highest standards of those who were admitted to it. He believed in the growth of the Institute, but he believed still more strongly that its growth should be sound. Believing that the best way to maintain its standards was to better them and the best way to convince others, whether the public or the profession, of the value of the Institute was to improve the practice of architecture among those who composed the Institute, he devoted himself to that work. The code of ethics, the innumerable studies on the subject of competitions resulting in what is now established, and the vexed schedule of minimum charges, were among the subjects which he gave his unswerving attention. The Institute is his debtor for these, but much more is it indebted to him for the Standard Documents. No one who had never worked with him can appreciate the great amount of patient work which has gone to the perfecting of those documents. That was his great contribution. It is the more remarkable in that nearly all the work on these documents was done after he had served the Institute for years, risen from one office to another until he was honored by being made president, and after his term took up this laborious committee work, and was at the time of his death completing a general treatise on the profession. Such is the tribute the Institute owes to Frank Miles Day.
As an architect and practical man of affairs, Mr. Day was a leader. He began to practice in 1886. Architecture was then just beginning to wake from a period of terrible torpidity. From just before the Civil War until the eighties there had been hardly a good thing done in architecture, and of all the cities probably none was at a lower ebb than Philadelphia, notwithstanding the fact that then, as now, it was surrounded by innumerable examples of delightful country places and had not a few fine old buildings in the city. It was to this existing fine work that Mr. Day was attracted. Mr. Day, always associated in our minds with John Stewardson, Walter Cope and Wilson Eyre, struck out on new lines, new, yet old, for they were on the sound foundation of old work and led the way to much of that which is best today.
There was at that time in Philadelphia, as there is today, a group of very able painters, sculptors and illustrators, and many workers in the minor arts. With all of these Mr. Day was intimate and gained immensely, as one always does, from such companionship. Like all true lovers of the arts, he loved the country and was as skillful in handling that most fascinating of all materials, the growing thing, as he was with brick and mortar, so that his gardens, whether designed for himself or for his clients, were as charming as his houses. He was
one of the many architects who demonstrated in practice that the garden is as much a part of architecture as is the front hall, and also that no one who does not think in terms of architecture can design gardens.
With all this, he was an intensely practical man. He studied the economics of his office and his buildings. He delighted in devising ways and means of doing work better and more economically and, what is more, he knew what true economy is; for all tins the profession and the public are his debtors. Those who knew him best will, however, remember him best not for his architecture, not for his service to the profession, but for himself, the true friend, the kindly, lovable companion.
Nomination of Officers
The nomination of officers then followed. These were:
For President, Thomas R. Kimball of Omaha. For First Vice-President, Charles A. Favrot of New Orleans.
For Second Vice-President, C. C. Zantzinger of Philadelphia.
For Secretary, W. Stanley Parker of Boston.
For Treasurer, D. Everett Waid of New York.
For Directors (for term of three years), three receiving highest vote to be declared elected: Edward N. Hewitt, Minneapolis. William B. Ittner, St. Louis. Henry H. Kendall, Boston.
Frederick W. Perkins, Chicago. Wm. J. Sayward, Atlanta.
Charles Coker Wilson, Columbia, S. C.
In addition to the above, the following members were nominated for election to Fellowship: Elliston D. Bissell, Philadelphia. N. Max Dunning, Chicago.
William Emerson, New York.
Robert D. Farquhar, Los Angeles. Walter H. Kilham, Boston.
Henry McGoodwin, Philadelphia. W. S. Richardson, New York.
Unfinished Business
Under the head of unfinished business, a discussion was held relative to enlarging the duties of the Secretary. The Board of Directors had recommended that the work of the Secretary be enlarged; that he devote his entire time to the Institute and that he be made editor-in-chief of the Journal. In addition, that the Secretary should assume the business management of the Institute, and should receive a salary of $8,000 a year. There was a spirited debate on this measure, during which the delegates expressed in the highest terms their appreciation of
As an architect and practical man of affairs, Mr. Day was a leader. He began to practice in 1886. Architecture was then just beginning to wake from a period of terrible torpidity. From just before the Civil War until the eighties there had been hardly a good thing done in architecture, and of all the cities probably none was at a lower ebb than Philadelphia, notwithstanding the fact that then, as now, it was surrounded by innumerable examples of delightful country places and had not a few fine old buildings in the city. It was to this existing fine work that Mr. Day was attracted. Mr. Day, always associated in our minds with John Stewardson, Walter Cope and Wilson Eyre, struck out on new lines, new, yet old, for they were on the sound foundation of old work and led the way to much of that which is best today.
There was at that time in Philadelphia, as there is today, a group of very able painters, sculptors and illustrators, and many workers in the minor arts. With all of these Mr. Day was intimate and gained immensely, as one always does, from such companionship. Like all true lovers of the arts, he loved the country and was as skillful in handling that most fascinating of all materials, the growing thing, as he was with brick and mortar, so that his gardens, whether designed for himself or for his clients, were as charming as his houses. He was
one of the many architects who demonstrated in practice that the garden is as much a part of architecture as is the front hall, and also that no one who does not think in terms of architecture can design gardens.
With all this, he was an intensely practical man. He studied the economics of his office and his buildings. He delighted in devising ways and means of doing work better and more economically and, what is more, he knew what true economy is; for all tins the profession and the public are his debtors. Those who knew him best will, however, remember him best not for his architecture, not for his service to the profession, but for himself, the true friend, the kindly, lovable companion.
Nomination of Officers
The nomination of officers then followed. These were:
For President, Thomas R. Kimball of Omaha. For First Vice-President, Charles A. Favrot of New Orleans.
For Second Vice-President, C. C. Zantzinger of Philadelphia.
For Secretary, W. Stanley Parker of Boston.
For Treasurer, D. Everett Waid of New York.
For Directors (for term of three years), three receiving highest vote to be declared elected: Edward N. Hewitt, Minneapolis. William B. Ittner, St. Louis. Henry H. Kendall, Boston.
Frederick W. Perkins, Chicago. Wm. J. Sayward, Atlanta.
Charles Coker Wilson, Columbia, S. C.
In addition to the above, the following members were nominated for election to Fellowship: Elliston D. Bissell, Philadelphia. N. Max Dunning, Chicago.
William Emerson, New York.
Robert D. Farquhar, Los Angeles. Walter H. Kilham, Boston.
Henry McGoodwin, Philadelphia. W. S. Richardson, New York.
Unfinished Business
Under the head of unfinished business, a discussion was held relative to enlarging the duties of the Secretary. The Board of Directors had recommended that the work of the Secretary be enlarged; that he devote his entire time to the Institute and that he be made editor-in-chief of the Journal. In addition, that the Secretary should assume the business management of the Institute, and should receive a salary of $8,000 a year. There was a spirited debate on this measure, during which the delegates expressed in the highest terms their appreciation of