Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1958-03-27


sion. however, from a point |
only SIS feet away from the
new steps-at the near edge of
the main parking area on the
plaza. It is from this distance.
or considerably farther away,
that most pictures Of the east
front are taken, even now. be-
cause very close views appear
distorted.
But no amount Of talking
will end the controversy over
the appearance Of the dome.
Architects have argued it for
over half a century and--ex-
tension of MOTT is not likely
they will stop. Here are a few
examples:
Mr.. Dewitt: THE oyerhang
of the dome Is a very real de-.
feet, and the need for its cor@
rection cannot be stressed too
strongly. To the west :.
there is a great mass Of build
ing, to the east, nothing. so
that the dome appears to teeter
on the edge. This is bad ar
chitecture. ;"
LOrimer Rich, New York
architect: "We have here one
of the most satisfying archi-
tectural compositions in the
world. You get a feeling here
which is unusual and unique
that you get with no other
dome structure in the world. :"
John Russell Pope, architect
Tin House hearings. 1880: II
think the criticism (of the
dome overhang) is very well
justified. because the dome
comes down on the central mo-
tive. which is the principal mo-
tive of the facade, in such a
way as to crush it. and, there
fore, to reduce its Importance
as the entrance to that build
ing"
Leicester b. Holland, former
director of fine arts, Library Of
Congress Gin Senate hearings,
1880: THE dome gives the
impression of springing not
from the roof of the building
but from the ground itself =.
it is really a very masterful
composition"
Extensive testimony on the
east-front issue was held in
both 1885 and 1887. Both years,
the Senate passed legislation
authorizing the extension, but
the House killed it.
In reply to charges that the
present extension legislation
was pushed through in secrecy,
without public hearings. Archi-
tect of the Capitol j. George
Stewart cites the old hearings.
and says their records have
been made fully available to
Congress. He says. also. that
little has been added to the
old controversy over the years
that would throw new light on
the issue.
Indeed. part of a summation
of the public hearings given by
Architect of the Capitol David
Lynn in 1885 could serve almost
equally as well for the hear
ings held a month ago in the
Senate.
Cites Objections
within the past few weeks, y
Mr.. Lynn said in 1885, "opposi-
ton has been voiced to the pro-
posed change on the grounds:
first that it would destroy the
historic character of the build
ing by replacing original work
with a copy: second. that the
building is already a beautiful
one and that the change would
injure its architectural appear
ance. These objections may
be answered as follows:
1.-THE oldest portions of the
building are not now original
work in the sense in which the
term is used by psychologists
It is already in large part a
copy. To reproduce the origi-
nal design in marble would pre-
serve al that is valuable in
historic and sentimental asso-
Citations and would give the
building a longer and more use
full life.
1.-THE question of the relative
architectural merit of the build
ing as 1t stands now and the
building as it would appear il
the front were extended is one
in which the mass of expert tes-
timony is in favor of the civ nge
The architects who testified in
favor of 1t are men of high
standing in their profession
Most of them are accustomed
to designing large buildings
and are giving their opinions as
a result of real knowledge and
study instead of a perfunctory
examination of the building ano
superficial knowledge"
Tomorrow: Costs and Space.
-