ARLINGTON HOUSE Historic Structures Report Voume 2

Public Law 92-333, approved June 30, 1972, officially changed the name of the site from the "Custis-Lee Mansion" to "The Arlington House," The Robert E. Lee Memorial, thus restoring the historical name to the mansion. During the years 1972-79 more than $109,370 was to be expended for the repair and restoration of Arlington House.

A. RESTORATION OF 1861 APPEARANCE OF WING ROOFS

On September 12, 1972, a meeting was held at Arlington House to continue discussion of problems considered earlier on March 10, 1970. With regard to the roofs on the wings, those in attendance reported:

Comments—Contract to slate the two wing roofs has been stopped. Two sources indicate that these roofs, for the restored period, were of a "gravel" type. The existing slope is approximately 4 in 12, but it has not been ascertained if the roof structure are original or if they had been altered.

Recommended:

1. Contact a major roofing manufacturer to advise on a modern roofing system that would afford the appearance of the "gravel" roof of the mid 19th century.

2. Roof sub-structure be investigated to determine its originality. Harry Martin plans investigative probes into the attic area during the week of September 17 through 24 to undercover any evidence of structure change.

3. Protect the mansion with a roofing system which will be guaranteed by the manufacturer and closely resemble the "gravel" roof of the restoration period. [1]

James J. Redmond, Chief, Division of Maintenance, contacted John Morgan of the Manville Company in Denver, Colorado, regarding gravel roofs and Redmond reported on October 6, 1972:

The Manville Company researched the construction of gravel roofs for the 1860 period and Mr. Roxbrough informed me that a cold tar or pitch was obtained from a local gas works. This was usually brought to the site and heated. Then heavy duty craft type paper was dipped several times into the tar pot and the excess was scraped off. When this paper dried, it was overlapped and nailed in place on the roof. The paper again was flooded with tar and a source of local gravel was spread over the flooded paper and rolled by hand. [2]

B. RESTORATION OF 1861 GUTTER AND DOWNSPOUT SYSTEM

At the September 12, 1972 meeting, the group commented on the gutter and downspout system:

Water damage has occurred in the exterior walls. This is evidenced by the water stains both on interior and exterior surfaces of the wall. The gutter and the downspout system, as it now exists, can not adequately accommodate the amount of roof runoff. The downspout locations differ from photographs of the period.

Recommended:

Replace water removal system for the roofs following Mr. Franzen's plan which includes relocation of downspout and enlarging the size of gutters and downspouts. [3]

In the annual report for 1972, Site Manager Fuqua reported:

With the completion of Archie W. Franzen's study of the immediate pre-Civil War appearance of the roof and gutters of the house, initial steps were taken to replace the existing gutter system and to lay tar and gravel roofs on the north and south wings. The new gutter system will alleviate a severe moisture problem which had developed in the wings of the house. [4]

Specifications for the roof and gutter projects, together with invitations to bid, were issued on August 23, 1973, and bids were opened on August 29. The contract, in the amount of $46,000, was awarded to Prospect Industries, Inc., of McLean, Virginia, on October 29. An additional $4,000 was also paid to the contractor for the rental of scaffolding. The contract called for the following work: (1) removal of the existing tile roofs on the two wings and also the wing gutters; (2) inspection and recoding of the wing roof structures; (3) repair/modification of roof structural systems; and (4) installation of new gravel covered roofs to the wings of Arlington House and the required gutter system. [5]

The contractor was instructed to begin work on May 14, 1974, and an additional 21 calendar days extension of time was granted on July 3, due to inclement weather and delays caused by the government. Work was completed on July 24 and accepted by the National Park Service on November 11, 1974. [6]

In her annual report for 1974 Site Manager Fuqua described this restoration work:

Roofing of the south and north wings was undertaken to solve major problems of rain water leakage. While reproducing the original tar and gravel roofs proved unfeasible, their general appearance was reproduced by using a waterproofing epoxy over which pea gravel was laid. New gutters were installed on the wings in conjunction with the roofwork. The slate roof on the center section of the house was checked for damage with some replacement necessary and repairs made to areas under the eaves which had suffered water damage. [7]

C. INTERIOR PAINTING OF THE MANSION, 1972

In her annual report for 1972 Site Manager Fuqua reported that Curator Agnes Mullins was conducting a paint study of the hallway areas of the mansion and the center hall (Room 111). The south hall (Room 113), and the second floor hallway (Room 201) had been repainted that spring. [8]

D. EXTERIOR PAINTING OF MANSION, 1972-1974

The meeting at the mansion on September 12, 1972, had also considered the problem of restoring the 1858-61 historic colors of the exterior of the mansion and recommended:

Painting contracting companies involved in the restoration field be invited to submit bids for the exterior painting of the mansion.

Studies be continued to ascertain correct paint colors and their proper location on the exterior surfaces. [9]

Relative to progress on this project, Site Manager Fuqua reported in her annual report for 1972:

Specifications for painting of the exterior walls of the mansion were prepared, while further research on the colors to be used for the exterior woodwork and the marble treatment for the portico columns was begun. [10]

The specifications for restoring the historic colors on the exterior of Arlington House, were reviewed by architects in the Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, and invitations to bid on the project were issued on May 10. The bids opened on May 22, 1973.

