The American Architect and Building News,
VOL. XXXII.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 800.
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
APRIL 25, 1891.
Summary: —
The Massachusetts Legislative Investigation into the Use of Poisons in Manufacture. — Arsenicated Wall-papers upheld as Beneficent Tonics. — Movement to provide Public Baths in New York. —The Advantages of the Shower-bath in such Establishments. — The Lafayette Monument at Wash
ington. — The Action of Elevator-shafts in Case of Fire. 49 A Run through Spain. — X.............................................................51 Equestrian Monuments. — XXXVII...............................................54 Illustrations: —
Doorway to House of Mrs. Oliver Ditson, Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. — Store-building in New York, N. Y. — House
at Binghamton, N. Y. — St. Ouen, Rouen, France, and Vital- Dubray’s Statue of Napoleon Bonaparte. — Mantel in the Old Governor Wentworth House, Portsmouth, N. H.
Additional: Details from the Imperial Museum, Leipsic, Saxony. — Doorway of the New York Life Insurance Building, Montreal, Can. — Doorway to the Vestibule of the Priests’ Quarters, Monreale Cathedral. — Window over Vestry Door, Troyes, France. — Abbey Hotel, Kenilworth,
Eng..................................................................... 59 Societies......................................................................................................................59 Communications: —
A Weak Truss. — Exhibition of Carved Incrusted Capitals.
— Picture-making with Pen-and-ink. — Balloons......................60 Notes and Clippings.............................................................................................60 Trade Surveys.........................................................................................................60
THE discussion over the law proposed in Massachusetts to forbid the use of arsenic in wall-papers, has brought out
some curious observations. Some years ago, when the same matter was brought up, in much the same way, certain manufacturers expressed their conviction that pigments containing arsenic were objectionable for paper-hangings, and some of them reaped, we hope, a considerable reward for the care which led them to have all their papers analyzed and to sell nothing containing arsenical colors. Now, the case seems to be changed. The principal manufacturers in New York seem to be unanimous in testifying that paper-hangings cannot be made without arsenic, but that there is “ not the slightest danger ” in them. One of them, indeed, testified that “ whatever traces of arsenic there were in wall-paper were a boon to health. ” “ Arsenic was a tonic, and a good thing. ” Professor Chandler of Columbia College, testified as a chemist that “ arsenic in wall-papers did no harm, ” and did not believe that sickness was ever caused by the absorption of arsenic from paper by inhalation; but several manufacturers admitted that they had stopped using Paris green in their papers.
WHY they should stop using Paris green, which is the best known arsenical color, if they consider that arsenic is a beneficent “tonic, ” is not very clear. Obviously, the arsenic on the paper could not act as a “ tonic ” unless it was taken into the system, and, if it were taken into the system at all, it must make a good deal of difference in the “ tonic ” effect, whether it was brushed off in large quantities from a badly made paper loaded with Paris green and London purple, or in small quantities from a hand-made paper in delicate tints; while the age and susceptibility of the subject would have an important influence on the “ tonic ” effect of a violent poison. The fact is that an admission of the beneficial effect of arsenical colors in wall-papers is also an admission of their noxious effect under different circumstances. If the poisonous coloring matter can be swept off by the dusting-brush in sufficient quantities to affect a healthy person favorably, a little more energetic brushing might easily dislodge enough to affect a delicate child very unfavorably. Several experts thought that no case of illness had ever been traced to arsenic in wall-paper, but we know, and we imagine that many of our readers know, of at least one case in which a sensitive child was constantly ailing, so long as it slept in a certain room, improved in health on being removed, and declined when brought back to it; and, finally, was completely and per
manently cured when the paper was taken off the walls, and a different one substituted. Of course, this is not proof that the coloring in the paper was injurious, but it is strong evidence, and there is a great deal of such evidence available. We were told once, by a decorator and dealer of the highest reputation, that some of the Japanese wall-papers were so loaded with arsenic that the workmen who put them up were often made ill. As he paid the workmen for their time he had good reason for ascertaining the cause of their lost hours, and we presume it would take a good many chemists to convince him that, as one of them expressed it before the Massachusetts Legislative Committee, their sickness was “ merely a Boston fad. ” To our mind, wall-papers of all sorts are objectionable enough, without spreading poisons over them, and if the manufacturers cannot get along without decorating them with arsenical colors, the architects will gladly help people to devise some more wholesome means of finishing their rooms. Arsenic now enters into pigments of nearly every possible color, and is said to give a certain freshness of effect which is desirable; but most people can dispense with the freshness, if necessary, and we are inclined to think that before long, unless they can be sure of not having “ tonics ” brushed off in dust into the air they breathe, they will dispense with wall-papers entirely.
