contract system the Government must of necessity become the arbiter in lieu of the general contractor in cases of dispute. Also, if the work is let under separate contracts, a division of responsibility as to the final and satisfactory operation of the complete equipment arises, and again the Government becomes the arbiter in a question of unsatisfactory operation of the equipment as a whole, since the various mechanical and electrical equipments of the building are intimately associated one with another. When a general contractor handles the whole job the responsibility for guarantees is solely his.

It is also to be noted that the letting of separate contracts increases, to a material degree, the cost of preparation of independent specifications and awarding contracts, in addition to increasing the incidental correspondence to an appreciable extent.

In the opinion of this department, legislation of this character in connection with construction of public buildings would be a source of conflict and dispute between the different contractors and laborers and would interfere with orderly progress of the work. It would result in long delays and added cost to the Government. For the reasons set forth above, the Treasury Department does not recommend the enactment of the legislation proposed.

Very truly yours,

OGDEN L. MILLS, Secretary of the Treasury.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wetmore, the Supervising Architect, is present, and I think he desires to make some statement of his views about the proposed legislation.

STATEMENT OF JAMES A. WETMORE, ACTING SUPERVISING ARCHITECT OF THE TREASURY DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. WETMORE. I did not know that I would be called upon to make any additional statement. We had a very full hearing before the House committee, and the record has been referred to here as I believe an exhibit to this hearing.

There are four particular branches of the Government in Washington that have calls on construction work that would be affected by the bill, the Supervising Architect's Office, the Construction Division of the Quartermaster General's Office, the Bureau of Yards and Docks of the Navy, and the Veterans' Administration. They all gave their statements in that House hearing. I do not know that there is anything I could add to it. They all appeared in opposition to the bill, unanimously opposed to it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have heard the testimony given here to-day. Is there anything you would like to say in addition to what has been said?

Mr. WETMORE. No; I have nothing to add to my previous statement before the House committee. I gave there the reasons why the Treasury Department is opposed to it. I assume this committee will examine those hearings and see what the statements there made

were.

The CHAIRMAN. We have not yet had a chance, or at least I have not, to examine the House hearings, so I am not familiar with them. But I understand that you now stand by the testimony given before the House committee.

Mr. WETMORE. Yes. I should like to call attention very particularly to the statements made by Captain McKay, of the Bureau of

119711-32-3

Yards and Docks, because he went into the matter more in detail than the rest of us did. At the time of the hearing I undertook to state just briefly why the Treasury Department with its experience and administration was opposed to the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Do you desire to ask any questions, Senator Barbour?

Senator BARBOUR. No.

The CHAIRMAN. We will hear Mr. Foreman.

STATEMENT OF H. E. FOREMAN, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

Mr. FOREMAN. I appear in opposition to the bill, and the statement I made before the House committee covers what I wish to say, except that there seems to be a misconception of what the bill contains judging by the statements made, for the impression is gained that bids may be asked both on the basis of a general contract and separately. My reading of the bill is that contracts can only be awarded on a separate basis, and that the Government will not have the benefit of a comparison of the two systems in order to ascertain which is in the best interest of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, the hearing is now adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 11.45 o'clock a. m., Thursday, May 12, 1932, the hearing was concluded.)

LOCATION AND DESIGN FOR A MEMORIAL TO MEN AND WOMEN WHO MAY BECOME NOTABLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
UNITED STATES SENATE

SEVENTY-FOURTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

S. J. Res. 132

A JOINT RESOLUTION TO CREATE A COMMISSION TO
DETERMINE A SUITABLE LOCATION AND DESIGN
FOR A MEMORIAL TO THE MEN AND WOMEN
WHO HAVE BEEN NOTABLE OR MAY BECOME
NOTABLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE
UNITED STATES

MAY 31, 1935

Printed for the use of the
Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds

141096

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1935

Eupt, Doe, 6.46-35

TO CREATE A COMMISSION TO DETERMINE A LOCATION AND DESIGN FOR A MEMORIAL TO MEN AND WOMEN WHO MAY BECOME NOTABLE IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES

FRIDAY, MAY 31, 1935

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C.

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC BUILDINGE AND GROUNDS,

The committee met pursuant to call at 10:30 a. m., in room 226, Senate Office Building, Senator Tom Connally (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Connally (chairman), Truman, Walsh, Keyes, and Austin.

The CHAIRMAN. We have before us this morning Senate Joint Resolution 132, by Senator Walsh, of Massachusetts. This is a bill to create a commission to determine a suitable location and design for a memorial to the men and women who have been notable or may become notable in the history of the United States.

invited these gentlemen to appear this morning, and shall be very glad to hear any comment on this resolution. Dr. Moore, of the Fine Arts Commission, is here. We will be glad to hear anything that he may care to submit.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES MOORE, FINE ARTS COMMISSION

Mr. MOORE. I want to say that the Commission for Fine Arts is in favor of the purpose of this bill. It is quite in line with everything that has been planned for the amputation of the Mall. That is, that the Mall should be set apart for buildings primarily for the public, in which the public is interested, and that is a series of museum buildings. The Smithsonian Institute is the natural custodian of those buildings and the natural administrator of the buildings, and this bill is drawn along the lines of putting the control into the Smithsonian Institute. Certainly there is a need for a national gallery of arts.

Now, there has a question come up about the extension of the present National Museum, that is the natural history of the building on either side, and the Commission of Fine Arts would much prefer a separate building for the National Portrait Gallery and for the National Gallery of Art. The tendency is to get buildings too big for our purposes.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you, Doctor, I notice there has been a good deal said about this Mellon National Arts Foundation, or something of that kind. Your idea, of course, I suppose, is to estab