The contract to paint the exterior of Arlington House was awarded on May 29, 1973, to the lowest bidder, Apex Decorating Company of Silver Spring, Maryland, for $13,500. The contractor was instructed to begin work on June 11, 1973. [11] Change orders were issued by the National Park Service on August 10, and September 6, and the time of the contract was extended to September 15. The final inspection of the project was made on October 1, when it was reported that the work had been completed in accordance with the specifications on September 15. Total cost of the work, including additional work requested by the change orders, was $14,000. [12]

E. PLASTER MOLDING OF PORTICO CEILING REPLACED, 1972-1973

In her annual report for 1972, Site Manager Fuqua noted, "During the severe summer heat wave, a section of the ceiling molding of the portico fell. Recommendations for repair were drawn up but repair work did not get underway." [13]

On June 18, 1973, Architect Hugh Miller, Park Historic Architecture, WASO, met at Arlington House with several technicians, to discuss the plaster moldings on the soffit of the portico. Miller reported:

Mr. Breen and I inspected the portions of plaster molding. There are two major areas that need to be replaced. Against the house where for a distance of approximately ten feet the upper portion of the cornice molding has fallen, and on the front portion of the soffit which has been repaired without following the molding profile. It appears that where the molding has failed it has been from external forces that have broken the keys. This may have occurred during the replacement of the soffit in the mid 60's. The wood lath seems to be sound, but the blocking for the cornice may have moved from its original position.

It is suggested that new moldings following existing profiles be run to repair these areas. This work will include cleaning out old plaster keys and cutting a sharp surface in the existing plaster for matching the new work. Existing blocking and lath should be securely fastened to the rafters. The addition of a hardware cloth or metal lath spaced away from the wooden lath is desirable for reinforcement in the new plaster work. Existing wooden lath should be adequately wet to prevent warping when new plaster is applied. The scope of the work should include extensive inspection of both the surface and the lath system of the entire cornice molding to assure that the existing work is sound. Where necessary, this should be reinforced with stainless steel wires tied into the back of the moldings or by removing old work and replacing by new if needed. [14]

The purchase order for this work, estimated to cost $1,800, was issued to Stephano Lozupone & Sons of Washington, D.C., on June 22, 15 1973. The work included specifications and two sketch plans. [15] The reconstruction was completed in 1973. [16]

F. PROPOSED WORK ON THE BRICK FOUNDATION WALLS, 1972

At the meeting held at Arlington House on September 12, 1972, the following comments were made:

There has been continuous deterioration of the brick foundation walls and fireplace bases. Moisture is being absorbed at this level which then affects the interior walls on the ground floor.

Recommended:

Program for the rehabilitation of the Foundation Walls

1. Excavate the perimeter of the building.

2. Replace, point, and parge brick foundation walls.

3. Investigate and modify drainage system to prevent hydrostatic pressure around the walls and adequately provide for the downspout drainage.

4. Landscape and pave exterior areas around mansion. [17]

As a result of the meeting, George Washington Memorial Parkway Superintendent Richie wrote on October 6, 1972, to the Director of the Professional Support Service, requesting assistance to prepare specifications and a cost estimate "to correct and eliminate the drainage problem around the base of the mansion and to correct the damage that has occurred to the foundation and other structures of the house." This information was necessary to program the work for the 1974 fiscal year 1974. [18] No assistance was provided, and no further effort was made to correct this problem in 1972-73.

G. RESTORATION OF 1864 SNOW GUARDS ON MAIN ROOF, 1973

On July 17, 1973, a purchase order in the amount of $1,978 was issued to the Virginia Roofing Corporation of Alexandria, Virginia, for performing the following work on the slate roof of the main structure of Arlington House: (1) remove existing butterfly and bar type snow guards and fabricate and install new wooden snow guards, similar to the type used in 1864—$788; and (2) remove existing copper flashing at chimneys on high roof only and furnish and install new 16-ounce copper base and counterflashing—$1,190. [19] This work was to be completed by August 2, 1973.

H. MARBLEIZATION OF EXTERIOR OF ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1972-1974

In her annual report for 1972, Site Supervisor Fuqua noted that "further research on . . . the marble treatment for the portico columns was begun" during the year. [20] On June 11, 1973, Architect Miller, Park Historic Architecture, met with regional and park personnel to discuss proposed projects. With regard to Arlington House, Miller reported, "The specifications for the marbleizing have been prepared, and I suggested that you may want to add Munsell numbers for the various colors. . . ." [21] The invitations to bid, together with "National Capital Parks Specifications for Marbleization—Arlington House, Arlington, Virginia," were issued on September 12, and the bids opened on September 21, 1973. The contract was awarded to the low bidder, Apex Decorating Company of Silver Spring, Maryland, for $13,950, on October 29, 1973. The contractor was ordered to proceed with the work on December 4. The following day change order 1, which added $1,500 to the sum agreed upon, was issued as was stop order 1, which directed the Apex Company to suspend all work until about April 15, 1974. [22] The contractor was instructed to resume work on April 22, 1974, and 50 calendar days were added, extending the time of completion to June 11, 1974. [23]

Change order 2, increasing the amount to be paid to the contractor in the amount of $2,980 for additional work, was issued on July 26, 1974, and 31 calendar days were added to the contract, making the final day July 31, 1974. [24] The contractor completed the work on time and the final inspection was made on August 12, 1974. The letter of final inspection and acceptance of the contract, with payment of the $18,430 approved, was issued on August 13, 1974. [25]

From 1972 to 1974 approximately $86,208 had been expended to restore the 1858-61 exterior appearance of Arlington House. Site Supervisor Fuqua thus commented on this progress in her 1974 annual report:

Highlighting 1974 were two major restoration and preservation projects. The wings of the house were reroofed to give their 1861 appearance and the exterior of the building was repainted to give the marble effect it originally had . . .

