outsiders who visit architectural exhibitions, rather than to the public by means of established journals; but those who feel capacity for doing great things, if they could get the opportunity, might with advantage consider which course offers the most certain prospect of professional advancement. M' R. GEORGE A. FULLER, the President of the well known George A. Fuller Construction Company, which has carried out many important buildings throughout the country, died in Chicago a few days ago. Mr. Fuller was a Massachusetts man, having been born in Templeton, forty-nine years ago. He received a good education, completed by a special course at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and soon after went into business as a builder in Chicago. His technical knowledge enabled him to undertake with great success the steel construction which sprang so quickly into popularity, while his capacity for organization made it possible for him to carry on a business which extended all over the United States. The strain, however, was too great, and some five years ago he suffered the first attack of the disease which has now proved fatal. H N old acquaintance of architects has made his appearance in official circles in Mississippi, to the astonishment and disgust of the people there, who are less familiar than Northerners with the hustling" contractor. The State of Mississippi is about to build a new capitol, from the designs of Mr. Link, of St. Louis, and bids for the work are now in course of preparation, naturally, under the supervision of the architect. A few days ago, the Governor of the State received a visit from a personage who desired to give him warning that "a combination" had been formed to secure the State-house contract, and that the architect, Mr. Link, was a party to the combination. It appeared, further, that this virtuous and selfsacrificing person had come to Mississippi for the purpose of defeating the nefarious schemes of the "combination," and that, with the Governor's help, seconded, no doubt, by the favor of Heaven, the fell designs of the conspirators might still be thwarted. In order to accomplish this end, the champion of justice proposed that the Governor, after the bids were in, but a day before they were to be formally opened by the Capitol Commission, should privately inspect them, and communicate their contents to his new friend, who would then prepare and submit a bid lower than any of the others, which, being considered with the others by the Commission, would naturally bring the contract to him. In this way, not only would the infernal plot of Mr. Link and the other bidders be frustrated, but a handsome amount in cash would be available for the heroes in the transaction. The Governor, at this point, seems to have had his curiosity excited, and asked for further particulars; and, in response, his new friend coolly offered him a check on account, for the services to be rendered in accordance with his plan. The Governor's reply was to send for a policeman, and the "hustler was forthwith locked up in jail. On being brought into Court, he was charged with an attempt at bribery, and placed under five thousand dollars bonds to appear for trial later. ground near it is "strewn with stones and mortar." In this FFICIAL Socialism in Germany has received a little shock from the disclosure that the Imperial old-age pension fund, bute about twenty-five million dollars a year, is bankrupt; to which the employers of labor are compelled to contria surplus, in 1896, of fifteen million dollars, having been transformed in three years into a deficit of about three and one-half millions. Where the money has gone to no one seems to be able to say. The population of Germany has not grown rapidly in three years, and the proportion of it which reaches each year the pension age of seventy-one is not likely to have changed much; yet the fund disappears nearly twice as fast as it did a few years ago. Even with this enormous expenditure, the work accomplished by means of the law does not seem to be very important. In the farming country of Eastern Prussia about one person in every two hundred receives an old-age pension, while in Berlin only one out of twelve hundred enjoys the benefit of the fund. Supposing twenty millions of the inhabitants of the empire to be farmers living under the same conditions as those of Eastern Prussia, and fifteen millions to be dwellers in cities, under circumstances similar to those in Berlin, the average sum that each would receive in an annual distribution of twenty-five million dollars would be about two hundred and twenty-two dollars a year. This is not a very large sum, but it is probably more than the average pensioner in Germany would have earned in a year in his days of activity. If, however, as is most likely, the pensioners do not get so much as this, it is natural to inquire what becomes of the rest. If it is "absorbed" in expenses of administration, the pensioners, as well as those who supply the money, have a right to demand greater economy in administration, and the Germans, who are the last people in the world to stand gazing into space while thieves singing philanthropic hymns are rifling their pockets, are likely to find out before long where the trouble lies. VERY day the demand for a new kind of building-timber becomes more urgent. Pine, once the staple timber of North America, is practically out of the market for framing purposes, and spruce, which has very inadequately filled its place, is now in such demand for making paper that it promises to be too valuable for a building-timber. The paper-mill is far more destructive to the forests than the man who seeks lumber for building, as even the smallest saplings can be ground into pulp, and the mill men leave the soil bare. Most architects would see with equanimity