Judging a new public building:
Reaction & Opinion

[The Treasury is] “by no means credible to the nation; the long rows of columns on Fifteenth street… without any break or projection to relieve monotony, can never be considered beautiful. The impression produced on the mind through the medium of the eye, by this long colonnade, will be similar to that made by a continuous sound of one melodious note in music...”

~Thomas Walter, 1838

Two years after construction for the Treasury began, the country’s financial surplus quickly dried up, prompting increased scrutiny from government officials, bringing work to a halt in 1838. Some of the problems resulted from miscommunication regarding the location of the Treasury and the expenses necessary to carry out construction entirely of masonry rather than using cheaper materials. Mills' competence in engineering was brought into question due to damaging accusations brought on by both opponents of the current administration and competing architects alike.
Continued skepticism led Congressional Committee Chairman Levi Lincoln to begin an investigation on the Treasury’s design and construction. Levi hired architect Thomas U. Walter to offer his “opinion as to the fitness of the site selected for the location of the office, and also the adaptation of the plans to the object and uses for which it is to be erected”. Walter examined the structure, of which he found objectionable on four accounts. He reported these four points:

“ First---the unsuitability of the site
Second--- the weakness of the structure
Thirdly---the want of adaptation of the purposes for which it was intended; and
Fourthly---its architectural appearance.”

Mills confronted the allegations with a formal rebuttal lending credence to the durability of its construction with his record of successful buildings while defending his architectural style by noting similar contemporary European precedents. On the first charge, Walter contended the site of the Treasury building which blocks the view between the Capital building and the White House along Pennsylvania Avenue, which was a significant feature of L’Enfant plan for Washington. Mills’ rebuttal defends that the building’s location was beyond his control as President Jackson specifically chose the site. Mills contests Walter’s second account regarding the question of the strength of the vaulting system by asserting success of the construction of his previous building, even with a demonstration the strength of the vaults by removing the centering framework from a vault under construction. Walter’s third point refers to the small size of the windows, offices, and narrow corridors, stating that only the first and second floors receive adequate natural light and that the basement rooms were too dark and damp for clerks. He also contested that the corridors are too narrow for their expanse and the rooms too small. Walter’s final criticism was one of aesthetics. He considered the appearance “by no means creditable to the nation; the long row of columns on Fifteenth street… without any break or projection to relieve monotony, can never be considered beautiful, [like] one melodious note in music.” Mills countered Walter’s attack by noting acclaimed European buildings with a similar unbroken colonnade such as the Louvre addition and The Bourse in Paris which were in his opinion “regarded as the most magnificent of modern structures.” Mills continued, “The effect of a continuous colonnade (Mr. Walter’s musico-architectural simile notwithstanding) is both grand and imposing; and its utility justifies its introduction, where the wealth of the community will admit.” Walter concluded his assessment by recommending that the Treasury be completely torn down and rebuilt. Furthermore, he recommended his acquaintance, Alexander Parris, a Boston architect, to replace Mills as architect for the new Treasury building that Walters considered necessary.

Construction was halted for two months while the matter was discussed within a congressional hearing. Due to Walter’s damaging report and the Committee for Public Buildings and Grounds’ concurrence with it, Congress only narrowly voted to keep and continue construction on the Treasury Building, completing the East and Center wings in 1842. Attacks by Lincoln and Walter proved to be a defaming blow to Mills’ public architectural career and his service as the architect for the Treasury ran out its tenure after its completion.

The major criticism toward the Treasury building seems to have come from within the Treasury Department and Congress. The public’s reaction to Mills’ Treasury appears more laudatory than Walter’s assessment with one distinguished Scottish visitor, Robert Baird, complimenting the Treasury as a “very striking as well as an exceedingly handsome erection.”

For more information on Thomas U. Walter and the architecture of the Capitol, click here.