Of the marbleization project in particular, she reported:

Painting of the north, east, and south facades of the house to reproduce the original marble effect was the major restoration project for the year. While this difficult job had been undertaken by the National Park Service in the late 1960's, the time changes in the specifications were necessary to reflect further research. The overall effect of this paint job more closely resembles the original treatment, documented by photographs taken in 1964. [26]

I. FUMIGATION OF THE MANSION, 1974

One additional project, the fumigation of Arlington House, completed the restoration and preservation projects undertaken from 1972 to 1974. In November 1973 the Terminix Company of Maryland and Washington, Inc., of Hyattsville, Maryland, inspected Arlington House for insect damage and reported:

Our findings revealed wood borer damage to numerous areas of the structure. Much of the damage is from prior wood worm infestation which seems to be no longer active. On the other hand, there are active infestations in several areas of the structure, including the understructure and attic area.

As indicated in Mr. Freund's letter to you, fumigation to the entire structure and its contents and treatment of the attic area with a wood preservative is a certain solution to eliminating the infestation. If left unchecked, it will become more severe in the presently infested areas and, of course, spread to areas not now infested. Fumigation, therefore, eliminates immediately these wood borers in all stages of their metamorphosis. What remains thereafter is the necessity for a program of treating future items prior to their introduction into the Mansion so that the insect is not again allowed to develop.

Accordingly, our proposal is for the total fumigation of the Mansion except the area of the attic which cannot be sealed. This area would be treated with a wood preservative to accomplish the same results. [27]

Acting Superintendent Redmond confirmed the agreement with the Terminix Company to fumigate the mansion on January 29, 1974, and informed them that the work was to be done March 11-15, when the house would be sealed. He also commented, "We . . . appreciate your calling in the Dow Chemical Company representative, Dr. Porteous, for an on site inspection of this project. We understand that the Dow Chemical Vikane is safe to use on fragile, historic fabric provided it is applied properly." [28]

Five days were necessary to complete the fumigation. On March 15, 1974, Clifford S. Chadderton, Chief, Division of Safety Management, National Capital Parks, reported the findings of his inspection of the work:

On March 13, a safety inspection was made at Arlington House to determine if safety measures were taken for exterminating . . . .

A deadly poison gas titled, "Vikane Sulfure Fluoride" was used for a period of 24 hours through various hoses placed in several rooms in the basement and main floor. All cracks and chimneys were sealed tight and signs placed around the house reading "Deadly Poison." There was a 24-hour guard outside the house at all times and four employees from Terminix were bivouacked in a trailer during the night to monitor the concentration of gas to be used for a period of 24 hours.

All safety measures were taken to assure safety for all unknown visitors that might invade the area. [29]

In her annual report for 1974 Site Supervisor Fuqua noted of this project, "Discovery of insect infestation was followed up with massive fumigation which seems to have solved the problem." [30]

J. INSTALLATION OF SMOKE DETECTING FIRE ALARM SYSTEM, 1975-1976

On December 18, 1974, Superintendent Charles A. Veitl, George Washington Memorial Parkway, wrote to the Chief, Professional Support, National Capital Region, with regard to Arlington House:

We request that every effort be made to assure completion of the specifications for the Arlington House smoke detection system by the middle of February. The present inadequate heat detection system, coupled with the necessity of laying 4800 feet of hose to get adequate water pressure, almost assures that any fire starting at night would be well underway before the fire department arrives. With the installation of the early warning system, there will be at least a fighting chance that the fire department can get here in time to do some good. [31]

On December 19, 1974, Superintendent Vietl informed Dallas Steele, Wells-Fargo Alarm System, Inc., Washington, D.C., of the condition of the existing fire alarm system in Arlington House:

The test of the equipment revealed that both systems in the mansion were not functioning properly and were in a sad state of disrepair. The inside-outside alarm and the relay to the Fort Myer Fire Department are not responding to the electrical or the heat test. However, the break-glass alarm was functioning properly and some indicators for the system functioned on occasion. The system for the potting house (museum) was also not adequate, although only two of the seven units did not function properly. We are insisting that you make the necessary repairs as efficiently and quickly as possible in order to protect this historical and irreplaceable resource. [32]

M.R. Cutler, Chief of Design Services, National Capital Parks, had his men prepare the specifications and drawings for the fire detection system for Arlington House and submitted them for approval to Superintendent Veitl on February 21, 1975. [33] Invitations to bid, together with the specifications and drawings 855-8001, dated February 18, 1975, "Arlington House Fire Detection System," were issued on May 16 and the bids were opened on June 3, 1975. [34]

The contract, dated June 5, 1975, was awarded to the low bidder, C.G. Esterbrook, Inc., of Arlington, Virginia, for $20,666.68. [35] C.G. Esterbrook, Inc., was instructed to begin work on July 11 and the project was to be completed by October 8, 1975. Work on the installation of the new fire detection system was completed on March 12, 1976, and the final letter of acceptance was issued on April 14, 1976. [36]