the price of paper materially increased, if the spruce forests could thereby be spared; but nothing of this kind is to be hoped for, and the next generation will, apparently, be obliged to use a different wood. Meanwhile, as the present generation must plant what the next is to use, it is time to consider what should be planted. In this country, which, it must be remembered, is naturally dry and poorly watered, coniferous forests suffer so much from fire that it is very doubtful whether a deciduous tree is not more desirable for general planting. The larch, which shares the qualities of the coniferous and deciduous species, is said to resist fire well, and might be useful; but the tree which will be most generally planted is likely to be the oak. Slow-growing as it is, the oak comes to maturity in its due time, and then furnishes a timber in many respects superior to any other. For floors and finishing, no common wood approaches good oak intelligently cut and used, and even for framing although heavy and hard to work, in comparison with pine or spruce, it has advantages. S it happens, the structural-weakness affliction is unusually For this purpose, however, timber is likely to be less and less NE of the Boston newspapers treats us to an account of the collapse of a portion of the front wall of a building in Nashua, N. H., which occurred in the middle of the day, not long ago, the falling bricks demolishing the plate-glass windows of the first story, and injuring three men who were passing by in the street; and adds, with a modesty of assertion which is extremely commendable, that "it is thought that there was some structural weakness which contributed" to the catastrophe. It may be taken as settled that some structural weakness is generally concerned when a brick wall falls without warning into the street, and we might even observe that the diagnosis of structural weakness from such symptoms is so clear that the authorities of the place where the case occurs ought to lose no time in investigating the particular kind of structural weakness involved, and in exhibiting, as the doctors say, the proper remedies. A prevalent among buildings just now, and some prophylac- used as cost of it advances, and as price of iron tic measures would not be amiss in certain localities. In Philadelphia, a large academy building has begun to "crumble" and portions of the front wall have "given way," until the ishes. Already, the fashion of building of solid materials has gained a permanent foothold among us, and every year is likely to see it spread. THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS AT THE CONVEN- We all wish to help to our utmost those in authority in their TION OF A. I. A., 1900. THIS HIS has been a year of prosperity for the American Institute of Architects. Fifty-six Associates and one Fellow have been elected, and nineteen more await a final vote. One Chapter has entered the Institute and others are forming. Our debts are paid and we have a balance on hand in our treasury. We have a journal of our own to represent us before the world, and we have a dignified home, in which we all take the greatest pride, where our growing possessions are handsomely housed and which we hope may for a long time to come serve as a centre of national usefulness and influence. We are, therefore, enjoying great material good fortune as I welcome you to this thirty-fourth annual convention of the American Institute of Architects. new The report of the Board of Directors will present to you in detail a review of the year's work. Among other things this will call to your attention what has been accomplished by our "Quarterly Bulletin." You must have noticed the great amount of devoted labor given to its preparation by our Secretary. As we are now closing the first year of its publication, and as it causes a substantial increase in our expenses, you may wish to discuss methods of increasing its usefulness. Among other things, it has been proposed that the proceedings of the Judiciary Committee should be published therein to ensure to them greater publicity than they now receive. It has also been suggested that papers read at the Convention be printed in the Bulletin and only be referred to in our printed proceedings. I ask you to act on these subjects. Perhaps you will also decide whether it is necessary to insert advertisements in the Bulletin, a practice that many find objectionable in the catalogues of our local exhibitions, and which seems to me quite unworthy of the American Institute of Architects, no matter what similar cases may be cited, or what distinguished bodies may be held up to us as examples. I think we had better publish no more than we can pay for. I cannot be led to believe that the advertisements are very willing investments. They are the more or less unwilling contributions from people who are employed through us, and we ought not to accept this aid in our local exhibitions, and still less in this publication by the American Institute. Finally, after reviewing this first year of the life of the Bulletin, you may determine to consider the question whether the work thus prosperously begun shall be changed in any other respects or continue in the general form to which we are now becoming accustomed. The report of the Directors reviews the amendments to the Constitution on which you are to vote, and that relate to the election of Associates and Fellows. One point, however, that seems to me important is not covered by these new amendments, nor is it referred to by the Directors. Under our present by-laws it is possible for a man to be a member of the Institute who is not a member of a local Chapter, although the Chapter would, presumably, know most about the candidate. This has seemed so improper to some of the Chapters, that they have acted in the matter, and