Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1957-09-01


which has ragged for nearly a
century, and which was re-
kindled last week by plans sub
mitted to q House-Senate COM
mission for extension Of the
CapitoPs east front 321a feet
forward between the House and
Senate wings.
The first quotation was In
the commission report, vigor-
ously supporting the project.
The second came from Repre-
sentative Reuss, Republican Of
Wisconsin. a spokesman for
the opposition.
Century-Old Controversy
Despite numerous other Cap
itol expansion proposals before
the House-Senate commission
the east front issue is likely to
remain the major controversy,
The roots Of the fight 60 al
most back to the start of the
10th century, when the original
Capitol was built atop what
then was Jenkins Hill.
Finished in 1927, the building
had virtually q flush building
line on the east. 1t was topped
by q small wooden dome. In
1850, Congress approved a
much larger dome. 1t also ex-
tended the House and Senate
wings to give the Capitol its
present shape.
Fifteen years later. the big
dome-constructed Of iron
was finished. The stone "skirt"
Of the dome overhung q portico
on the front of the building.
Actually, the dome and its sup
ports rested solidly on the
building. But the overhang Of
the skirt" made it appear that
one side Of the huge dome
structurally hung over space.
Wanted Front Extended
This architectural defect"
was q large factor in the deci-
sion Of Thomas U. Walter, then
architect Of the Capitol. that
the east front should be ex-
tended.
Now that the new dome and
the wings Of the Capitol are APP
preaching completion" he
wrote in 1868. 1T must be APP
parent to everyone that the
extension Of the center building
to the east to the line Of the
new wings becomes an architec-
tural necessity.
The eastern portion
will certainly be taken down
at no very distant day and the
front be extended eastward. at
least to the front line Of the
wings. so as to complete the
architectural group and at the
same time afford additional ac-
commodations to the legislative
department. ;"
Major Arguments
These two factors-architec-
ture and additional space
continued to be the major ar
guments for extension. In back
Of the current drive at least
two other arguments have been
added-rapid deterioration of
the sandstone front Of the Cap
itol and the desire to couple
the extension with a reclama-
ton of the Capitol Plaza and
removal of all auto traffic from
Capitol Hill.
The extension drive became
hot in 1904 when a House
Senate commission hired the
New York architectural firm OF
Carrere and Hastings to map
an extension in accordance
with Mr.. Walters reports.
Carrere and Hastings came
up with two plans. Scheme
A" proposed that the central
front be moved only IL feet
10 inches eastward. This was
the plan they recommended
Scheme B." which they rec
commended against, extended
the front 80 feet, six inches
a further extension than they
liked but still less than Mr.
Walter had urged.
Capitol Traffic Cited
Nothing happened after the
1905 report. In the 1930s. 40:
and early sos Congress devel-
oped heavy interest in the prof.
ect. In each instance. efforts
died under opposition. based
mainly on sentiment, to dis
turbing the historic appearance
which had lasted so long.
The break came In 1855
House Speaker Rayburn. who
earlier had blocked an extern
sion move, became a supporter
of the old proposals. His in.
terest was heightened by a de-
sire to get the ever-growin:
flood Of cars off the Capito
grounds. The inadequacy Of
restaurant facilities also helped
to spur House interest in the
old plans.
On the House floor, leaders
amended a relatively innocuou.
bill to establish the powerful
House Senate commission
which now is considering the
extension.
The 1855 legislation author.
lied the commission to provide
for the east front extension sir
substantial accordance" with
Scheme B" of the old 1905
Carrere-Hastings report - ar
extension Of 80 feet 6 inches
Just before Congress ad.
nIhFnc CT AnT r