In her Annual Report for 1975, Site Supervisor Fuqua noted of this project, "During 1975 major strides were taken toward the protection of the historical resources at the site. A contract was let and construction begun on the installation of a smoke detecting fire alarm system for all buildings within the site. This system will be a major improvement over the current system, which operates on heat." [37]

In her report the following year, she reported:

Institution of a smoke detection system providing protection for all buildings has proven highly effective, particularly in detecting visitors smoking in the house and in the museum. Defective parts in the main panel and in a detection unit caused a series of false alarms during the summer and it took several weeks to pinpoint the problem. On the whole the system has functioned smoothly and does provide highly adequate protection. [38]

K. LIGHT FILTERING FILM ON MANSION WINDOWS, 1975

On July 22, 1975, W.B. Slater of Slater's Glass Tinting, Glen Allen, Virginia, completed the application of a light filtering polyethylene grey-tinted film to the windows at Arlington House. The inside surface of all exterior windows of the mansion were cleaned, conditioned, and tinted except the windows in the conservatory (Room 116). The windows of the south servants' quarters and the museum exhibit were all treated with this film. The cost was $1,761. [39] The tinted film was reported to remove approximately 85 percent of the ultraviolet light and 56 percent of the visible light passing through the film. [40]

L. STRUCTURAL WEAKNESSES IN MANSION 1975-1978

On April 17, 1975, Superintendent Veitl requested the historical architect of National Capital Parks to have a survey made of the floors and stairways in Arlington House:

We would like to request your time to make a survey of the condition and carrying capacity of the hallway floors and stairways at Arlington House. We particularly need your recommendations at this time on repairing the floor in the pantry [Room 101] which is weakening in spots. . . . [41]

In her annual report for 1975, Site Supervisor Fuqua reported:

Structural weaknesses were found in the second floor of the mansion, which are still being evaluated and corrected. As a temporary measure, visitor access to the second floor has been limited to 15 persons at a time. Along a similar note, guided tours were implemented throughout the remainder of the house to improve interpretation and lessen the extreme impact on the structure of large groups. At times over 150 persons arrive at one time from Tourmobile. [42]

At the request of Paul Goeldner, Historical Architect, Professional Services, John J. Longworth, Civil Engineer, Professional Services, National Capital Parks, made a series of investigations into the structural stability and condition of Arlington House. In his report, dated January 8, 1976, Longworth wrote:

1. The windowed passageway formerly used as a greenhouse [Room 116]. Lower sash and window frames subjected to high humidity and moisture conditions in the past developed damp rot which eroded most of the wood material at the junction of all sash frames and sills. This resulted in movement of window framing and loss of support for the arched framing and the masonry above it. The windows had become unable to close or move and masonry arches were beginning to crack and subside.

2. Flooring in the smaller bedrooms developed a two inch sag and the partition wall developed cracks showing subsidence. To date, limited floorboards and baseboards have been removed. They indicate:

a. Floor joists have cracked and subsided at their junction with the main beam intended to support the partition.

b. The main beam indicates a maximum deflection of three inches.

c. The partition framing which should lie directly on the main beam remains relatively level while the beam has deflected the three inches mentioned above.

d. Placement of an electrical-system sometime in the past resulted in uncontrolled drilling of the beam, as did hanging of a massive chandelier.

The problem is being evaluated by:

1) Investigations at the bearing points of the main beam.

2) Removal of the chandelier which was not there originally.

3. Stairways leading to the second floor.

a. Extremely long wooden horses have deflected due to a combination of span length and loading conditions.

b. One stair has been supported by a door lintel which has or is failing.

Restriction of persons on the stairs has been advised until repair and strengthening have been accomplished.

4. Stairwell and framing leading to kitchen. Stairs, framing and floor have subsided and vibrate with passage.

a. Framing beams have deflected and cracked under load. Poor framing practices, small beam size and heavy post loading appear to have been the cause of the failure which could become worse in time.

Replacement of and relocation of short posts is advised together with placement of a bearing mat under the brick flooring.

We do not recommend restoring the floor to its original level on a short term basis. It may be possible to do so over a three to six month period.

5. Door lintel at kitchen entrance. A major beam extending the full length of the kitchen landed above a door lintel. The door lintel and frame are bent and cracked. Replacement of the lintel is required after shoring and stabilization of the beam. Passageway through and at the doorway should be restricted.

6. First floor joists above the kitchen area have split or broken at bearing points.

Flooring is sagging and joists show continuing debility because of poor framing practices in original construction and excessive live loads. Shoring, replacement and refraining is required in about three to five beams. Work will be difficult because of existing construction, movement of replacement material, existing framing and confined work areas.

None of these conditions are beyond repair and major construction should not be involved. We would recommend use of a small group of experienced carpenters (say two to a maximum of four) assigned on a continuing basis until repairs are completed. Replacement of plaster, paint and trim will also be needed after completion of stabilization. Work is estimated to take from six to eight months depending on factors which are presently not known.

Until the work is completed, we would recommend limitation of loads including the number of visitors in each area in order to prevent loss or further damage to the structure.

We consider removal of the chandelier of prime importance and a major item in safeguarding the structure. [43]

In her annual report for 1976, Site Supervisor Fuqua reported:

A preliminary survey of the house made by NCR Engineer Jack Longworth revealed several developing structural weakness from overloading and age. The major problem was a weakened floor joist beneath the wall between the Lee Boys' Room [Room 206] and the Colonel and Mrs. Lee's Bedroom [Room 207] on the second floor. Stabilization work on the joist was successfully completed by Wallace Spencer . . . Carpenter, with only minimal alterations to the original fabric of the building.