by the adjustment of dues have made it simple for their members to be members of the Institute also. Others have agreed to vote against the admission to the Institute of any of their neighbors who are not members of the local Chapter. This is an unsatisfactory situation, and it seems very desirable that all the Chapters should treat this important question in the same manner. I might thus comment further on the details of the year's work that will be presented to you in the report of the Directors. But these conventions give us opportunity to recall the purposes for which we are united and to enquire whether these ends are advancing. Such enquiries are much to be desired. As we have passed the stage of constitution-making, as our membership is now large and increasing, and, as we have become a strong and well-organized body, we should make sure that we exert properly an influence which now extends from one end to the other of this great country. For this reason, in what I have to say before you, I desire to draw your attention to four general subjects. I wish briefly to review the relations of our National Government towards the art of architecture, our attitude towards the youth of our profession, the condition of our professional intercourse with one another, and our position in regard to the art to which we have devoted our life-work. endeavors to make our Government architecture more worthy of the greatness and intelligence of the Republic. In the City of Washington the whole country has an admirable objectlesson. No city is more full of architectural warnings. None better exemplifies in its buildings what is and what is not architecture. One does not need a professional education to feel mortified at the sight of certain buildings that have been thrust upon these beautiful highways in comparatively recent times, though what architecture is and of what it is capable is thrown in the face of the most stolid citizen, whenever his eye is turned beyond the crowded avenue, to the green park and the long lines of the marble Capitol, and to the great white dome rising grand and noble above them into the morning mists. As we feel all this very deeply, we have reckoned it a great privilege that the National Government has, of late years, consulted with our officers and members regarding work in charge of the Treasury and several other Departments. On these occasions, and at all other times, we have advocated in an unselfish manner all measures that might lead to added dignity in our permanent Government buildings and greater stateliness throughout our National Capital. If great Government buildings are to be scattered about the country, if a boulevard is to traverse the National Capital, if the future buildings for the Government are to be effectively placed in this beautiful city, if the White House, in which we all take such pleasure and pride, needs to be increased in size, we want each and all of these works carried out by the best artistic skill that the country can produce and by nothing less efficient. Nor are we alone in this wish. So far as I have observed, the public aspires to even better things than our best talent produces. They want the very best. Now that architecture is a matter of active interest to great numbers of people in all parts of the country, it ought to be possible to bring to life again the admirable artistic spirit which one hundred years ago planned the City of Washington, and built its earlier and best monu ments. That we devote this evening to a discussion of this subject indicates that the Institute anxiously desires thus to promote the improvement of architecture controlled by the National Government, and we have an opportunity to see what has been accomplished by the Government, under its new system, in the exhibition that is arranged for this meeting of the drawings for those Government buildings that are in charge of private architects. The current newspapers state that the Supervising Architect of the Treasury has advised in his report that the supervision of Government work designed by private architects be in charge of the Government office. I hope our good comrade will find some other remedy for whatever difficulties there are in applying private practice to public work. An architect's business is to build buildings, not to sell drawings. The designer's supervision, at least of artistic details, is most essential to success, and it is certainly common opinion that all over this country the constructive portions of great buildings are superintended for private corporations by their architects in more energetic and economical ways than those that the Government has usually been able to adopt. It seems to me, therefore, that if the Supervising Architect has had some unfortunate experience, or if the Government demands more exactness and routine than private clients, the employment of a really efficient clerk-of-works on every building, paid for by the Government and under the control of the architect, in addition to his supervision, would probably afford a full cure for such trouble as may exist. We never discuss the question of Government architecture without recognizing the attitude held from beginning to end by the present Secretary of the Treasury. We have formally thanked him before now, but we cannot forget the broad and liberal views he has always held towards our art. We cannot forget his great and patient consideration of those members of the profession who have dealt with him on these subjects, and the singleness of purpose with which, in spite of discouraging rebuffs, he has held firmly to a large-minded and intelligent course. By his loyal deference to high professional standards, he has set architects an example of how they themselves should regard their own professional dignity. If the present method of conducting