of the fire. At any rate, it is substantially the original, and within its sanctum many of the most historic incidents of American life have been enacted.

The bill under consideration proposes to face the old sandstone with marble, which means going down to the foundations, enlarging them and cutting away a part of the old walls, and perhaps in many cases all of them, to reproduce the building in a different material, and we have evidenced how unsuccessful have been the efforts of others in duplicating the design exactly by the example of the wings. There is no question in my mind but what the American people would like to see the original portion of that building preserved as it is. Statements have been introduced into the record to the effect that the ballistrades are crumbling and that there are other evidences of decay; but even so, it would stand for centuries, because important witnesses have testified that it is structurally sound. We appropriate many thousands of dollars for its maintenance, and from that sum funds should be devoted to the careful preservation of the building. Decaying parts can be replaced by competent hands who love and respect the accuracy of its historic architecture with the same type and texture of material. By all means, the United States Capitol should not be rebulit and its design altered, as one noted architect, Lorimer Rich, indicated from a three- to a five-part plan but should be preserved in its present form. Three principal arguments were advanced in behalf of the bill, and the defense, in an effort to maintain its position, advanced various inconsistent arguments. In the first place, it was represented to the committee originally that the dome lacks apparent structural support on the east side of the building, and, therefore, the front wall should be extended. When we delved into the unwiseness of tampering with the structural appearance of so priceless a structure the proponents of the bill immediately advanced the argument that the general aspect would not be changed, which was a presumptious statement, indeed, in face of the fact that they proposed to add two columns to the portico and extend the front of the old portion of the building an indefinite distance to the eastward.

But, taking them at their word, if the general aspect was not to be changed, then why make such a costly effort, both historically and financially, to correct an architectural defect involving an apparent lack of support for the building when those who pressed for the change represented that the appearance would not be altered in a desperate effort to block the charge that they were attempting to rebuild our historic Capitol. It is impossible to understand how those who supported the proposed legislation could reconcile themselves to such a peculiarly inconsistent position.

When the necessity for correcting an architectural defect began to crumble away, those who testified in behalf of the measure advanced the thought that more room was necessary in the Capitol. They are equally as inconsistent in this instance as the other by stating that it might not be advisable architecturally to move the front wall more than 12 feet forward, which obviously would not create an additional amount of room that would warrant the historical sabotage of the building. Even if the east front were to be extended a maximum of 60 feet, the element of room and space provided for Members of Congress would be a strange argument indeed when the Government has just completed a new House office building making it possible for each Member to have two office rooms at his command, in addition to the many and beautiful committee rooms in both the old and new House Office Buildings. The thought that Members of Congress require additional space for counsel near the House chamber in the old Capitol is rather far fetched when their quarters are housed in two beautiful buildings only a few steps away, that can be reached by walking across the street in the summer or through a subterranean passage in bad weather. Furthermore, the argument for additional room in Washington comes with but poor grace at the conclusion of a costly building program in the Capital City during which hundreds of millions of dollars have been expended in the erection of magnificent buildings from the Potomac to Capitol Hill and back again.

The third argument advanced was the one I have already touched upon; namely, the structural defects in the building. Witnesses testified originally to the effect that it was structurally sound, but afterward, when other arguments began to fail, advanced the thought that certain crumbling parts of the sandstone would justify the facing of the building with marble, extending the eastern front, and making other alterations that would most certainly alter the general appearance. We in America should come to a fuller appreciation of historical accuracy and the significance of public buildings. If they are

crumbling they should be carefully and lovingly repaired with the thought in mind of preserving them in their exact form for posterity, who will cherish them the more. Unfortunately, there is a tendency in America that has inspired us in an attempt to modernize everything that falls within out prerogative and to ignore the past with its glamorous tale of achievement. We must come e'er it is too late to a realization of the fact that such a policy is an error in many cases, such as the above.

I trust that those who follow in our footsteps will, if necessary, stand guard under fire to protect the Nation's most historic buildings from those who would tear away its sandstone walls, alter its general appearance, and hide that unapproachable touch of Thornton and Latrobe, which would border upon vandalism. The United States Capitol should be carefully preserved for posterity. If there be need to enlarge it with additions, then let those who do so be as kind to the heart of the old building as was he who erected the last wings, evidently realizing he could not reproduce it in marble, and leave the hub of the wheel unscarred, that it may continue to be a priceless historical treasure for Americans who adore and revere its sacred memory.