The pantry [Room 101] and spots had to be braced with posts. The weakened lintel over the doorway to the winter kitchen [Room BO-2] was replaced and braced backed with steel. Until further structural investigation could be done, overloading of the structure during July and August was brought under control by giving guided tours to all visitors. Groups limited to 25 persons entered the house at 15 minute intervals. . . . [44]

On April 28, 1977, Superintendent Veitl requested that Engineer Longworth prepare a survey of the carrying capacity of Arlington House, including both the first and second floors. [45] Longworth made this survey during the fall of 1977. It was determined that the first landing on a main stairway was dangerously weak. This weakness was indicated by plaster failure on the ceiling underlying the landing. Based on this information, Paul Goeldner, Chief, Historic Resource Services, National Capital Region, permitted entry into the framework to determine the cause of weakness. The cause was found to be a bearing surface that was too small on two joists that supported the landing. About two square meters of plaster ware removed to expose the framework. This plaster dated from the Army restoration of 1928-30. An external prop was then installed to support the landing. No decision was made in 1978 on the permanent stabilization of this landing as a Historic Structure Report on Arlington House was scheduled to begin in the fall of 1978, and proposals for permanent stabilization of the landing were to be offered in the study. [46]

M. WALLPAPERING AND PAINTING MANSION ROOMS, 1976

In her annual report for 1976 Site Supervisor Fuqua reported, "Eight rooms in the house were wallpapered with Wall-Tex protective paper which prevents paint build-up on the plaster walls, and then were painted. Five other rooms in the house were also painted." [47]

N. THREATS TO SAFETY OF ARLINGTON HOUSE RESULTING FROM THE USE OF MANSION FOR SOCIAL FUNCTIONS, 1970-1979

Beginning in 1970, because of its convenient location, attractive setting, and ample space, Arlington House began to be used on a fairly regular basis for social functions sponsored by either the Secretary of the Interior or the Director of the National Park Service. Sixteen such events took place in the mansion during the period January 1970 to December 1974. [48] Smoking was permitted throughout the historic house at these parties, and this alarmed Site Supervisor Fuqua, Superintendent of George Washington Memorial Parkway Ritchie, and the officials of National Capital Region who were responsible for the preservation of the mansion.

In a memorandum to the Chief, Legislative Services, National Park Service, dated June 22, 1973, regarding "Guidelines for special events at Arlington House," National Capital Regional Director Russell E. Dickenson wrote in part:

In the last few years, a few receptions and dinners in the mansion have been authorized by the Secretary or the Director of the National Park Service, on the basis that the importance or significance of the occasion warranted an exception to the general rule. These exceptions will be increasingly difficult to accommodate as implementation of the furnishings plan for the mansion proceeds. Even at the present time, there is a high risk of damage to carpets and furnishings that have to be moved to accommodate dinners or receptions. Some larger objects that cannot be moved have been damaged.

With regard to smoking, Director Dickenson recommended:

Smoking in the mansion should not be permitted. Old, very flammable, window dressings present a major hazard. The fireplaces contain dry wood and represent a special hazard because smokers tend to treat fireplaces as ash trays.

Cigarette burns on flooring and furnishings have resulted from previous exceptions to the "no smoking" rule. [49]

Thomas N. Crellin, Acting Director, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, also commented on these problems, writing to the Director on August 2, 1973:

We have been asked to suggest means of protecting Arlington House from damage arising from special events at the mansion. In the past, these events have included candlelight tours, sit-down dinners, and cocktail parties. We will limit our comments to our concern for the fabric of the building and will not comment on the philosophical question of privilege use of public property held in trust.

It is obvious that the major concern during these events is the danger from fire. We assume that an adequate staff schooled in emergency procedures is on hand during all these events. One staff member should be assigned to monitor each space where there are candles.

No smoking should be a condition for all uses of the house. The "no smoking" rule must be enforced not only by the staff but by the sponsors of the event. Failure on the part of the participants in these events to adhere to the "no smoking" rule should be adequate justification not to honor subsequent requests for the use of the building by the sponsors.

While it is technically impossible to assess the amount of physical wear to the fabric of the building that results from a special event, it is apparent that this loading of the building must be considered with the total visitation and public use. Every effort must be made to protect surfaces from wear including the installation of barriers to keep people away from walls and openings and mats or carpets on the floors and stairs. The number of people permitted in the building at any one time should be developed from the loading capacity of the floors and number of people that can easily go through the passages and stairways (the loads developed by the Franzen report assumed people would not be in the rooms).

The movement of furniture out of the rooms to accommodate events also damages the building since wall and door surfaces are inevitably marred and scratched in the process. Movement of the house collection of furniture and objects should not be permitted.

Management decisions to limit or eliminate special uses may appear arbitrary, but it must be remembered that the house and its contents are nonrenewable resources. Once worn out, they can only be replaced by reproduction. Our responsibility as managers of historic preservation is to protect and preserve these irreplaceable remnants of our heritage. We will support your policy to meet these objectives. [50]

No further progress was apparently made in 1973 and 1974, for Site Supervisor Fuqua warned in her annual report for 1974, "Smoking within the house during social functions sponsored by the Director of the National Park Service continued to present the major fire hazard to the structure . . . ." [51]

On May 7, 1975, Ernest A. Connally, Associate Director, Professional Services (former Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation) again turned to the problem, writing the Director:

For some time Arlington House has been used for special social functions hosted by Members of the Cabinet and other high government officials. Such use has required extensive preparations on the part of the park staff, the removal or use of irreplaceable and valuable furnishings, and the closing of portions of the building to the public. During such gatherings guests are permitted to wander freely in the area opened to them and to smoke and to partake of food and beverages there. A listing of such functions held since January 1970 is attached [see Appendix 4].

