thorough and lengthy studies of the professional architects engaged on the project.

What is the reported A.I.A. position in 1967:

They concluded that

None of the defects in the structure appears to indicate the danger of collapse is imminent.

Retention and repair of the existing walls is not infeasible.

If restoration is decided upon, our technology is up to the task. Later in the report, they mention bringing in experts from Europe.

They have no cost estimate for the work. They admit restoration would be time-consuming and relatively expensive.

They support a program of preservation in the purest sense of the word. They believe the planned extension of the West Front would be a mistake. What was the A.I.A. position in 1958 when they were also against the Extension of the East Front of the Capitol: Oddly enough, at that time, this organization said do not extend the East Front, but, instead, extend the West Front. Now, they admit the East Front has been successfully extended, but they say don't extend the West Front. This about-face on their part is clearly demonstrated by excerpts from several documents, as follows:

At the A.I.A. National Convention in Cleveland, in July 1958, the architects who led the fight for the A.I.A. against the East Front Extension were Ralph Walker, FAIA, Lorimer Rich, FAIA, and Douglas Haskell, AIA. They circulated a paper at the convention saving the practical space needs to be gained from the East Front Extension: could be achieved in better measure by extending the West Front, and without the threatened architectural sentimental damage.

...

AIA Journal, January 1958, Architect Ralph Walker stated:... everything that would be obtained by the predetermined plan . . . that of moving the east front and also extending the wings, could be accomplished much more pleasantly, esthetically and efficiently by the reconstruction of the west front which has no great historic significance.

From the Washington Post, August 13, 1958, page A-15:

The AIA has a plan for providing much extra space by extending the West Front.

Memo No. 178 of the American Institute of Architects, Washington, D.C., January 27, 1958:

It is believed that the space requirements could better be filled-at far less cost by leaving the east front alone and, instead developing a proposed scheme for expansion on the west side of the building.

Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Commitee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, 85th Congress, on S. 2883, February 17, 1958-Statement of Douglas Haskell (AIA) Editor of Architectural Forum, speaking as an individual and as a Member of the Committee to Preserve the National Capitol:

We have no reason to worry over architectural changes of this sort in the less masterly Capitol west front and the concern of architects at this point can be dismissed into the realm of rhetoric.

Mr. Chairman, the reason the east front extension is a boondoggel is that no practical effect is served that could not better be carried out on the western or terrace side, and with no architectural damage.

From the Washington Post, April 9, 1958, Page B-2:

Haskell said a better answer to Congressional space problems can be found on the west side of the Capitol where there will be no esthetic controversy'. From a "confidential" memorandum from one AIA Member to another Member in 1958:

In my opinion, one feasible solution would be an addition on the west side which has always had an undigested look...

ITEM BY ITEM COMMENT ON THE AIA REPORT

AIA Report: On November 16 and 17, the Task Force met in Washington, having previously studied the Thompson and Lichtner engineering report and related material, individually.

Comment: This statement refers, in passing, to the task force studying, individually, the thorough and voluminous engineering report ordered by the Congress and made by an outstanding engineering firm. An examination of their conclusions, however, casts doubt upon this claim of studying the engineering report or, if studied, whether it was understood.

AIA Report: The Institute believes that Capitol Hill is the single most important land development in our Nation. We also believe that history will hold the architectural profession accountable for development of the Capitol and of Capitol Hill.

Comment: There is no law, rule, procedure or precedent which states or implies that the architectural profession is to be held accountable for the Capitol or Capitol Hill. Did the people of this Country elect this one profession or one professional society as the guardian of the Capitol? Of course not. The Congress itself is responsible to the people of the Country for the Capitol and the development of Capitol Hill.

It is proper that the architects should show interest in the Capitol and the development of Capitol Hill, but this same interest is just as dear to the landscape architects, and the various engineering societies; and we do not find them trying to dictate to the Congress or charging the Congress with indifference. Example: the American Society of Landscape Architects examined the extension plans and made suggestions which we accepted. That Society then agreed to take no position on the extension project in view of the fact that it has been in preparation for years with private and public knowledge and approval, and is in the hands of eminently qualified professional persons of high standing in their own organizations.

