Evening star., 1950-08-06
So Little to Save So Much

The House has passed by unanimous consent
and sent to the Senate, where they are on the
calender two bills which are peculiarly deserving
of enactment in this year of Washington's ses-
quicentennial. One of them authorizes the ac-
QUESTION and preservation, as part of the
National Capital Park System, "the Old Stone
House" which stands at 3051 M street in George
town. The other defines the boundry lines of
"Old Georgetown" and seeks to preserve the
unique charm and places of historic interest
in that area by establishing a process under
which any changes in architecture or razing
of buildings therein would be subject to the
scrutiny and expert advice of the Commission of
Fine Arts.
AS to the first bill, there is q substantial
body of informed opinion (which gives the "Old
Stone House" on M street, Landmark familiar
to thousands of Washingtonians, place in his
tory that should by all means be preserved. The
building is supposed to be the oldest pre-Revou
tionary structure in the District. 1t is an in
teresting architectural example of the period,
with features which are found nowhere else.
Standing on what has become busy business
street, 1t serves as a picturesque link between
the past and present. Restored, inside and out,
1t would form in future years an even more
valuable relic than the one we recognize today.
About the only opposition from an impressive
list of witnesses, representing many organiza-
tions who testified in favor of the legislation
comes from an automobile firm which wishes
to buy and raze the building and thus enlarge
a parking lot. The cost to the Government
would be nominal. AS a museum, fees for ad-
mittance over the years would in time liquidate
the cost. 1t will be nothing less than outrageous
If the Government permits, by failure to act on
a bill so widely supported the demolition and
permanent loss of this old building.
The bill to preserve the character of "Old
Georgetown" would inflict no hardship on any
property owner-certainy no hardship in COM
parison with the public interest to be served by
its approval. 1t requires examination by the
Fine Arts Commission of plans, to alter, re-
construct or raze any building in the area before
permits for such work are issued at the District
Building. It confers upon the commission no
prohibitory powers, leaving to the District Com
mssioners the discretion as to whether such
permits should be issued after a commission
report has been received. The whole purpose
of the bill seems to be insurance against hasty
thoughtleSs or uniformed action by property
owners which would destroy some of the fine
assets of one of the Oldest parts of Washington.
1t is conceivable that the Commissioners might
withhold permit upon the advice of the COM
mission. But the property owner, If not per-
suaded, still would have access to appeal if the
property owner felt himself to be the victim of
capricious decision.
Washington is changing so rapidly and grow
ing so fast that measures such as the two in
question are important if we are to preserve
wherever it is possible, some of the qualities
which have lent distinctive charm to the city,
The bills have met temporary objection by in
dividual members of the Senate. But that is
often true, when passage depends upon unani-
nous consent, and it is to be hoped that the few
gentlemen who have objected have by now salts
fed their doubts and will support measures that
are so evidently in the public interest.