This use of Arlington House thus has resulted in unusual wear and serious danger to both the house and to its furnishings. Such use provides a precedent for similar uses of other historic properties and is a source of potentially great embarrassment for the Service and the Department.

The above use of Arlington House, though not inconsistent with former Administrative Policies, is in direct conflict with the Management Policies recently approved and soon to be in effect. This fact, together with the appointment of a new Secretary, would appear to make this an appropriate time for a reconsideration of the use of Arlington House for special social functions and the banning of such use. We recommend that this action be taken. [52]

The problem was then referred to the Director's Policy Council for consideration and on August 5, 1975, Chairman Dickenson informed the Director:

Over the past several years Arlington House has been used for dinner parties, cocktail receptions, evening buffets, and other gatherings. These uses have required extensive preparations, including the moving, or use, of irreplaceable furnishings and the closing of the building to the public. In most cases, smoking has been permitted. It is clearly evident that the particularly fragile nature of the Arlington House and its furnishings is threatened by these arrangements.

It is the conclusion of the Policy Council that requests for use of Arlington House for social functions which might endanger the building and its contents or substantially interfere with visitor use, should be denied. [53]

National Park Service Director Gary Everhardt approved the statement recommended by the Policy Council on August 6, 1975. On August 13, 1975, Russell E. Dickenson, who had become Deputy Director of the National Park Service, informed the Director, National Capital Parks, and all other regional directors of this decision and provided them with copies of the council's policy statement on Arlington House. [54]

This action ended the threat. In her annual report for 1975, Site Supervisor Fuqua commented as follows:

Social functions, which for several years have posed a potential of serious damage to the structure and furnishings, were greatly curtailed under guidelines received from the Director's Policy Council: requests for social functions which might endanger the buildings and its contents or substantially interfere with visitor use are to be denied. [55]

No more social functions of this nature were held in Arlington House from 1975 to 1980. [56]

O. STUCCO REPAIR WORK ON EXTERIOR OF ARLINGTON HOUSE, AND WEST PORCH, 1977

During August 1977 a total of approximately $735 was expended for "Stucco Restoration" at Arlington House on two projects:

"West Porch replacing Stucco with Galvanized Metal Lath, clean washed sand, Portland Cement," estimated cost $350. [57]

2. "North Wing Porch, Replacing Stucco, Galvanized Metal Lath, washed sand, Portland Cement. Lined to match existing walls," estimated cost $385. The work was performed by John Kakos of Mt. Rainier, Maryland. The west porch of the mansion was also reconstructed during 1977 to resemble its appearance in 1864. [58]

P. REPAIRS TO WINDOWS IN ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1978

During the spring of 1978, Wallace Spencer made repairs to the windows in the following Arlington House rooms:

Wine Cellar (Room BO-3)

The east window of the wine room in the basement of the mansion was repaired. [59]

Conservatory (Room 116), South Wing

Repairs were made to the window frames and exterior sill in the conservatory. [60]

In her annual report for 1978, Site Supervisor Fuqua described the status of work on Arlington House:

Stabilization of structural weaknesses was limited in scope pending the historic structures report scheduled to get underway in 1979. That report will make a thorough survey and provide funding for repairs. Minor stabilization completed included repairs to window frames in the house and the west door frame into the center hall.

Exterior paint on the house continued to seriously flake and moisture problems were evident in the school room [Room 104] and morning room [Room 115] walls. [61]

Q. PREPARATION OF FURNISHING PLAN FOR ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1972-1979

A preliminary report for the furnishing study for Arlington House was completed by Harpers Ferry Center Museum Curator Agnes Mullins and submitted for review to the Division of Museums at Harpers Ferry Center on June 1, 1972. [62] Work on the study for the plan was continued by Mullins during 1973 and 1974. In her annual report for 1974, Site Supervisor Fuqua commented on the project:

Work continued on the furnishings study. Most of the time was spent in continuing study of the Lee family papers at the Virginia Historical Society in Richmond and the Custis-Lee portraits owned by Washington and Lee University. [63]

In 1975 she noted that "a complete and comprehensive inventory of furnishings was taken. This inventory included notations on the condition of the furnishings and provides a basis for future restoration needs." [64]

In October 1976, Curator Mullins submitted her preliminary draft of the furnishing plan for Arlington House to the National Capital Regional Office for review. That same year "the large south wing room [Room 115], furnished as a dining room since the restoration of the building by the War Department in 1930 began, was initially changed . . . to begin to exhibit its 1861 appearance as Mrs. [Robert E.] Lee's morning [room] . . . ." [65]

In her annual report for 1978, Site Supervisor Fuqua reported with regards to the furnishing plan:

The final draft of the furnishing plan was submitted for review by the park and Region by Agnes Mullins That division made available $20,000 to begin implementing the plan and detailed Ms. Mullins to Arlington to do this work. [66]

The plan was approved in 1979 and Site Supervisor Fuqua noted:

The furnishing plan for Arlington House was approved this year. Division of Museum Services allotted $20,000 to get implementation underway. This marked the first time since the 1920s that major budgeted funds have been available for acquisition of furnishings for Arlington House. By the end of the year research and final specifications for ordering reproduction carpeting for the center hall, south stairway, and second floor hallway were completed. During the year, 204 furnishings for the house were received as gifts or purchases. [67]

R. ADDITIONAL BRACING FOR FIRST FLOOR ROOMS, 1979

Following the computation of load ratings of the first floor framing system by Dean Robinson of Arthur Bear Engineers, Inc., in March 1979, additional temporary supports were added to those in the basement. A beam and five posts were placed in the winter kitchen (Room BO-2) under the north wing (Rooms 106 and 105). In the south wing a beam and two posts were wedged beneath the header facing the segmental arch under the morning room (Room 115). [68]

S. NATIONAL CAPITAL TEAM, DENVER SERVICE CENTER, UNDERTAKES STUDIES OF PHYSICAL HISTORY OF ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1979-1982

In her annual report for 1979, Site Supervisor Fuqua noted that, during fiscal year 1979, "$100,000 was received through the Denver Service Center for emergency stabilization and repair to the house. By the years end, stabilization of the north wing roof was at about the halfway point." [69] The work from 1979 to 1982 was conducted under the direction of Architect Harry Lee Arnest, III of the Branch of Historic Preservation, National Capital Team, Denver Service Center.

1. PRELIMINARY HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY OF MANSION, 1979

On instructions from Architect Arnest, Historian Charles W. Snell was given 15 working days to conduct a survey of the physical history data to be found in Arlington House's park master research files. The files are a series of some 50 loose-leaf notebooks in which information on all phases of Arlington House's history from 1800 to August 1967 has been filed in chronological order. Nelligan's massive report "Old Arlington," was also researched for similar information. The data extracted from the master research files and the Nelligan study were presented to Architect Arnest in February 1979. [70]

2. PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL REPORT, 1979 [71]

The report was comprised of four sections: I. A Chronology of Structural Changes (based on the data collected by Historian Snell); II. A Statement or Description of Existing Conditions in the Mansion; III. Recommendations; and IV. Assessment of Effects. Sections II and IV were prepared by Historical Architect Arnest and John Sligh, of the National Capital Team.

The preliminary architectural report was enhanced by two projects.

A second edition was written in July 1979, [72] and a fifth section written by Frank G. Matero, Architectural Conservator, North Atlantic Historic Preservation Center, North Atlantic Regional Office, was prepared in July 1979. [73]

3. PRELIMINARY HISTORICAL REPORT, 1980

In April 1980 Historical Architect Arnest issued the document, "A Collection of Materials in Three Parts for the Historic Data Section, The Arlington House, George Washington Memorial Parkway." Part I of this document was comprised of xerox copies of Historian Snell's "Survey of Data Relating to the Physical History of the Custis-Lee Mansion, Arlington House," from the master files of the park, 1800 to August 1967, February 1979, plus six attachments also collected by Snell. Part II was comprised of xerox copies of Architect Arnest's long-hand notes, taken as he examined Record Group 92, Records of the Quartermaster General, at the National Archives (Entry 576, Box 131-32, containing War Department records on Arlington House from 1865 to September 15, 1885.) Not searched, however, were the War Department records from 1885 to 1935. Part III of the report consisted of xeroxed documents that Historian Snell had copied from two loose-leaf notebooks in the park research library, entitled "Restoration and Repair Records," Volumes I and II, February 1979—a file established by Historian Nelligan in 1948-54.

While useful to facilitate the writing of a historical data section, this document represented only a first preliminary step in the research necessary to write an adequate report. The April 1980 volume is thus a collection of documents and not a historic structure report, historical data section.

4. PAINT STUDY, 1980

During the week of October 20-24, 1980, David Arbogast, Historical Architect of the Southwest/Southeast Team, Denver Service Center, collected paint samples of the interior of the entire mansion, with an emphasis on the north wing rooms. He was assisted and directed by Historical Architects Harry Lee Arnest, III, and John Sligh of the National Capital Team of the Denver Service Center. Some 290 paint samples were collected. The areas receiving the greatest attention were the woodwork and plaster cornices. Because the walls and ceilings had been extensively restored, minimal sampling of these areas was undertaken. Architect Arbogast reported, "In the light of documentary evidence presented in the Historical Data Section of the Historic Structures Report on the painting and repair of Arlington House from 1861 to 1979, not written until March 1982 and April 1983, however, the assumptions made about the state of the walls and ceilings may have been erroneous."

On February 5, 1981, Arbogast returned to Arlington to collect samples of paint taken from the exterior of the building. In addition, samples were taken from two wooden shutters, which were believed to be from the historic period. In all, twenty-one paint samples were studied for the exterior color scheme. [74]

Due to limited time and selected sampling this study fails to give a comprehensive and integrated paint analysis and must be supplemented by further analysis before any paint restoration is implemented.

5. ARCHEOLOGICAL STUDY, 1981

This report by John F. Pousson describes the extensive excavations, in the basement of the north wing of the mansion, and the limited excavations in the basements of the main or center house and the south wing. [75]

6. ARCHITECTURAL DATA SECTION, HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT, 1981

Historical Architects Arnest and Sligh conducted a structural investigation of the north wing and spot studies of the fabric of the main house and south wing from 1979 to 1981. [76]

The architectural and archeological investigation of the structure of the north wing produced new physical evidence that established the complicated physical history and challenged the previously held theories (1924-80) on the architectural evolution of the north wing. Similar investigations of the structures of the main house and south wing, however, were limited in comparison with the studies made of the north wing.