the architectural work of the Government produces, as we hope it will, a great result, it will be due As a national institution, our first duty is to our country. I in the first instance to Secretary Gage. No subject can be of more serious interest to the Institute than its relations with the youth of our profession. One of our committees has considered for us, and will report to us upon, our relations with the architectural schools and the junior societies. Many of our Chapters have taken steps towards unity of effort between the young and the old. To make progress in membership from the junior societies to the Chapters easy and natural and desirable should be our first endeavor. Indeed in this country, such a task ought to be easy. One of the greatest charms of our profession is the joyous atmosphere of youth and buoyancy and hope in which we work. The art itself is young with us. It is only within a few years that architecture has become the life-work of thousands in our country, and if, in establishing the profession, we have made many halting steps as artists, and if, in the swift turn of the wheel of progress, a man only too quickly comes to regret his early productions, yet we are all conscious of constant advance and full of faith for the future. We are all looking forward and not back. The assistants who form our office families, and in coöperation with whom our work is produced, are young. They are ambitious youths, who, at home and abroad, have had every advantage of education in art and engineering. They and we work together in the full belief that, even if the future of architecture does not lie with us, yet, at least, it is to have a great future here. Everywhere the pace set is that of youth, and the rapidity of our building operations makes our work so arduous and full of strain that the strong and vigorous only survive. There are no old architects among us. If an architect last at all, he lasts young. The young may nerve themselves to exertion by the thought that Raphael's career, with its abundant production, was over at thirty-seven. It is left to those of us who are older to remember that, though Bramante is said not to have seen Rome and the Pantheon until he was fifty-five years old, yet he was still young enough to form, after that age, his monumental style, and to evolve the work that has made him one of the great leaders of our craft. Recalling this, we, too, feel young, and take new hope and courage. We can scarcely prize too highly this happy, joyous, progressive, youthful spirit. As we thus keep young and hopeful, it should be easy for us, and, indeed, we should be eager to increase, in all practical ways, the cordiality of our relations with those who are our juniors in the profession, and who, we hope, are to be our successors in the Institute. To further this end, your Executive Committee voted to invite the officers of the Architectural League of America to attend this Convention, with the privileges of the floor, and we hope to have the pleasure of welcoming them here to-day. When we consider our professional relations towards each other, we open up a large field for discussion, for our efforts to promote the efficiency of the profession have been sharply criticised. One hesitates to discuss the question lest it obtain more importance than it deserves, but, as it is a live subject, it is well to see how far the criticism is merited. 66 It is charged that we are slack in administering discipline to those that play the game unfairly. That we "countenance men of eminence, who are not men of principle," and that our present members are too weak to point the finger of scorn at the culprits in their midst." We are told that unless we enforce a standard of honorable practice more strictly we shall fall in public esteem, and the action taken by the Judiciary and Executive Committees this year in certain cases has seemed to some people inadequate. It is not for me to say whether this opinion is just, though one would suppose that our critics did not hold it to be a grave matter to be compelled to defend one's honor before our Judiciary Committee. One would think that censure by the American Institute of Architects was a light and unimportant thing, leaving no scar or no regret. Is it true that any of us think this? If we were the defendants, would the technical degree of criticism on our professional conduct matter much, compared with the misery of the thought that our comrades had criticised us and proved their right to do so? You may be sure that other men are made much as we are. That the American Institute of Architects should discipline such few of its members as act dishonestly or unfairly seems to need no argument. Such punishment should be clear and decisive. It is not a light matter. It is a very important one. Although few of us would be in the Institute if discipline were its only object, still it is very desirable that we should claim a high standard of conduct, and even of etiquette, from our fellow We members. It is one of the objects of our association. may consider that we are agreed upon this. We all feel this so strongly, that, when professional opinion attributes improper conduct, and when adequate discipline does not follow, there is a widespread outcry that your Directors and Judiciary Committee are weak-kneed. This course of reasoning is not just, and I think it important to discuss this subject thoroughly, and decide exactly where the trouble, if any, lies. If it is possible, let us improve our methods. To dispense absolute and complete justice, we should need the full machinery of the Courts. We can be thankful it is not often required. All we can hope to do is to express professional opinion, but we should be adequately prepared to do this. Where we fail, or appear to some to fail, it is evident that the chief