Evening star., 1937-02-05
DEBATE RENEWED
ON CAPITOL FRONT
Extension Urged and 0p-
posed Before Senate
Building Body.
BY J. A, O'LEARY.

extension OF LIle east front OF une
original section of the Capitol, consid-
cred from time to time for many
years. was urged and opposed today
by witnesses before the Senate Public
Buildings and Grounds Committee.
The hearings will be resumed at 10
am. Tuesday.
Arrayed in support of the Connally
bill to authorize the change were
David Lynn, architect of the Capitol;
Charles Moore, chairman of the Fine
Arts Commission. and Francis P.
Sullivan, an architect who has made
study of the history of the building.
On the opposition side was Repre-
sentative Wearin, Democrat, of Iowa,
who joined in the fight against the
bill in a House committee two years
ago. after it had passed the Senate.
The House failed to act on it in the
last Congress.
Holland at Hearing.
Leicester B. Holland, who also has
opposed disturbing the olo original por-
ton of the Capitol, attended the hear
ings and is expected to present his
views Tuesday.
The apparent lack of support for the
dome because, its base overhangs the
portico on the east front was stressed
by the proponents as primary reason
for the proposed extension, together
with the contention that the sand
stone surface of the old portion should
be refaced with marble to conform to
the wings. Additional office space was
given as third reason.
Most of the discussion, however,
dealt with the architectural appear
ance of the dome.
Declaring the Capitol the most his
toric building in the United States.
Representative Wearin contended it
would be inadvisable to change the old
walls of the central portion. AS he
began his testimony Chairman Con-
nally asked Wearin if he is the men,
ber who advocated moving the Capital
to Iowa.
Il am, Senator" he replied, but l
wanted to build a new one and leave
this one here"
He explained his thought was this
could become the art center OF the
country. but from political stand
point the Capital should be in Iowa.
Lynn Recommends Bill.
In opening the hearing Lynn rec
commended the bill be reported favor
ably for three reasons, which he sum-
married:
First, because the skirt of the dome
overhangs the portico to such an ex-
tent as to give it an unstable appear
ance; second, because the House and
Senate need the additional Office space
that would be obtained by extension.
and third, because the material of
the old central portion Is disintegrat-
ing. and should be refaced with marble
to conform to the House and Senate
wings. The central section is built
of sandstone, which has to be painted
to match the marble wings.
Lynn again called attention to the
fact that Thomas v. Walter, who built
the wings and the present caStiron
dome during the period from 1851 to
1864, suggested the proposed extension
of the old east front in Civil War days.
In his report for 1854 Architect Walter
said the extension at some future time
had become an architectural neces-
sity. He wrote the report as the wings
and new dome were nearing compile
ton.
Prior to the Civil War there had
been a smaller wooden dome on the
Capitol. Supporters of the present bill
contend that the financial condition
of the country at the time the new
dome was put on prevented considera-
ton of the proposed alterations to the
east front.
Lynn told the committee the three
other Capitol architects since Walters
time all have agreed the extension
should be carried out.