O
UR readers will remember the competition instituted by the Cosmopolitan Magazine, for designs for a public bath-house for New York, and may, perhaps, have seen the sumptuous design by Mr. John Galen Howard, which received the first prize. Although Mr. Howard’s design was a beautiful one, it was for an establishment better suited to the use of a Roman Emperor and his friends, or a Millionaire Club, than to the more modest, but more urgent requirements of the plumbers, machinists, coalhandlers, expressmen, cooks, factory operatives and other persons, men and women, who have to work all day in the midst of dust and grease, and would like to go to bed at night feeling clean and sweet; and it is not surprising that the people who look on baths as the first hygienic necessity to be provided in great cities were disappointed in the result. Accordingly, a new movement has been started in New York, looking to the establishment of public shower-baths, like those which have become so common in Germany, without any attempt at swim ming-tanks or other costly features. It is now quite certain that for public baths, intended to be of the greatest use to the greatest possible number of persons, the shower is by far the most suitable apparatus. Even the tub has nearly disappeared from public baths abroad, for tubs collect sediment, and must be very frequently cleaned, while they cannot be used to advantage without the aid of a sponge, which should never be allowed in any public bath. Moreover, a tub occupies almost the space of two shower baths, and requires about twenty times as much water for a satisfactory wash. The swimming-tank is even more objectionable than the tubs, and far more expensive. The summer floating-baths of our seaport towns, moored in a tidal current, are safe and clean enough, but the very idea of an enclosed tank, filled with “ soup, ” and inhabited by a group of filthy tramps, suggests contagion, and no such arrangement would be countenanced by a municipal Board of Health.
W
ITH the shower-bath, on the other hand, a small amount of water refreshes, cleanses and stimulates more than the same amount applied in any other way. The bather stands in a box, large enough to give him elbow room, and receives a shower of warm water, from a tank or sprinklerpipe over his head, where he cannot meddle with it, to its disadvantage. He is supplied with a bit of soap, which he rubs
over his limbs in suitable sequence, and emerges more or less clean, according to the energy he has displayed in his operations, having enjoyed the luxury of having nothing but clean water in contact with him all the while, and of knowing that he will leave no epithelium cells or other debris in his compartment to greet the next occupant. In Germany, where bathhouses of this sort are built as an investment, and fuel is skilfully utilized for drying towels as well as for heating water, a bath, including soap and towel, costs about two cents; and this fee pays all expenses, besides the salary of the attendant, and a good interest on the capital invested. In New
VOL. XXXII.
Copyright, 1891, by Ticknor & Company, Boston, Mass.
No. 800.
Entered at the Post-Office at Boston as second-class matter.
APRIL 25, 1891.
Summary: —
The Massachusetts Legislative Investigation into the Use of Poisons in Manufacture. — Arsenicated Wall-papers upheld as Beneficent Tonics. — Movement to provide Public Baths in New York. —The Advantages of the Shower-bath in such Establishments. — The Lafayette Monument at Wash
ington. — The Action of Elevator-shafts in Case of Fire. 49 A Run through Spain. — X.............................................................51 Equestrian Monuments. — XXXVII...............................................54 Illustrations: —
Doorway to House of Mrs. Oliver Ditson, Commonwealth Ave., Boston, Mass. — Store-building in New York, N. Y. — House
at Binghamton, N. Y. — St. Ouen, Rouen, France, and Vital- Dubray’s Statue of Napoleon Bonaparte. — Mantel in the Old Governor Wentworth House, Portsmouth, N. H.
Additional: Details from the Imperial Museum, Leipsic, Saxony. — Doorway of the New York Life Insurance Building, Montreal, Can. — Doorway to the Vestibule of the Priests’ Quarters, Monreale Cathedral. — Window over Vestry Door, Troyes, France. — Abbey Hotel, Kenilworth,
Eng..................................................................... 59 Societies......................................................................................................................59 Communications: —
A Weak Truss. — Exhibition of Carved Incrusted Capitals.
— Picture-making with Pen-and-ink. — Balloons......................60 Notes and Clippings.............................................................................................60 Trade Surveys.........................................................................................................60
THE discussion over the law proposed in Massachusetts to forbid the use of arsenic in wall-papers, has brought out
some curious observations. Some years ago, when the same matter was brought up, in much the same way, certain manufacturers expressed their conviction that pigments containing arsenic were objectionable for paper-hangings, and some of them reaped, we hope, a considerable reward for the care which led them to have all their papers analyzed and to sell nothing containing arsenical colors. Now, the case seems to be changed. The principal manufacturers in New York seem to be unanimous in testifying that paper-hangings cannot be made without arsenic, but that there is “ not the slightest danger ” in them. One of them, indeed, testified that “ whatever traces of arsenic there were in wall-paper were a boon to health. ” “ Arsenic was a tonic, and a good thing. ” Professor Chandler of Columbia College, testified as a chemist that “ arsenic in wall-papers did no harm, ” and did not believe that sickness was ever caused by the absorption of arsenic from paper by inhalation; but several manufacturers admitted that they had stopped using Paris green in their papers.