difficulty lies in the method of presenting charges. The Judiciary Committee is elected by you from your own body, and its members, presumably, are as ready to discipline as you. But what are they to do if, as is bound to happen, the charges are carelessly framed, perhaps by angry or biased persons, in such manner that they cannot be substantiated? And what is to be done if, as also happens, those who bring charges are too little in earnest to appear at the hearing or furnish needed information? Plainly, it is impossible for the Judiciary Committee to formulate charges or add anything to those made by others. Its duties are those of a court, and none of our national customs permit the Committee to be both court and prosecutor. Besides, it should, in justice, protect the rights of the individual as well as the interests of the profession. Hence, the Judiciary Committee has, properly, as I think, declined to go through the form of trial of any individual or firm unless definite charges and specifications have been submitted to it. The question is, therefore, how shall the ungracious task of prosecution be performed? It is more difficult to produce testimony and prove a point before a National Committee than a local one. In the local Chapters, where many are keenly interested, and the facts are easily obtained, an investigation is more readily and justly made. Hence, possibly, the very best solution of all this problem. lies in the proposition on which you are to vote, that a man expelled from his own Chapter shall cease, ipso facto, to be a member of the Institute, though he may retain the right of appeal. This arrangement would dispose of most cases that are likely to arise, and the Judiciary Committee would thus become, in most instances, only a board of appeal for cases decided by the Chapters. For this, the present machinery would suffice. It ought, however, to be possible to bring cases directly before our Judiciary Committee. The local Chapters may be inert, or the defendant be a member-at-large. If the Judiciary Committee is thus to examine cases at first hand, or even if appealed cases are referred to it, the cases should be presented before the Committee by a lawyer. We may as well recognize that we do not manage this business well, and have no desire to learn how to do it better. The weakness of the present situation does not lie in the faint-heartedness of your Committee, but in the fact that volunteer prosecution before a National Committee is likely to be careless, prejudiced, unsupported by witnesses, and not to be depended upon. Nor is it right to subject reputations to the risks inherent in such amateur courts. But the lawyers are a class of men who constantly deal with such subjects, and are experts at the business, and just as a man employs an architect, we should employ a lawyer fitted to deal with these subjects. If you vote favorably on the amendment proposed to you, and establish that the Chapters, as courts of first resort, shall pass upon cases before them, it will rarely happen that the Judiciary Committee will need to act in the first instance. I suggest that we might settle that the right of appeal from the Chapters shall be to the Judiciary Committee as a final court. I also suggest that, in such cases, as well as when the Judiciary Committee examines questions at first hand, the Executive Committee might be directed by us to pass first on the written charges generally, as a Grand Jury. If the Executive Committee finds substantial basis for the charges, direct them to place the case in the bands of legal counsel at the cost of the Institute for prosecution before the Judiciary Committee as a court. I believe this, or something like it, to be the businesslike disposition of this disagreeable subject. The subject of discipline involves really the larger question of professional ethics, and this is an opportune moment to discuss whether our standard is advancing, and whether our state. conduct towards one another is improving, and what we can do to further desirable improvement. This matter has difficulties of its own, for opinions may differ, fairly, at least, in regard to such details of professional conduct as are conventional and usual, rather than moral. Some of the opinions held of such matters are unsupported by legal right or by general business morality. In fact, they all are governed ultimately by public opinion, and the important thing is to have that in a healthy Our controversies centre mainly around competitions, but no one can deny that even in this nerve-destroying and objectionable side of an architect's work, public sentiment is far more healthy than it was. Probably we cannot do away with competitions, but the public in a short time always accepts what the self-respect of the profession courageously demands. ToTo day there are far more competitions that are limited and paid than formerly, and to the great benefit of employer and employed. To-day far more architects insist on these restrictions, and in the long run, they gain by it. Public opinion has governed very strictly far more hateful things even than competitions; for instance, the practice of duelling, and it can be trained, and I believe it is being trained to ameliorate competitions. As one instrument towards obtaining a healthy public opinion, the American Architect prints weekly the code of ethics that is recommended by the Boston Society of Architects. We thus become familiar with what we agree to in unprejudiced moments. It is a still better thing for us to discuss these matters in a friendly way at these meetings. The more we meet and talk with each other the more opinions crystallize, the better we know each other the less likely we are to yield to that hustling and crowding spirit that is at the root of any troubles that reach our Judiciary Committee, and