the architect politely insists that he cannot allow him to burden himself, and promises that he will send them immediately by express. The editor returns to his desk, and arranges space for the expected drawings in the next issue, but they do not arrive. Two or three weeks go by, and he then writes to the distinguished architect, to remind him of his promise. The letter brings neither the drawings nor any other response, and, after a final entreaty, as unsuccessful as the rest, he abandons his efforts, to begin them again with a fresh subject, who proves as slippery as the other.

After a good many years of such struggles, we should be inclined to say that we would trouble ourselves no further, and that American architects who are capable of carrying out important work successfully, and do not want other people to know it, may please themselves in the matter, were it not that, in a journal which now intends to show what is done all over the world, we most earnestly wish to have American, architecture properly represented. We are sure that the best of it is equal to the best anywhere, and we want to be able to prove it. The treatment of our modern mercantile and business structures, particularly those ten or twelve stories in height, is more successful than any other work of the kind in the world; the planning of our office-buildings is unrivalled anywhere, and some of our apartment-houses will bear comparison with the best in Paris—which are the best anywhere—and are more interesting, on account of the more complex character of the services which we must provide for. Besides this, many details of American construction, such as the encased iron framing-and isolated pier foundations of the Chicago architects, and the heating and ventilating systems in use everywhere here, are far in advance of foreign practice, and we want our foreign readers to see this with their own eyes, and to give their American brethren their proper rank in the profession. To do this we must have the material, and we appeal once more to American architects who have it to furnish it, and to those who do not have it themselves, but who know where it is to be found, to get it for us, or to put us in the way of getting it. Plans, elevations, perspectives, sketches, photographs, negatives, descriptions, whatever is good, we want to show, for the benefit and reputation of the profession in America far more than for our own, for we know better than the profession how very valuable publicity of the kind is to architects. The late Mr. Richardson, even to a comparatively late period in his professional career, was afflicted with the usual bashfulness about having his work published. We well remember the solicitations, the refusals, the renewed appeals, and, finally, the reluctant and conditional assent to have a single gelatine print from one of his perspectives published. This was the drawing, we think, of the Woburn Library, and was accompanied by a plan. Finding that he had suffered no severe injury from this exposure of his design to the gaze of the cold world, Mr. Richardson soon became one of our kindest friends, and if reputation and employment are things to be desired by an architect, we may say with all due modesty that what he did for us was repaid to him a hundred-fold, for, great as was his talent, it must, without the publicity given to his work through means like ours, have had for years only a local influence. As it was, however, every issue of ours with one of his designs was studied in a thousand offices and imitated in hundreds; his name was in the mouths of all architects throughout the Union; our plates were reproduced abroad; the illustrated magazines, finding his reputation already made in the profession, hastened to spread it among the public; and at his lamented death, a few years later, he was the central figure of American architecture. Now, although we do not say that all the architects who send us their drawings will attain the fame of a Richardson, we do say that Richardson would never have attained a fraction of his reputation if he had not allowed his designs to be published, and we need hardly say further that if any architect has done a good piece of work, and has it published, more people will know about it than if he kept it to himself; and the more people know about his good work, the more will come to him to get some like it, the better will be his standing in the profession here, and the more credit he will do his country abroad.

It may be as well to disarm criticism and complaint by stating that there will be throughout the year more or less of irregularity in the appearance of the additional illustrations in the International Edition, owing partly to steamer delays, and partly, perhaps, to misunderstanding of our instructions on the part of our correspondents. It will not be proper, therefore, to compare one issue with another, and assert that we are falling short of our promises. When the end of the year is reached, the subscribers to that edition will find, on review, that our promises have been fully kept, and that the edition has been what it professed to be. Naturally, defects and deficiencies will be more apparent at the outset, when the complicated details of supply have not been definitely adjusted.

The profession in Brooklyn, N.Y., has to mourn the loss of Mr. Charles Keely, son of Mr. Peter C. Keely, the architect of so many Catholic churches all over the country, and associated with his father in business. The practice of the office is enormous, fifty churches, it is said, being sometimes in process of execution from the designs of the father and son, and of the excellent work done there, no doubt much was due to the younger man's talent. Mr. Keely was about thirty-five years of age, active and popular. He died of pneumonia in Hartford, at the house of the bishop, whom he was visiting on business.

A deputation was presented to the Ways and Means Committee of Congress the other day from the Free Art League, which urged the abolition of the present duty on foreign works of art. The deputation consisted of Mr. Carroll Beckwith and Mr. Kenyon Cox, with Mr. William A. Coffin, who, after mentioning some of the obvious reasons for abolishing the tax, stated that, in response to a circular sent out by the League, fourteen hundred and thirty-five communications were received from artists, teachers of art and others whose opinion would be of value. Of these, thirteen hundred and forty-five desired the immediate abolition of the duty, eighty-three favored a moderate duty, ten per cent being mentioned by twenty-eight out of the number and seven wished the present impost retained. The Ways and Means Committee, according to the newspapers, listened politely to the artists for a time, and then turned their attention to the duty on carbonate of soda. Whether, in the presence of practical matters like carbonate of soda, they will ever, think again of the tax on mere works of art, remains to be seen.

Fire and Water says, referring to some remarks of ours about the policy of transferring the fire-extinguishing apparatus of small towns to any neighboring large one in which a serious conflagration happens to break out, that we were mistaken in "supposing" that the insurance companies might refuse to pay losses in suburban towns occurring during the temporary absence of the regular protective apparatus, and that as the contract of insurance does not mention anything of the kind, the companies would be compelled to pay losses, whatever happened to the engines, so long as their policies remained uncancelled. Now, in the first place, we did not "suppose" or "assert," as another paper says we did, anything about the matter. We simply said we had been told that the companies would not pay in such cases, which was true. We were told that, and by an insurance agent, who ought to know something about it. Moreover, this was not the first time we have heard the same thing. Not long ago, in a discussion in the city government of