solatium for each trade union ‘‘boss, ’’ and a working arrangement with the material rings. It is fairly certain that ˮbuilding owners’’ were, in many cases, cognisant of or acquiesced in the procedure. The promoter and investor get no return until a building is completed, and when several millions of dollars are locked up in a building the loss of interest through a stoppage of even a week or two may be considerable.
Even the highly-organised system in building operations in the United States, by which material and sub-contractors arrive on the work at the exact moment they are required, gave the “business agent” plenty of work to do. There were “bosses”
who had to be squared before the material could be moved; there was the unintentional violation of new working rules, devised faster than contractors could hear of them, only to be atoned for by hard cash, and so on.
All this ingenuity to grease the wheels of an overburdened industry only resulted, however, in promoting building in Chicago to the position of an uneconomic luxury. At which point enquiry began, and the Dailey Commission on Graft and the Landis arbitration on pay and rules, with its famous 18 points, seem to have revealed the situation without giving much promise of amendment. The Landis award was unpopular with both parties, and a Citizens’ Committee, formed to support and enforce it, has met with indifferent success. The situation has been eased in one respect by a large ingress of non-union labour, with which, at present, 22 unions allow their members to work. Mr. Montgomery suggests the desirability of organising an outside body composed of civic representatives and disinterested citizens to act as a watchdog against the growth of abuses within the industry, but both employers and contractors will brook no interference from outside. One cannot help feeling that the outlook is more than a little sombre; and possibly it is to help in dispersing the clouds that Mr. Montgomery has published a treatise which is of absorbing interest.
The Central London Bridges
Mr. Arthur Keen’s recent letter to the Minister of Transport shows that the Conference of Societies interested in the Preservation of Waterloo Bridge are again feeling some anxiety about that structure. The Royal Commission, under Lord Lee, recommended the retention, repair and strengthening of Waterloo
Bridge and the building of a new double-deck bridge to carry road and railway over the Thames at Charing Cross. The Government accepted the Commission’s report and decided to implement it; but as the estimates of the cost of the Charing Cross bridge varied considerably, they announced that an enquiry into this matter would be conducted by technical experts representing, respectively, the Southern Railway, the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport. From a statement made at a recent meeting of the London County Council it appears that the Southern Railway Company have debarred their engineer from serving on this Committee of Enquiry. In effect, the Conference of Societies foresees that the report ‘‘will accordingly be prepared by persons who are known to favour the substitution by a new enlarged structure of the existing Waterloo Bridge. This would, of course, postpone indefinitely a new road bridge at Charing Cross. The enquiry, therefore, is truncated, and the report can be predicted. ” The Conference suggests that the vacant place on the Committee should be occupied by some person not already pledged to the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. Mr. Keen’s letter also urged the Minister to use his influence to ensure that there shall be no delay in preparing schedules for the work of repairing and strengthening Waterloo Bridge, and a further letter of enquiry on this point has been addressed to the L. C. C. The general manager of the Southern Railway has replied to Mr. Keen on one point, stating that the Government has asked a firm of eminent engineers to prepare a comprehensive report and estimate of the cost of erecting the bridge at Charing Cross. No Committee, he states, has been set up, and the railway company have not, therefore, forbidden their engineer to serve on it. They have been asked to give any assistance to the firm of engineers appointed to prepare the report, and are so doing. Mr. Keen, in a further letter to The Times, does not accept the statement that no Committee has been appointed, and gives references to announcements in Parliament, at the L. C. C., and in a letter received by him from the Minister of Transport — all referring to “the Committee” — also to a clause in
the report of the Improvements Committee of the L. C. C. of July 26 very definitely confirming the statement he made about the Southern Railway and their engineer. There is a rather nasty savour about this matter which the Ministry of Transport would do well to dispel as speedily as possible.
ARCHITECTS’ REGISTRATION BILL
A Special Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons
The Select Committee to whom the Architects’ Registration Bill was referred have agreed to the following special report:
(1) Your Committee regret that they are unable to report the Architects’ Registration Bill to the House.
(2) Your Committee have met on 14 days and have examined 20 witnesses, and have also considered memoranda put in by various bodies and persons. Amongst the witnesses were representatives from the R. I. B. A., the Architectural Association (London), the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, the County Councils’ Association, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the Institute of Builders,
the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors, the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, the Association of Consulting Engineers, and the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress. Other individual witnesses were also heard. Your Committee have agreed to report the whole of this evidence to the House.
(3) In view of the fact that the clauses of the Bill had been amended by the Committee in the light of the evidence submitted, and that the final vote of 5 to 4, not to report the Bill to the House, does not represent the views of the Committee of eleven members as a whole, your Committee hope that early opportunity will be given to the House next session to consider a Bill framed on the lines of this Bill as amended.