it is one of the chief advantages of our Institute that it leads to that acquaintance and association of architects from all parts of the country which best subdues the mean or selfish hustler. Indeed, the older of those among us must all recognize that the term "unprofessional conduct" is now applied by general consent to practices which were not long since of not unusual occurrence, and that a distinct advance in this direction has accompanied the increase in numbers and power of the Institute. But to demand a definite written code of ethics is to ask for something difficult of attainment. They have never been simple to frame and their enforcement has brought many a church and association to grief. In our case it would be difficult to state precisely what code should be enforced, even if it were agreed that any should be enforced. Happily, though we may feel helpless to form a code that we all agree upon, yet all these codes were, in fact, summed up once in a very few sentences that well might be printed in those journals which now print our less widely accepted codes. These sentences inevitably form the basis of all our discipline. Differ as we may in small details, we all know that upright, professional conduct means nothing but being a gentleman; and we are sure that all codes of professional ethics finally reduce to the Golden Rule. A healthier subject for our attention, and one that interests us all more than the discipline of the unworthy among us, is the due reward of youthful genius, well-trained skill, and honorable professional life. If we succeed in making membership in the Institute a goal eagerly sought for, it might go far towards eliminating the need of discipline. Surely most can be gained in an association of educated gentlemen by offering the hope of distinction, by honoring excellence, rather than by chastising the unworthy. For this reason I commend to your attention the changes in the by-laws proposed at Pittsburgh and now to be acted upon, which provide that with certain exceptions, all candidates for admission to membership shall be graduates from some recognized architectural school, or shall have passed examinations held by the Institute. This subject was fully discussed last year at Pittsburgh. Still more, I would give my urgent and hearty approval to the new and happy idea that our Secretary has evolved of an annual election through the Directors and the Convention Delegates, of a certain number of Associates to be Fellows, because they have distinguished themselves in successful work. Our Constitution states that an election as Fellow shall be for professional merit. It has always been our aim and intention that a high standard should be maintained for the Fellowship grade, and that in some way, the name of Fellow shall indicate professional distinction. Mr. Brown's suggestion would render this intention thoroughly effective, and I know of no measure which would tend more to make the title of Fellow one that any member of the profession would be proud to bear. In the Institute, as in any long-established association, the young often feel as if they stood no chance for honors with those more prominent in the profession, but in an election of the sort proposed, the young would take an equal stand with the old. Good work alone would count, and we should be sure that prominence and the title of Fellow would be due, not to accident or seniority, but to a general agreement among his comrades that a man is worthy of honor. With these distinctions open to our Associates, I think we should soon cease to complain that men who stand aloof from us reap the advantages in honor and remuneration that have been made possible for them by years of toil on the part of those in our Chapters. Instead of our seeking members, I think membership will be sought by all desirable men. We are asked in print, "to show that an obscure man in the right is more to be honored than an eminent man under suspicion," and we are told that if we do this the younger architects "will gladly ally themselves with the organization and give it the new life that is vitally necessary now." The action now proposed will, I think, in a measure answer this demand. Let us now pass from the criticisms on our efforts "to promote the practical efficiency of the profession." Then we are met promptly by quite different criticism on our attitude towards architecture as an art. It is charged that, as a body, we do not encourage original work, and that architecture, as understood by those influential in our affairs, is only a repetition of old forms and well-worn ornaments, applied without reason and as veneers to absolutely new constructive methods. Even if varied opinions assert themselves, it is said that most of us produce nothing but imitations, more or less feeble and inappropriate, of Parisian work, of Medieval England, of Italy in the fifteenth-century or of Classic Rome itself. Perhaps the professors of architecture are worse than the architects themselves. They are described as "brooding like a blight over their schools," as lauding "symbols and figments," as "harkening to echoes," as pilfering "the spontaneity and charm of youth," and as setting up "the infallibility of tradition." But, the body of American architects, as a whole, are included in these anathemas, and we are told that the hope of the art lies with a new school that is to encourage indigenous and inventive architecture for America. Those of us who have had as long a professional life as myself remember that in our early days the world of architecture was going to be changed by adherence to Mr. Ruskin's formulas, if not by loyalty to medieval ideas. Since then, the pendulum has swung backwards and forwards, until we are coming to think that it does not matter whether the swing is to the right or to the left, but