Thus made necessary by the main force of circumstances, these new buildings show also the influence of the changes in public taste and in the standards of architectural and structural excellence which have taken place in the past few years. Not only have the architects made great progress in their mastery of the resources of design; their clients, the governing bodies of the colleges, have made an equal advance in their conceptions of what sort of buildings the colleges require. Alike in artistic design, in solidity of construction, and in elegance of finish and equipments, the buildings erected during the past ten years far surpass anything that this country had ever seen before in the way of collegiate architecture.

The cosmopolitan and eclectic quality of our taste is fitly expressed in the variety of architectural style which these modern college buildings display. From 1880 to 1890 the powerful influence of Mr. Richardson showed itself in the general adoption of the Romanesque style, freely treated; but more recently other styles have found favor. The majority of the newer buildings are either Colonial (or Georgian, as some prefer to call it) in style, as at Harvard; or in the late Gothic style of many university buildings in England, to which the name of the English Collegiate style is often given. This style lends itself readily to the treatment of long ranges of buildings of moderate height, and permits of a more picturesque variety of mass and sky line than the Georgian, and the more stately Classic and Renaissance styles. It has been handled with great skill by Cope and Stewardson in the handsome buildings of the dormitory quad at Pennsylvania university, in Blair Hall at Princeton, and in the new edifices of Washington university at St. Louis. The Vanderbilt Hall at Yale, by C. C. Haight, and the very picturesque and impressive group of buildings on Washington Heights for the College of the City of New York, by Mr. G. B. Post, are also excellent examples of the style. Mr. Potter's new library at Princeton approaches closer to the perpendicular Gothic in style, but is unmistakably scholastic in character.

The Georgian style is less picturesque, more restrained, more domestic perhaps, and better suited for detached buildings than for continuous ranges and quadrangles. It has

very naturally been adopted at Harvard for all the newer buildings, which thus harmonize with and emphasize the quaint flavor and historic associations of the older ones. The Harvard Union, the new gymnasium for Radcliffe college, the Randall dining hall, and the new gates are examples of this style; while the law school at the University of Pennsylvania, the new library at the University of Virginia, and Barnard college at New York, represent other applications of it. McKim, Mead, and White's library and other buildings at Fordham Heights for the New York university are also in a version of the Georgian style, modified by a touch of Italian classical stateliness; and in the more important group at Columbia university these same architects have apparently tried the experiment of establishing a strong contrast between the Low library-a magnificent Greco-Roman building of creamy Indiana limestone-and the half Georgian departmental buildings of red brick with stone finishings.

A third style requires notice-the Italian or Classic style, not because it is in frequent use, but because of the importance of the few cases in which it has been adopted. The most conspicuous instance is the University of California, the School of Mines, and the open air auditorium. The new buildings for the Naval Academy at Annapolis, by Ernest Flagg, are in this stately and monumental style, which permits of greater majesty of scale and splendor of effect than the other two.

But whatever the style of the newer college buildings of the United States, they are all in one sense thoroughly American; for their designs have been studied with a special view to meeting American requirements, and the success and merit of the result have depended, not on the style label it wears, but on the ability, skill, and taste with which the architect has solved the specific problem presented to him in each case. In general, this ability, skill, and taste have been of a high order. It is to be regretted that in this respect the Roman Catholic colleges have, as a whole, remained so far in arrears. There is hardly one among these institutions to whose credit can be set down any really notable and highly meritorious work of architecture in recent years.

The complete list of important buildings erected within the past ten years for American colleges, universities, theological seminaries, and other institutions of the higher learning would make an impressive showing. These buildings represent an enormous financial investment; and it must be remembered that this physical growth means also a great increase in expenditure for maintenance and administration. All this is significant of the disposition of the American people to increase their financial investment in the higher educationan investment not only in buildings, which, taken alone, might mean mere luxury, but in all that for which the buildings stand, and to promote which they were built-science, literature, religion, and intellectual culture of every kind. The American scholar may well point to these edifices with pride, assured that a hundred years from now many of them will still be looked upon with admiration, as monuments of the intellectual and artistic enthusiasm of an age too often accounted as wholly given up to a selfish materialism.

THE ARCHITECTURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT

BUILDINGS.

BY WILLIAM MARTIN AIKEN.

[William Martin Aiken, consulting architect for Borough of Manhattan; born April 1, 1855, at Charleston, S. C.; educated in the University of the South and Massachusetts institute of technology; began practice as architect in Cincinnati, 1886–95; in 1894 was connected with the Cincinnati Art academy as instructor for one year and the following year was appointed supervising architect in the United States treasury department, remaining there for two years, when he removed to New York and practiced architecture with Bruce Price until 1901, when he was chosen as consulting architect for the Borough of Manhattan. Some of his notable enterprises were connected with the design and erection of the government exposition buildings at Atlanta in 1895, those at Nashville in 1897 and those at Omaha in 1898; the mint buildings at Philadelphia and Denver and many post office and custom house buildings scattered throughout the country. The following is from the Engineering Magazine and is published by special arrangement.]

There has been no period in the development of this country (certainly not since the agitation of the slavery question) when the people at large have taken so deep an interest in national affairs as now. And this interest is not exhausted in questions which are decided by the ballot, or by the executive, judicial, or legislative branches of our government, but extends to every department which in any manner contributes to the material welfare, importance, or dignity of the country. This general and sincere appreciation of public affairs is certainly one of the strongest proofs of the stability and permanency of our institutions.

There is under the control and direction of the secretary of the treasury in Washington, an office which supplies a certain stimulant to this interest, since with it originates, and through it is materialized, the local habitation for many government officials in every one of these United States-namely, the office of the supervising architect.

It has been constantly asked why this bureau of construction should be a branch of the treasury department. It should be remembered that our country has not always been so large, so densely populated, or so well acquainted with its own resources, as it now is. When, in 1853, Secretary Guthrie undertook to organize such a bureau and made application to

the secretary of war for a scientific and practical engineer, to Captain Alexander H. Bowman, of the engineer corps of the army, was entrusted the duty of providing for the repair and preservation of twenty three buildings belonging to the government and of supervising the designing and construction of fifteen more for which congress had made appropriations. In those days the duties were confined mainly to the making of plans and estimates for customhouses, mints, and marine hospitals, and the general superintendence of their construction. Since customhouses were intended for the use of collectors of the government income, and mints for the coinage of currency, it was but natural that the secretary of the treasury should control their erection. By degrees the construction of appraisers' stores, postoffices, courthouses, and quarantine stations have been added to the duties of this office. In 1863 the annual report was made by Mr. Isaiah Rogers, who seems to have been the first officer to subscribe himself as supervising architect, and who previously had been employed to design the customhouse at Boston and certain other government buildings.

As the duties of the office have increased, so also has its organization been extended, subdivided, and combined, until now there are eight divisions. Two of these (the law and records division and the accounts division) are under the special charge of the chief executive officer. The others are known as: (1) the engineering and drafting division (where the designs are made and the construction laid out); (2) the computing division (where estimates of cost and specifications governing construction are made); (3) inspection and materials division (which issues instructions to, and receives reports from, superintendents, and directs the movements of special inspectors who visit buildings in progress of construction or repair); (4) repairs division; (5) photographing division (which reproduces by photographic process the drawings required for works of construction or repair); (6) the tracing division.

Thus it may be seen at a glance that, although the general public is under the impression that the majority of the employees of this office are draftsmen, as a matter of fact these constitute less than one third of the total number employed,