AIA Report: The West Front of the Capitol is in a state of disrepair. Numerous cracks are in evidence on the exterior of the building. Some window lintels and keystones have cracked and slipped. Several of the architrave stones have sagged. The foundations, at some points, are not far enough below the finish grade to escape frost damage. However, none of the defects appears to indicate that danger of collapse is imminent or that correction is impracticable. Sandstone

There is some professional opinion that the sandstone facing used on the West Front was inferior to begin with and its deterioration when exposed to the weather was predictable. Though this stone is obviously inferior to some other stones for exterior use, the same can be said of marble. In the Old Patent Office for example, there is no serious deterioration of the sandstone facing of the first wing. Yet the adjoining wings of marble are badly deteriorated. The example is pertinent since the facing for the Capitol's West Front and the Old Patent Office building come from the same sandstone quarry. This suggests that the condition of the sandstone on the West Front may be partly due to causes other than the quality of the stone.

Comment: What the AIA refers to as disrepair could more correctly be labeled structural deterioration. It is not just a case of scaling paint and eroding of the sandstone. The thousands of cracks and displaced stones are not repair items, but are due to the inherent structural weaknesses of the construction.

The condition and quality of the sandstone varies as was evidenced from our work on the Extension of the East Front. We have records as early as 1793 indicating the failure of the sandstone. The deterioration has been reported from time-to-time ever since.

George Washington on December 15, 1793, stated he was concerned that the freestone was of VERY soft nature.

William Thornton and Gus Scott-May 15. 1795, expressed disappointment in the quality of the stone and lamented that stone already sent had not been thought exceedingly fine in grain or strong in texture for the work to which it is to be applied.

George Blagden wrote on May 1, 1824— ... the freestone from the island quarries was extremely variable and that no reliance could be placed on its strength or durability and lamented the capacity of the quarries.

Thomas U. Walter-March 29, 1838. comments in reference to the public buildings of Washington, the frailty of the material of which they are composed. He considered it a great evil that more durable stone was not used and that in a very few centuries the sandstone structures of Washington must inevitably perish.

The sandstone came from many quarries in Aquia Creek area. It would be absolutely impossible to determine which stone came from which quarry. Certainly, the stone for the Capitol and the Old Patent Office did not come from one quarry. There was great variance of the stone from the several quarries. During the construction of the Capitol and White House, sandstone was delivered to either building site based on need at the time.

Sandstone was used only on part of the Patent Office Building, which Architect Robert Mills started in 1836; the middle and north sides were built of granite and marble. Incidentally, the sandstone is on the south side of the building where exposure to the elements is not as severe as on the north, east and west. But there is no doubt as to Mills' preference for a permanent building material when he wrote, ". . . in regard to the material of which the building should be constructed, there is no question in the choice between the freestone and the granite, or the marble. When the subject was under consideration with the President, I respectfully urged the adoption of the granite . . ."

AIA Report-Cracks: Several of the architrave stones of the portico are definitely sagging and have been shored. Some window lintels and keystones have both cracked and slipped. The foundations, although below the finish grade, are subject to frost damage at several points. The basement wall of the center part of the SW corner in the court has also been shored. When the grade was lowered in this court the foundations thus exposed were veneered and it is this unbonded stone covering that has come loose from its back-up and required shoring. No cracks are in evidence on the interior but this is explained by the fact that constant repairs have kept pace with the cracks. The explanation given by the Assistant Architect of the Capitol that visible exterior cracks are due to settlement and expansion of the wall appears reasonable.

Comment: Also, the basement wall of the center part of the NW corner in the court has been shored.

It is suspected that many of the continuous cracks from top of wall to the foundations were the result of the terrific heat expansion produced by the burning of the Capitol in 1814 by the British, the fire in the Library of Congress in the West Central Wing of the Capitol in 1851, and the gas explosion in the original Senate Wing in 1898. Cracks in individual stones are, undoubtedly, the result of uneven settlement of the exterior wall or the use of weak stones or a combination of both. Evidence of what can happen to sandstone which actually came from the same quarry as that used in the Capitol can be obtained by examining the standstone piers on Constitution Avenue, near the White House. There were many quarries at Aquia Creek which produced varying quality of standstone some soft, friable, others less so.

The keystones are wedge shaped and could drop only by the spreading in length of the wall in which they are inserted. Under their present load, these keystones have already had motion and settlement in the walls of the west portion of the Capitol.