only whether the clock thus regulated is true to time. The chief value of any new movement is to be found in what it produces, and I believe that when it produces the interesting results we sometimes see, it will be found that they rest on immutable laws, well known and applicable to other and quite different work, and we shall find it passes for new only because of new or enthusiastic methods of presentation. Happily, as I think, the horror of adapting to our uses ornamental forms endeared by long association is not widespread. Most of us shudder to think what our land would be if subjected to "a liberation of the creative impulse." This fear of plagiarism never affected architects in other ages. Wilars d'Honcourt, for instance, after sketching the chapels of Rheims, writes: "In the next page you may see the elevations of the chapels of the Church of Rheims on the outside from the beginning to the end, just as they are. In the same manner will be those of Cambray if they are rightly made." Forthwith he makes his piers at Cambray like his sketch of Rheims, which really varied somewhat from the actual work now to be seen there. Nor are other arts affected by this fear. Nobody can be found who sees things more simply or says them more squarely than Rudyard Kipling. Though he might not like the statement, he is like an American in his ability to see straight, without prejudice or cant. He has told us Homer's methods of design, and perhaps what was good enough for Homer answers for some of us. When 'Omer smote 'is blooming lyre, Again, although he is not the first or only man to do so, Kipling has imagined the Master of all Good Workmen setting artists at work anew in the life to come. He says, the good painter may then "splash at a ten-leagued canvas with brushes of comet's hair." Others have dreamed that in the Master's workshop they might be set to design the more modest works of Nature. But if it shall ever be the happy lot of one of us to design a white-oak tree, we shall find it has to be done with time-worn details, with bark and leaves, and twigs and bud and acorn. Yet, the gracious adaptation of these to surroundings and circumstances makes every white oak an individual, with its own character, and with a beauty that is ever new and fresh. In short, we get no great encouragement to original and fanciful detail from the works of Nature. It was said that our old university pastor thus lamented the conflict of sects and dogmas, when they all should tend to one and the same end. There was a farmer, he said, near Albany who raised grain. And when the grain was ripe one man told him to take it to market by rail, and one by the canal, and still a third by the road. But when he got to market, he found that nobody asked him anything but whether the grain was good. Most of us recognize, and are moved to enthusiasm, by a good design even when presented to us in a strange and novel guise. Let us then welcome the help of our critics whenever they show us anything true, and beautiful and good. I believe that I have thus laid before you in a general way the business that must receive your consideration, and those live issues regarding which our course is watched and is of importance. I trust we may have the wisdom to settle all these questions so that the Institute may prove itself worthy of its position as the national expression of a hard-working, scholarly, hopeful, youthful profession, to whom the necessities of to whom the necessities of bread-winning are made light by love for the art they practise. THE THIRTY-FOURTH CONVENTION, A. I. A. HE Thirty-fourth Annual Convention of the American Institute of Architects, which met at Washington on the 13th and adjourned on the 15th instant, has been a successful one. Your correspondent may say an unusually successful one, although it has not been his good fortune to have attended former congresses of this body; but even without that standard of comparison he has felt while enjoying the pleasure of listening to deliberations so marked by quick and satisfactory despatch of business, by a most refreshing avoidance of talk for talk's sake only, by an absence of polemics and parliamentarian displays and by the disciplined marshalling of well-digested opinion upon the topics under discussion, that the serious purposes of the Convention could scarcely have been better carried out. The impression on one sitting through these sessions rather as an outsider has been that these characteristics of the Convention have been largely the result of the forceful, yet always genial, leadership of the presiding officer, the President of the Institute, Mr. Robert S. Peabody, of Boston, reinforced by the efficient lieutenancy and strong initiative of the Secretary and Treasurer, Mr. Glenn Brown, of Washington, to whose "indefatigable labors" the President paid tribute in a short speech at the close of the proceedings. The Convention, assembling for the morning session on December 13th, listened to an address of welcome to Washington from Commissioner McFarland on behalf of the Commissioners for the District of Columbia. This was most cordial in terms, congratulating the city upon the action which brings the Convention here on this occasion and on alternate years for the future. Mr. McFarland voiced the gratitude of citizens to the American Institute of Architects for having preserved the beautiful old Octagon House from threatened decay by making it their permanent home in our midst, and ventured to forecast the gratification which must be felt by the people at large in that the Institute was making the beautification of Washington the central interest of its present deliberations, referring to the boundless possibilities for artistic development offered by this eminently well-planned capital city, sitting enthroned mid the beauty of its surrounding