bers of the Philadelphia Chapter and the T-Square Club.
Philadelphia has a strong attraction for architects, not only because it has within its limits some of the best architectural work in the Eastern States, but for the further reason that, as the center of our Colonial struggle, it presents to-day, thanks to the work of the Committee on Preservation of Historic Monuments, a greater number of well-preserved buildings of our Colonial period than any other section.
The enjoyable meeting at Independence Hall and the numerous motor trips were the never-tiring subject of enthusiastic comment by visiting delegates.
In the evening a gathering of the delegates, as guests of the T-Square Club, developed into an informal conference on Chapter problems of botn national and local significance. There was an exchange of views that is bound to result in the greatest good. In fact, these evening meetings, as far as the setting of the practice of architecture in its proper place and serving to show the right road to future usefulness were concerned, were of greater value than the more formal convention sessions. A greater freedom of speech, a more frank discussion of problems and a somewhat severe taking-to-task of that element so largely responsible for what has happened were apparent at all times.
These things may not be set down here, as they are, in a sense, confidential talks, spoken with the knowledge that they were not for publication. But it will be pertinent to state that if the influence of a certain element that has, without reserve, touched the vital points as to present conditions can be of use, we shall soon emerge into the right paths that lead to the highest fulfillment of an architect’s service.
The Third Day
At the opening of the session, announcement was made as follows of the result of the election of officers :
Thomas R. Kimball, Omaha, president.
Charles A. Favrot, New Orleans, first vice-president.
George S. Mills, Toledo, second vice-president. W. Stanley Parker, Boston, secretary.
D. Everett Waid, New York, treasurer.
For Directors—Edward W. Donn, Jr., Washington, D. C.; Robert D. Kohn, New York; Ellis F. Lawrence, Portland, Ore.; Richard E. Schmidt, Chicago.
The following eight members, nominated for elevation to fellowship, were elected:
James E. Allison, Los Angeles, Cal. Louis Ayres, New York.
Charles Butler, New York.
E. E. Dougherty, Atlanta, Ga.
Alexander C. Eschweiler, Milwaukee, Wis. Albert Kahn, Detroit, Mich.
John P. B. Sinkler, Philadelphia, Pa. Wm. L. Steele, Sioux City, Iowa.
Matters of unfinished business carried forward from preceding days were cleared away, and the further reading of papers relating to the architect’s services, with particular reference to the Government, the architect and the artisan in their relation to industrial housing, was continued and the discussion brought to a close. Papers were presented by F. L. Ackerman and C. H. Whitaker.
During this session the all-absorbing question of advertising was strenuously debated. An opportunity was afforded the onlooker during this discussion to study the various types of temperamentality that has, in recent years, been developed in those who practise architecture. Naturally the most energetic and persistent advocates of a revision of the present code as referring to advertising were men representing the Chapters of the Middle West, where the demand for revision had its origin. These men very forcefully, in a most practical way, and with characteristic Western abruptness, laid their case before the convention. The Eastern men, with good logic and a fine sense of parliamentary usage, advanced their arguments. While it could be noted that, judged by rules governing debate, there was difficulty in arriving at a fine point of decision between those for and against this measure, the impartial observer could detect that the argument of the Western element was based on a logical and clear-headed interpretation of the things that surround architectural practice now; while those from the older sections of the country, while equally strong, were based on a shrewd conservatism and a disposition to believe that old or present rules governing advertising should not be disturbed without the most careful consideration. The outcome of the debate between two such groups of equally matured opponents, although schooled in different localities of the country, was one of considerable interest, as it foreshadowed, in a sense, the probable attitude of the majority, not only toward the question under debate, but also toward other important matters that will come up for action during the forthcoming year.
The debate centered upon that part of the report of the Committee on Advertising calling for restriction of advertising contained in Section 4 of the Canon of Ethics, which calls advertising unprofessional and imposes a penalty for its use. This canon was repealed. By vote of the convention Article 10 of the Advice on Practice was referred back to the Board of Directors to be phrased so that it would be in harmony with such repeal.