AIA Report: However, no visible effort has been made recently to fill these cracks in order at least to deter the penetration of moisture. Had this been done as the cracks appeared it is likely that the disgraceful appearance of the exterior surface due to scaling paint could have been avoided.

Comment: While the west central sandstone front has not been painted since 1960, it had been painted regularly every four to five years up to that time from 1819. At such times, the many cracks were pointed and painted over. However, the continuous expansion and contraction of these heavy masonry walls has reopened the cracks in the past prior to succeeding paint jobs, thereby admitting water which penetrated the stone and remained water-logged behind the paint, resulting in spalling from the effects of freezing and thawing. Inasmuch as it appeared Congress would seriously consider proceeding with the Extension of the West Central Front, the Appropriations Committees did not grant funds budgeted within recent years for painting the West Front.

AIA Report: The Capitol Architect's staff engineer reports that the building is not out of plumb. Thus while the Capitol is experiencing some vertical settlement it is not slipping down the hill.

Comment: While the building may or may not be out of plumb (there is no survey to prove or disapprove this fact), there are bulges in the exterior. Slippage down the hill could occur without necessarily causing the walls to go out of plumb. The following is from testimony before the Commission by the engineer retained:

"Speaker MCCORMACK. Are any of the walls displaced or moved from the original position?

"Dr. CLAIR. All the walls all around are displaced from the original position, sir. Anything from, as in the case of this one, of 3 or 4 inches, as the borings through the walls show, there is hardly a place that there is not a movement of the facing of the wall from the interior of the wall.

"Speaker McCORMACK. Are any parts of the wall displaced?

"Dr. CLAIR. All of this wall is. We found hardly a place in the whole old west front, the old Senate wing, old House wing, and the old center section, that the wall has not been displaced.

"Speaker MCCORMACK. Is the displacement stabilized or can it be expected to progress further?

"Dr. CLAIR. It is not stabilized. It is progressing and that is as indicated by the fact that there is an increasing number of cracks found in our investigation which did not show in a previous study several years ago."

AIA Report: In short, none of the above-mentioned defects appears to indicate that danger of collapse is imminent or that correction is not practicable. Comment: This statement is at variance with statement made by Dr. Clair at Hearings before the Extension of the Capitol Project Commission.

"STATEMENT BY DR. CLAIR AT HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR EXTENSION OF THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL, 89TH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION ON THE CONDITION AND PROPOSED EXTENSION OF THE WEST CENTRAL FRONT OF THE U.S. CAPITOL, JUNE 24, 1965:

"The fact is that this type of construction, if you had even a minor earthquake would lead I am sure to not only falling of the exterior stone but also, with that, partial collapse of these walls. That is one of the reasons it is desirable to put another structure here that can brace this structure.

"Mr. FORD. Is it developing at an accelerated rate?

"Dr. CLAIR. Sure it is, otherwise we would not have been able to find the difference in the few years between the previous observations, which are marked on here, and our observations of cracking.

"Speaker McCORMACK. Are there any dangerous conditions which require immediate attention? If so, what would be involved?

"Dr. CLAIR. Well, just to work backward on this model. To correct the condition of the foundations at the retaining walls of the terrace, they would have be underpinned.

"Dr. CLAIR. This must be done. Something must be done on this immediately. sir.

"Speaker McCORMACK. What do you mean by "immediately"?

"Dr. CLAIR. Next week. I am not kidding. I think it is so serious something should be done at once."

AIA Report: Subsequent events have proved the 1957 survey unreliable. (Space Survey.)

Comment: Like most forecasts, the 1957 survey produced the best information that could be developed at that time, but additional legislation, tremendous increase in population and jurisdictions have increased the requirements then anticipated, hence the need for greater space. While there has been no additional suvey since then we have kept track of space needs and are familiar with up-todate requirements.

AIA Report: It is quite possible that some of the functions now housed in the Capitol building could be moved to other new or existing buildings with no loss of efficiency.

Comment: The space needs made evident to us indicate that only such funetions which need to be in the Capitol are presently and proposed to be placed in the Capitol.

AIA Report: There is obviously a limit to the amount of space which can be added to the Capitol if it is to retain any resemblance to its original form-or even to the present building. Congress will presumably decide at some point not to make any more additions to the Capitol. We believe the Congress should make that decision now while the one remaining original wall can be saved as visible evidence of our heritage.