hills. The Commissioner closed his short but effective address by informing the gentlemen here assembled that Washington looks to the Institute of Architects for leadership and instruction, and to give to the Congress ideas for the future improvement of the District of Columbia. As the address of President Peabody which followed is printed in full above, it will be unnecessary to refer at any length to the excellent quality of its matter. It may not, however, be too much to say that the easy, pleasant manner of his reading added not a little to the enjoyment of sound views and well-made points, and that the reception of his address by the Convention was most enthusiastic. Some salient features of these remarks recur to me strongly as I jot down these general notes of the proceedings. The sentence, for example, in which Washington is referred to as full of architectural warnings, and the noble building of the Capitol is pointed to as our grandest model of public architecture. The epigram with which, in touching upon the question of what the Government has done under the new system of admitting private architects to competition in the planning of important Government architecture, he meets Supervising Architect Taylor's late advice to Congress on that subject is very memorable. Architects are wanted to build buildings, not to sell drawings. His suggestion that a clerk-of-works would probably furnish a panacea to the Supervising Architect's unfortunate experiences met with warm applause. And in this connection Mr. Peabody's thanks to Secretary Gage for the patient consideration, singleness of purpose, loyal deference to architects, and the large-minded and intelligent course which he has held toward this matter, and to which is largely attributable whatever of success the new order of procedure has achieved, were impressively worded. In touching upon the relations of the Institute to the youth of the profession, Mr. Peabody was most happy, and in his generous desire for friendship and unity of effort, there was something of the bearing of the old, tried soldier to the younger ambition, which struck the right chord. And upon the vexed question of professional ethics and a standard of honorable practice, among the many pertinent things he said perhaps there was nothing better than his last admonition Institute fails to encourage original work, that it is a body of imita"Be a gentleman!" In taking up the charge so often made, that the tors, echoes, pilferers, in which the professors among its members are worse than the practising architects, and as to the hopes sometimes breathed of a new school of indigenous and original architecture for America, the President summed-up in a sentence which may well stand as the last word of cultivated intelligence, lay as well as professional, on this point: "I shudder to think what our land would become under a liberation of the creative influence." At the close of the President's address the Report of the Board of Directors was read to the Convention by the Secretary of the Institute, Mr. Glenn Brown. This document recites business despatched, contains a statement of the Institute's well-being, and outlines the course proposed for it in matters coming up before the present Convention. It may be here said in a word that its recommendations have been affirmed with practically very little alteration by the action of the Convention. It sets forth that the present membership of the Institute amounts to 399 Fellows, 117 Associates, and 55 Corresponding and Honorary Members. Fifty-six Associates were elected during the year, two Associates advanced to Fellowship, and Mr. Walter Cope elected a Fellow, without passing the preliminary grade, on the score of the "artistic and refined work" for which for many years he has been distinguished in the profession. The death of Mr. Dankmar Adler, of Chicago, was mentioned with an outline of his professional career and mention of his services to the Institute. The death of Mr. J. L. O'Connor, of New York, was also officially noticed. Organization of new Chapters is reported, the architects of New Jersey entering the Institute with eleven members, Baltimore re-organizing with ten members, Cleveland adding new members to its Chapter, the Southern California Chapter having now six Institute members, the Washington State Chapter having one Institute member, with a score more wanting to get in, but debarred by the difficulty of getting endorsers, the nearest Institute membership being in San Francisco. The Board presents the following names for membership in the Institute: Honorary R. Norman Shaw, Ernest George. Corresponding: John Belcher, Paul Wallot, J. L. Pascal, Paul Suzoe, J. M. Pouperiel, M. Bénard, M. Pillet. Additions to the library are reported from various sources. The Board of Directors has passed the following vote of censure on Messrs. H. I. Cobb, and Harding & Gooch: "Resolved: That Henry Ives Cobb be, and he is hereby, censured by the Board of Directors of the American Institute of Architects for submitting his plans for the Pennsylvania State Capitol to the Commission in the so-called second competition to be judged by the Commission, knowing that they had ignored the report of their properly-appointed experts, snch conduct on the part of Henry Ives Cobb being in violation of the terms of the competition to which he had agreed, being unprofessional and prejudicial to the interests of the profession." In the matter of the New York Chapter against George Edward Harding and William Tyson Gooch, who took part in the Pennsylvania State Capitol Competition and in the selection of the Board of Experts to determine the result as provided for in the terms, and who, believing their drawings to have been excluded by the aforesaid Board of Experts on technical grounds, then formally protested |