisted she knew nothing about Its
affairs. membership or operation.
ARTHUR S. Roberts. associate counsel
for the Iron League of New York. Is
sued a statement yesterday assailing the
testimony given before the committee b,
Louis Horowitz, president of the Thomp-
0f-Starrett Company. on Wednesday TO
the effect that the term open shop" Is
uSpd by steel interests to defeat union
labor.
fr. Horowitx Is guilty OF statements
which he must know to be untrue. Mr..
Roberts stated. His statement follows:
THE structural steel industry In New
york city has been upon an actual open
shop basis since January /, 1905. both
uri1on and non-union men being employed
bys numerous contractors without dis
organization against either class and in
hundreds OF cases working together in
perfect good will upon the same building.
IfhMr. Horowitz has been denied his
undoubted right to purchase structural
steel and erect Il with any men he saw
ut 20 employ II Is because, as a member
Of the Building Trades Employers Assoc
cin9ion. the influence OF his company was