Comment: Such a decision, if made, should follow the Extension of the West Central Front of the Capitol. The extension will once again place the Capitol in sound structural condition and complete the revised composition of the design begun with the addition of the present Senate and House Wings and the addition of the present dome more than 100 years ago. The "one remaining original wall" when built was not as it appears today, coated with more than 35 coats of paint. cracked and patched. Cleaning and removing the paint would destrov more of the delicate carvings on column and pilaster caps, cornices, consoles, carved panels, etc. One has only to look at the glass covered portions of carvings on the old east front of the original Senate and House Wings to see the condition of the sandstone when exposed to the weather.

Plans for the Capitol have been altered and added to from a time when it was not sufficiently completed for the initial occupancy (Latrobe drawing-1806). Further, additions have been made as the needs of Congress required them. The Congress meets and works in the Capitol building and surely no one is more qualified to know the needs than the Congress itself. The current need for additional space inside the Capitol proper is evidenced by the present numerous requests for space and facilities, and the severely crowding of facilities.

AIA Report: If the extension is carried out, the work of important early American architects and landscape architects would be lost forever-namely, Thornton, Latrobe, Bulfinch, and Olmstead. The work of these significant American architects would seem important to keep in a world in which we are losing many of our original resources in buildings and nature.

Comment: Was the work of the early architects lost when the East Front was extended 1958-1962? Of course not. It is there today for all to enjoy. Neither will it be lost on the West Front Extension. It will be there also in permanent construction for which the whole nation can be proud. The so-called "restoration" proposed by the AIA task force would result in replacing many, many of the present stones, so it would in the end be a replica. The proposed extension would likewise be a replica of the essential features of the architecture.

AIA Report: Restoration work done on historic buildings in Europe indicates that walls and columns which have deteriorated have been reinforced effectively by a system of drilling diagonal holes through the masonry, inserting reinforcing rods, and forcing grout under pressure into the holes. Another successful technique called "needling" involves the use of temoprary steel beams to take the load off parts of the wall while other areas of the wall are being repaired. Comment: Except for the exterior architectural treatment, the restoration of the walls of the structure is an engineering problem and is well presented in the Thomson and Lichtner Company, Inc., report. Should restoration be undertaken the services of a most qualified and experienced engineering firm and contractor would be required. To accomplish the job outlined above would require destroying the interior finish much of which has decorative painted treatment on walls and ceilings. If walls and ceilings are solidified through intrusion grouting under pressure, undesirable conditions would develop such as sweeating in winter on interior finished surfaces through condensation. Present voids in walls act as insulation against conduction. Solidification of walls might also result in new expansion cracks with resultant leaks. In order to needle the walls, it would be neccessary to solidify the interior core of the exterior walls with the resultant damage mentioned.

AIA Report: If restoration is undertaken. Congressional leaders with officers located on the West Front would have to move and this certainly would be an inconvenience. But this inconvenience would occur even if the West Front was extended.

Comment: The latter is not a statement of fact as the Congressional leaders would not be inconvenienced except to a very minor degree as compared to the amount of inconvenience in an overall restoration. Restoration would result in vacating all the rooms on the West Central side including Statuary Hall. We constructed the East Front without moving out any Members.

AIA Report-Restoration: Cost. No estimate has been made by the Capitol Architect to determine the cost of restoring the West Wall in its present location on the grounds that restoration was not the best solution and there were too many unknowns to arrive at a reasonable estimate. The American Institute of Architects does not know what the cost of restoration would be. However, it is unlikely that the cost of restoration would approach the total cost of extension.

Comment: This is at variance with Dr. Clair's statement that restoration might cost anywhere from $10 million to $50 million. A member of the task force recently stated to a group at the Capitol that cost of so-called restoration could exceed the cost of the extension. It is anybody's geuss as to what the cost of restoration would amount to, as such work would have to be done on a costplus basis, solving problems as the work progresses and the unknown conditions are revealed. There would be considerable risk attached to such an operation without any assurance that failure of the brick floor arches might not occur after the shores are removed.

AIA Report-Master Planning: For example, most universities, towns and cities of consequence have recognized the benefit of a master plan. And Congress has insisted that comprehensive master planning be accomplished before Federal