WHY they should stop using Paris green, which is the best known arsenical color, if they consider that arsenic is a beneficent “tonic, ” is not very clear. Obviously, the arsenic on the paper could not act as a “ tonic ” unless it was taken into the system, and, if it were taken into the system at all, it must make a good deal of difference in the “ tonic ” effect, whether it was brushed off in large quantities from a badly made paper loaded with Paris green and London purple, or in small quantities from a hand-made paper in delicate tints; while the age and susceptibility of the subject would have an important influence on the “ tonic ” effect of a violent poison. The fact is that an admission of the beneficial effect of arsenical colors in wall-papers is also an admission of their noxious effect under different circumstances. If the poisonous coloring matter can be swept off by the dusting-brush in sufficient quantities to affect a healthy person favorably, a little more energetic brushing might easily dislodge enough to affect a delicate child very unfavorably. Several experts thought that no case of illness had ever been traced to arsenic in wall-paper, but we know, and we imagine that many of our readers know, of at least one case in which a sensitive child was constantly ailing, so long as it slept in a certain room, improved in health on being removed, and declined when brought back to it; and, finally, was completely and per
manently cured when the paper was taken off the walls, and a different one substituted. Of course, this is not proof that the coloring in the paper was injurious, but it is strong evidence, and there is a great deal of such evidence available. We were told once, by a decorator and dealer of the highest reputation, that some of the Japanese wall-papers were so loaded with arsenic that the workmen who put them up were often made ill. As he paid the workmen for their time he had good reason for ascertaining the cause of their lost hours, and we presume it would take a good many chemists to convince him that, as one of them expressed it before the Massachusetts Legislative Committee, their sickness was “ merely a Boston fad. ” To our mind, wall-papers of all sorts are objectionable enough, without spreading poisons over them, and if the manufacturers cannot get along without decorating them with arsenical colors, the architects will gladly help people to devise some more wholesome means of finishing their rooms. Arsenic now enters into pigments of nearly every possible color, and is said to give a certain freshness of effect which is desirable; but most people can dispense with the freshness, if necessary, and we are inclined to think that before long, unless they can be sure of not having “ tonics ” brushed off in dust into the air they breathe, they will dispense with wall-papers entirely.
O
UR readers will remember the competition instituted by the Cosmopolitan Magazine, for designs for a public bath-house for New York, and may, perhaps, have seen the sumptuous design by Mr. John Galen Howard, which received the first prize. Although Mr. Howard’s design was a beautiful one, it was for an establishment better suited to the use of a Roman Emperor and his friends, or a Millionaire Club, than to the more modest, but more urgent requirements of the plumbers, machinists, coalhandlers, expressmen, cooks, factory operatives and other persons, men and women, who have to work all day in the midst of dust and grease, and would like to go to bed at night feeling clean and sweet; and it is not surprising that the people who look on baths as the first hygienic necessity to be provided in great cities were disappointed in the result. Accordingly, a new movement has been started in New York, looking to the establishment of public shower-baths, like those which have become so common in Germany, without any attempt at swim ming-tanks or other costly features. It is now quite certain that for public baths, intended to be of the greatest use to the greatest possible number of persons, the shower is by far the most suitable apparatus. Even the tub has nearly disappeared from public baths abroad, for tubs collect sediment, and must be very frequently cleaned, while they cannot be used to advantage without the aid of a sponge, which should never be allowed in any public bath. Moreover, a tub occupies almost the space of two shower baths, and requires about twenty times as much water for a satisfactory wash. The swimming-tank is even more objectionable than the tubs, and far more expensive. The summer floating-baths of our seaport towns, moored in a tidal current, are safe and clean enough, but the very idea of an enclosed tank, filled with “ soup, ” and inhabited by a group of filthy tramps, suggests contagion, and no such arrangement would be countenanced by a municipal Board of Health.
W
ITH the shower-bath, on the other hand, a small amount of water refreshes, cleanses and stimulates more than the same amount applied in any other way. The bather stands in a box, large enough to give him elbow room, and receives a shower of warm water, from a tank or sprinklerpipe over his head, where he cannot meddle with it, to its disadvantage. He is supplied with a bit of soap, which he rubs
over his limbs in suitable sequence, and emerges more or less clean, according to the energy he has displayed in his operations, having enjoyed the luxury of having nothing but clean water in contact with him all the while, and of knowing that he will leave no epithelium cells or other debris in his compartment to greet the next occupant. In Germany, where bathhouses of this sort are built as an investment, and fuel is skilfully utilized for drying towels as well as for heating water, a bath, including soap and towel, costs about two cents; and this fee pays all expenses, besides the salary of the attendant, and a good interest on the capital invested. In New