AND    BUILDERS'    GUIDE.





Vol. XII.                     NEW YORK, SATURDAY, AUGUST 2, 1873.                        Ko. 281





Puhlished Weekly by

THE   REAL  ESTATE  RECORD ASSOCIATION.

TERMS.

One year, in advance......................g6 00

All commnnications should be addressed to

Whiting BtnLDiKo, 345 and 347 Beoadwat.

SPECIAL NOTICE.

We must again call the atttention of builders to the
improved processes in the coiiBtruction of buildings in¬
vented by Col. Derhom, of Paterson, N. J. Unfortu¬
nately, the Fire King has been making sad havoc, of
late, in various parts of the countiy, and it behooves all
those now charged with the erection of buildings to do
all they can toward improving the same. Col. Derrom;''8
mode of constructing fire-proof work is simple and
economical, and a trip to Paterson will amply repay
those wdio honor the Colonel with a visit.





THE OWNERSHIP OF DRAWINGS.

One Tyoulcl itnagine that, 'witli all the eflPorts
of architectural institutions on both sides of
the Atlantic, the long-mooted question as to
yvho is legal owner of the drawings which an
architect prepares for his work—the architect
or the employer—would long before this have
been settled upon some satisfactory basis ; aud
yet this vital point of architectural practice
■yvliich the oldest architect will remember being
argued in his youth, appears to be as far to-day
from any satisfactory conclusion as it ever
was. Even now an interesting discus.siou is
going on in the pages of the London Building
JYeics, owing to a lecture which Mr. Roger
Smith recently gave, and in which he told his
hearers: " If the client asked for the drawings
they should be given him; but as a rule they
should not be offered to him." To this a cor¬
respondent, who signs himself " A. B.," takes
vigorous exception, asserting that either the
first advice is unwise or the second one is dis¬
honest ; and follows up his assertion by argu¬
ments to show that in any and every case
the drawings are the exclusive property of the
architect.

Everything goes to prove this view of the
question—the right one—whether weighed by
the rules of moral right, common sense, or
actual practice. It is difficult to see by w'hat
well-fomided right any client can pretend'to
claim the drawings which an architect makes
for the purpose of carrying out any building
with the erection of which he has been in¬
trusted. A man employs an architect for the
benefit of his suggestions; and drawings are
only the readiest medium by which an arch¬
itect finds it possible to place those suggestions
before the employer, or to enable workmen to
execute his ideas. If by mere words or by
any sort of cabalistic art, he could, instanta-
neousl}', put his employer in possession of his
ideas, or enable a builder to carry out his





design without illustrations, his services would
be just as valuable at the completion of a
structure as if he had prepared a wagon load
of illustrative drawings. Drawings are simply
the tools with which an architect effects his
work; and when the object has been reached
for which they were made, they as clearly be¬
long to him as do the tools and plant to any
builder who has been employed about a struc¬
ture. When an artist has completed the paint¬
ing, he was employed to execute, or a sculptor
his finished statue in marble, no one ever
thinks of claiming the preliminary sketches
by which the former achieved his result, or
the clay model, and studies of the latter.
Cases may doubtless arise in which an archi¬
tect is paid for his drawings and nothing else,
but this is a matter of distinctive bargain
which the architect is able, from the very start,
either to agree with or to reject; and there are
few architects—certainly none maintaining a
proper self-respect—who wotild agree to sell
their drawings as a dry-goods man sells his
calico, probably to see his well-conceived no¬
tions pass into the hands of some wretched
bungler, only to be caricattu'ed, and to hurt
the reiputation of the designer.

But those who take an opposite view of this
matter ask the plausible question; " What then
has an employer to show for his money in the
event of the work not being executed, if the
architect retains the drawings?" Clearly he
w^ould not suffer any more than the man who
runs up a long account with his physician for
attendance and prescriptions which he never
uses; or if he w^ere to employ a lawyer to
work out some difficult negociation, and then,
when all the elaborate writings are prepared,
abandon the suit altogether. Architects, like
lawyers and physicians, are paid for the time,
labor, skill, and judgment whicli they devote
to the services of others, and If these are not
turned to proper account by clients, it is the
fault of the latter. These propositions seem
self-evident to all who take the trouble to look
fiiirly into iheni; and yet, so unsettled is this
question that Mr. Roger Smith, in his reply to
the strictures of A. B., is able to tell the latter
that" if he Avill give a clear decided case of
its having been settled in a court of law that
the drawings belong to the architect, he will
render an essential service." If this question
has not been decided by laAV, it is quite time
that it should be, and we know of none more
worthy of the attention of our institu-te of
architects.





BLUNDERS OE TAXATION.

The investigation by the committee of the
Supervisors into the great increase in the
assessed valuation of property in the Twelfth,
Nineteenth,  and  Twenty-second wards has





disclosed facts whicli are worthy the attention
of all tax payers. One of the most important
and uncomfortable conclusions to which we
are led from a review of the evidence taken,
is that some at least of the gentlemen intrusted
with the duty of making valuations are incap¬
able of discharging that office. It has been
shown that in some instances the valuations
exceed the market price of the property; and
that in others where the property, yielding no
revenue, is a continual drain upon the re¬
sources of the owner, it has been assessed
nearlj', if not quite, up to the fancj"- prices for
which it has been bought or at w'hich it is
held. There are other grievances, but we be
lieve those cited are ample to justify the Board
of Supervisors in correcting the assessments
as erroneous, and in reducing the taxation in.
our upper wards. Practically this great in¬
crease in taxation is a bar to growth. It pre¬
vents the development of that portion of the
city which now imperatively demands im¬
provement. There are streets to be laid out,
filled in and graded, sewers to be run, all of
which must lie in abeyance for j^ears, as own¬
ers will not feel able to unite in any petition
for improvements which will only add assess¬
ments to an already grievous and overburden-
some taxation. New York suffers peculiarly
in having an undue proportion of the State
taxation cast upon her shoulders. In the
countiy towns of this State it is common to
assess property at a third of its value or selling
price, and counties which relatively are as
wealthy as New York do not bear out a com¬
parison iu point of taxation. Even those
cities included within the limits of counties of
which towns are a portion of the subdivision,
fare better than New York; and it would be
well for our municipality if, instead of adding
new wards, we annexed a few country towns
and kept them in a state of rural independence
for the purpose of maintaining a standard of
local taxation wherewith to meet the aggi-es-
sions of our sister counties. But the general
principle of taxation in New York and
throughout the State is wrong, unevenly bal¬
anced, and unfair. It is a system which needs
correction, and as a starting point we call upon
the Supervisors to take the initial steps in our
oppressed up-town w^ards.





OUR PINERIES AND OUR LUMBERMEN.





A correspondent of the Syracuse, N. Y.,
Slavdard furnishes a communication for that
paper upon "The Pineries of Michigan,"
which is being circulated through the press
to some extent, and which the Gratiot Journal
says does not contain a single element of
truthful information. The article not only
discloses the utter ignorance of the writer in





r.!:,-!.