d a
thorough architect, when he comes to fell, and loses by the bill for
services and the legitimate price he pays for honest work.

The bulk of speculative work done in New York is after the most trivial
plans made by some mere draughtsman or carpenter, and the
"superintendence" is under the "keen" eye of the builder and owner--who
is usually one and the same individual and who has made a definite
failure at all the branches of the trade and frequently many others, and
now holds position as owner of the property by virtue of his having
paid, entirely in mortgage, for the same. In the large majority of cases
that have been under my observation, they are entirely incapable of
passing an intelligent opinion on any of the materials and work that
make up a building, or at least on very little, and the gross
impositions practiced upon them by their sub-contractors is startling.
Their work is covered-in and is so left, I doubt not, in the majority of
cases, as the inspection furnished by the "Department" is entirely
inadequate for proper protection. The confidence of the public is
continually bolstered up by such descriptions as the editorial above
mentioned.

A NEW YORK ARCHITECT.

* * * * *

A SEEMING ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD AN ARCHITECT.

PITTSBURGH, PA., December 30, 1889.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN ARCHITECT:

_Dear Sirs_,--Please answer through the columns of your valuable journal
the following:

I will designate A as the party for whom I drew plans, etc., B as the
owner of property adjoining, and C as the contractor for A. I drew up
plans and specifications for a 60' 0" front by 60' 0" deep building for
A, including party-wall for A and B who has 35' 0" front by 60' 0" deep
lot. I was employed to render full services, such as to draw up plans,
specifications, details and superintend the construction of said
building for A.

A wrote to me asking me whether I would allow B to use my plans and
specifications to be copied. I answered, emphatically, that not under
any circumstances would I allow it without compensation, as the plans,
etc., were my property, and were only designed for A.

A let the contract for erection and completion of the building to C, I
having made the articles of agreement for same.

In the meantime I was notified that B and C were taking sub-bids for
the erection of the 35' 0" building, all with my plans and
specifications. They were taking the sub-bids