tion was not in session, was not this time noticeable. From noon of the day before the meetings opened np to a late bedtime the Washington Hotel’s broad lounging spaces were thronged with delegates who with many expressions of gratifi
cation renewed old acquaintances and formed new ones. Three ex-presidents were there and many other men of repute, with whom the members from widely scattered locations fraternized in the most wonderful way. Experience in convention meetings extending over a period of eighteen years, makes it possible to declare that there never was a more satisfactory social gathering. That this intimate a cqu a i n- tance among delegates resulted in more actively conducted sessions cannot be disputed.
Undoubtedly the Institute is yearly increasing its influence as the representative organization in the profession of architecture, and it is not unreasonable to contend that the closer and more intimate relation among the members as a result of these informal meetings “out of hours” during conventions, is creating a spirit of enthusiasm and a better class of teamwork.
Second Day
WEATHER conditions during the
second day were in delightful contrast to the day preceding. The severe rainstorm had blown itself out, and a cloudless sky and a brisk, cool breeze served to enliven the proceedings.
The convention continued the regular routine business and then proceeded to the nomination of officers and directors. All candidates nominated for the office of president, save
D. Everett Waid, having withdrawn, it was moved, seconded and carried with much applause that Mr. Waid’s nomination be made unanimous. We believe that this is the first instance in the history of the Institute that a candidate for president has been unopposed.
For first vice president, the names of Edwin
Bergstrom of Los Angeles, and Ellis F. Lawrence of Portland, Oregon, were placed on the ballot, while for second vice president Abram Garfield of Cleveland, and Charles Butler of Hew York City were opposing candidates for the office.
The morning session closed with an interesting talk by Robert Taylor Jones, technical director of the Architects’ Small House Service Bureau of the United States.
Of the afternoon session, of which H. Van Enron Magonigle was chairman, we believe it can be truthfully stated that no more constructive or deeply interesting and dignified meeting was ever held by
the Institute. The topic for discussion at this meeting, as set down in the program, was, What is Precedent Doing to American Architecture? The papers read, including that of Mr. Magonigle, were all pertinent to the topic, as announced, but differently stated by the different speakers. Mr. Magonigle spoke of Plagiarism as a Fine Art. Professor Cram discussed The Value of Precedent in the Practice of Architecture. Mr. Steele discussed The Use of Precedent in Architectural Design, while Mr. Will cox asked and answered the question, What is the Use of Precedent Doing to American Architecture? It was Professor Boring alone who adhered to the title as set forth in the program. At the close of this meeting there was an expression of strong approval of all the papers presented and it was generally agreed that a very great and dignified contribution had been made to the literature of the architectural profession. Further, the sentiment was, without exception, expressed that these papers should be printed and widely distributed, not only among the profession, but through every channel where a wider knowledge of their great importance might be extended. In this feeling The
American Architect heartily concurs. On another page of this issue the address of Mr. Magonigle will be found, and this will be followed in succeeding issues by the other papers until all are printed.
The special luncheon at the Washington Hotel on this day was under the direction of the Committee on Industrial Relations. It was very
PROF. EMERSON
PROF. HOWARD
PROF. GOLDSMITH
cation renewed old acquaintances and formed new ones. Three ex-presidents were there and many other men of repute, with whom the members from widely scattered locations fraternized in the most wonderful way. Experience in convention meetings extending over a period of eighteen years, makes it possible to declare that there never was a more satisfactory social gathering. That this intimate a cqu a i n- tance among delegates resulted in more actively conducted sessions cannot be disputed.
Undoubtedly the Institute is yearly increasing its influence as the representative organization in the profession of architecture, and it is not unreasonable to contend that the closer and more intimate relation among the members as a result of these informal meetings “out of hours” during conventions, is creating a spirit of enthusiasm and a better class of teamwork.
Second Day
WEATHER conditions during the
second day were in delightful contrast to the day preceding. The severe rainstorm had blown itself out, and a cloudless sky and a brisk, cool breeze served to enliven the proceedings.
The convention continued the regular routine business and then proceeded to the nomination of officers and directors. All candidates nominated for the office of president, save
D. Everett Waid, having withdrawn, it was moved, seconded and carried with much applause that Mr. Waid’s nomination be made unanimous. We believe that this is the first instance in the history of the Institute that a candidate for president has been unopposed.
For first vice president, the names of Edwin
Bergstrom of Los Angeles, and Ellis F. Lawrence of Portland, Oregon, were placed on the ballot, while for second vice president Abram Garfield of Cleveland, and Charles Butler of Hew York City were opposing candidates for the office.
The morning session closed with an interesting talk by Robert Taylor Jones, technical director of the Architects’ Small House Service Bureau of the United States.
Of the afternoon session, of which H. Van Enron Magonigle was chairman, we believe it can be truthfully stated that no more constructive or deeply interesting and dignified meeting was ever held by
the Institute. The topic for discussion at this meeting, as set down in the program, was, What is Precedent Doing to American Architecture? The papers read, including that of Mr. Magonigle, were all pertinent to the topic, as announced, but differently stated by the different speakers. Mr. Magonigle spoke of Plagiarism as a Fine Art. Professor Cram discussed The Value of Precedent in the Practice of Architecture. Mr. Steele discussed The Use of Precedent in Architectural Design, while Mr. Will cox asked and answered the question, What is the Use of Precedent Doing to American Architecture? It was Professor Boring alone who adhered to the title as set forth in the program. At the close of this meeting there was an expression of strong approval of all the papers presented and it was generally agreed that a very great and dignified contribution had been made to the literature of the architectural profession. Further, the sentiment was, without exception, expressed that these papers should be printed and widely distributed, not only among the profession, but through every channel where a wider knowledge of their great importance might be extended. In this feeling The
American Architect heartily concurs. On another page of this issue the address of Mr. Magonigle will be found, and this will be followed in succeeding issues by the other papers until all are printed.
The special luncheon at the Washington Hotel on this day was under the direction of the Committee on Industrial Relations. It was very
PROF. EMERSON
PROF. HOWARD
PROF. GOLDSMITH