Philadelphia has a strong attraction for architects, not only because it has within its limits some of the best architectural work in the Eastern States, but for the further reason that, as the center of our Colonial struggle, it presents to-day, thanks to the work of the Committee on Preservation of Historic Monuments, a greater number of well-preserved buildings of our Colonial period than any other section.
The enjoyable meeting at Independence Hall and the numerous motor trips were the never-tiring subject of enthusiastic comment by visiting delegates.
In the evening a gathering of the delegates, as guests of the T-Square Club, developed into an informal conference on Chapter problems of botn national and local significance. There was an exchange of views that is bound to result in the greatest good. In fact, these evening meetings, as far as the setting of the practice of architecture in its proper place and serving to show the right road to future usefulness were concerned, were of greater value than the more formal convention sessions. A greater freedom of speech, a more frank discussion of problems and a somewhat severe taking-to-task of that element so largely responsible for what has happened were apparent at all times.
These things may not be set down here, as they are, in a sense, confidential talks, spoken with the knowledge that they were not for publication. But it will be pertinent to state that if the influence of a certain element that has, without reserve, touched the vital points as to present conditions can be of use, we shall soon emerge into the right paths that lead to the highest fulfillment of an architect’s service.
The Third Day
At the opening of the session, announcement was made as follows of the result of the election of officers :
Thomas R. Kimball, Omaha, president.
Charles A. Favrot, New Orleans, first vice-president.
George S. Mills, Toledo, second vice-president. W. Stanley Parker, Boston, secretary.
D. Everett Waid, New York, treasurer.
For Directors—Edward W. Donn, Jr., Washington, D. C.; Robert D. Kohn, New York; Ellis F. Lawrence, Portland, Ore.; Richard E. Schmidt, Chicago.
The following eight members, nominated for elevation to fellowship, were elected:
James E. Allison, Los Angeles, Cal. Louis Ayres, New York.
Charles Butler, New York.
E. E. Dougherty, Atlanta, Ga.
Alexander C. Eschweiler, Milwaukee, Wis. Albert Kahn, Detroit, Mich.
John P. B. Sinkler, Philadelphia, Pa. Wm. L. Steele, Sioux City, Iowa.
Matters of unfinished business carried forward from preceding days were cleared away, and the further reading of papers relating to the architect’s services, with particular reference to the Government, the architect and the artisan in their relation to industrial housing, was continued and the discussion brought to a close. Papers were presented by F. L. Ackerman and C. H. Whitaker.
During this session the all-absorbing question of advertising was strenuously debated. An opportunity was afforded the onlooker during this discussion to study the various types of temperamentality that has, in recent years, been developed in those who practise architecture. Naturally the most energetic and persistent advocates of a revision of the present code as referring to advertising were men representing the Chapters of the Middle West, where the demand for revision had its origin. These men very forcefully, in a most practical way, and with characteristic Western abruptness, laid their case before the convention. The Eastern men, with good logic and a fine sense of parliamentary usage, advanced their arguments. While it could be noted that, judged by rules governing debate, there was difficulty in arriving at a fine point of decision between those for and against this measure, the impartial observer could detect that the argument of the Western element was based on a logical and clear-headed interpretation of the things that surround architectural practice now; while those from the older sections of the country, while equally strong, were based on a shrewd conservatism and a disposition to believe that old or present rules governing advertising should not be disturbed without the most careful consideration. The outcome of the debate between two such groups of equally matured opponents, although schooled in different localities of the country, was one of considerable interest, as it foreshadowed, in a sense, the probable attitude of the majority, not only toward the question under debate, but also toward other important matters that will come up for action during the forthcoming year.
The debate centered upon that part of the report of the Committee on Advertising calling for restriction of advertising contained in Section 4 of the Canon of Ethics, which calls advertising unprofessional and imposes a penalty for its use. This canon was repealed. By vote of the convention Article 10 of the Advice on Practice was referred back to the Board of Directors to be phrased so that it would be in harmony with such repeal.