Even the highly-organised system in building operations in the United States, by which material and sub-contractors arrive on the work at the exact moment they are required, gave the “business agent” plenty of work to do. There were “bosses”
who had to be squared before the material could be moved; there was the unintentional violation of new working rules, devised faster than contractors could hear of them, only to be atoned for by hard cash, and so on.
All this ingenuity to grease the wheels of an overburdened industry only resulted, however, in promoting building in Chicago to the position of an uneconomic luxury. At which point enquiry began, and the Dailey Commission on Graft and the Landis arbitration on pay and rules, with its famous 18 points, seem to have revealed the situation without giving much promise of amendment. The Landis award was unpopular with both parties, and a Citizens’ Committee, formed to support and enforce it, has met with indifferent success. The situation has been eased in one respect by a large ingress of non-union labour, with which, at present, 22 unions allow their members to work. Mr. Montgomery suggests the desirability of organising an outside body composed of civic representatives and disinterested citizens to act as a watchdog against the growth of abuses within the industry, but both employers and contractors will brook no interference from outside. One cannot help feeling that the outlook is more than a little sombre; and possibly it is to help in dispersing the clouds that Mr. Montgomery has published a treatise which is of absorbing interest.
The Central London Bridges
Mr. Arthur Keen’s recent letter to the Minister of Transport shows that the Conference of Societies interested in the Preservation of Waterloo Bridge are again feeling some anxiety about that structure. The Royal Commission, under Lord Lee, recommended the retention, repair and strengthening of Waterloo
Bridge and the building of a new double-deck bridge to carry road and railway over the Thames at Charing Cross. The Government accepted the Commission’s report and decided to implement it; but as the estimates of the cost of the Charing Cross bridge varied considerably, they announced that an enquiry into this matter would be conducted by technical experts representing, respectively, the Southern Railway, the London County Council and the Ministry of Transport. From a statement made at a recent meeting of the London County Council it appears that the Southern Railway Company have debarred their engineer from serving on this Committee of Enquiry. In effect, the Conference of Societies foresees that the report ‘‘will accordingly be prepared by persons who are known to favour the substitution by a new enlarged structure of the existing Waterloo Bridge. This would, of course, postpone indefinitely a new road bridge at Charing Cross. The enquiry, therefore, is truncated, and the report can be predicted. ” The Conference suggests that the vacant place on the Committee should be occupied by some person not already pledged to the destruction of Waterloo Bridge. Mr. Keen’s letter also urged the Minister to use his influence to ensure that there shall be no delay in preparing schedules for the work of repairing and strengthening Waterloo Bridge, and a further letter of enquiry on this point has been addressed to the L. C. C. The general manager of the Southern Railway has replied to Mr. Keen on one point, stating that the Government has asked a firm of eminent engineers to prepare a comprehensive report and estimate of the cost of erecting the bridge at Charing Cross. No Committee, he states, has been set up, and the railway company have not, therefore, forbidden their engineer to serve on it. They have been asked to give any assistance to the firm of engineers appointed to prepare the report, and are so doing. Mr. Keen, in a further letter to The Times, does not accept the statement that no Committee has been appointed, and gives references to announcements in Parliament, at the L. C. C., and in a letter received by him from the Minister of Transport — all referring to “the Committee” — also to a clause in
the report of the Improvements Committee of the L. C. C. of July 26 very definitely confirming the statement he made about the Southern Railway and their engineer. There is a rather nasty savour about this matter which the Ministry of Transport would do well to dispel as speedily as possible.
ARCHITECTS’ REGISTRATION BILL
A Special Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons
The Select Committee to whom the Architects’ Registration Bill was referred have agreed to the following special report:
(1) Your Committee regret that they are unable to report the Architects’ Registration Bill to the House.
(2) Your Committee have met on 14 days and have examined 20 witnesses, and have also considered memoranda put in by various bodies and persons. Amongst the witnesses were representatives from the R. I. B. A., the Architectural Association (London), the Institution of Civil Engineers, the Institution of Municipal and County Engineers, the County Councils’ Association, the Incorporated Association of Architects and Surveyors, the Institute of Builders,
the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors, the Incorporated Society of Auctioneers and Landed Property Agents, the Association of Consulting Engineers, and the Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Congress. Other individual witnesses were also heard. Your Committee have agreed to report the whole of this evidence to the House.
(3) In view of the fact that the clauses of the Bill had been amended by the Committee in the light of the evidence submitted, and that the final vote of 5 to 4, not to report the Bill to the House, does not represent the views of the Committee of eleven members as a whole, your Committee hope that early opportunity will be given to the House next session to consider a Bill framed on the lines of this Bill as amended.