7. HISTORIC DATA SECTION, HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT, 1981-1983

The historical data section of the historic structure report, based on research in documentary sources, was prepared after these reports had been completed. More than 1,000 pages of documents in the National Archives relating to the physical history of the mansion from 1864 to 1933 were copied and a set of these was presented to the park to be included as part of its research data files. The documents filled two volumes, and were entitled as follows:

1. "Data Compiled from Record Group No. 92—Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, U.S. Army, in the National Archives, Washington, D.C., Relating to the Alteration, Repair, and Use of Arlington House (The Custis-Lee Mansion), in Arlington National Cemetery, Virginia, From 1864 to 1915." Charles W. Snell, Compiler, December 1981-January 1982.

2. "Data Compiled from Record Group No. 92, Records of the Office of the Quartermaster General, U.S. Army, in the National Archives at the Washington Federal Records Center At Suitland, Maryland, and also from The Arlington House National Park Service Research Files, Relating to the Alteration, Repair, Restoration, and Use of Arlington House from 1916 to 1935." Charles W. Snell, January 1982.

Because of the amount of "new" and detailed documentary evidence uncovered relating to the repair, maintenance, alteration, use, and restoration of the mansion by the War Department during the years 1864 to 1933, the amount of money available for the project did not permit the completion of a history for the entire 1802-1979 period as originally planned. Thus, the story and study in Volume I ends on August 10, 1933, the date when the War Department transferred Arlington House to the National Park Service. The results of Historian Snell's 1981 research efforts were issued in the following two studies:

(1) "Historic Structures Report, Historical Data Section for Arlington House (The Custis-Lee Mansion), Virginia—George Washington Memorial Parkway"—(typescript, National Capital Team, Denver Service Center, March 1982), Vol. I.

(2) "A Summary of the Physical History of Arlington House, 1802-1933, Based on Documentary Evidence Presented in the Historical Data Section of the Historic Structures Report for Arlington House (The Custis-Lee Mansion), George Washington Memorial Parkway, Virginia." (typescript, National Capital Team, Denver Service Center, March 1982). Vol. II.

Little new documentary evidence was added for the 1802-64 period but knowledge of the War Department's use, maintenance, and repair of the mansion from 1864 to 1933 was greatly expanded. In particular, the planning and execution of the War Department's 1928-30 "restoration" of Arlington House were presented in detail for the first time.

Additional funds were requested and received to complete the physical history of Arlington House from 1933 to 1979, the period during which it has been under the administration of the National Park Service.

The funding made possible twenty working days to research and write Volume II of the Historical Data Section for Arlington House during April 1983.

T. VISITATION TO ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1972-1982

Arlington House has been open to visitors and exhibited as an historic house of the 1855-61 period from 1933 to the present. The statistics which follow indicate the number of visitors going through the mansion and do not include the grounds visitation. Guided tours were instituted in July 1976 and continued until the end of August 1980 in order to prevent the floor support system of the mansion from being overloaded. The guided tours were terminated once the system had been renovated. The number of visitors to Arlington House during 1972-82 was:

U. SUMMARY OF IMPROVEMENTS TO ARLINGTON HOUSE, 1972-1979

1. Painting of Mansion, Exterior

1973—Exterior of mansion painted "historic" colors by Apex Decorating Company of Silver Spring, Maryland.

1974—Marbleization of east portico by Apex Decorating Company of Silver Spring, Maryland.

1979—Architect Frank G. Matero prepared "Report on the Investigation of Exterior Paints, Conditions, and Treatments," in July 1979.

2. Interior Painting of the Mansion, Historic Colors Used

1972—Rooms 111, 113, and 201 painted

1976—Eight rooms were wallpapered with Wall-Tex protection paper and then painted. Five additional rooms were painted.

3. Fire Alarm System Replaced

1975-76—A new smoke detecting fire alarm system installed June 5, 1975, by C.G. Esterbrook, Inc. of Arlington, Virginia.

4. Plaster Molding of Ceiling, East Portico

1972—Plaster moulding of ceiling of east (front) portico falls.

1973—This plaster molding rebuilt by Stephen Lozupone & Sons of Washington D.C.

5. Fumigation of the Mansion

1974—Terminix Company of Maryland and Washington, Hyattsville, Maryland, fumigated mansion to prevent damage using deadly poison gas known as "Vikane Sulfure Fluoride."

6. Light Filtering Film on Windows

1975—Polyethylene grey-tinted film installed on inside of mansion windows except in Room 116, the conservatory, by Slater's Glass Tinting Company of Glen Allen, Virginia. Purpose to eliminate about 85 percent of ultra-violet and 50 percent of visible light to protect the historic furnishings.

7. Window Repairs

1978—East window in basement wine cellar (Room BO-3) and conservatory (Room 116) window frames and exterior door sill repaired.

8. Exterior Stucco Repair and Porches

1977—West porch reconstructed in 1864 plan, and stucco at west porch replaced.

1977—North wing porch replaced stucco.

9. Mansion Roof, 1861 Appearance Restored

1974—War Department slate tiles removed and 1861 appearance restored by covering the north and south wing roofs with simulated gravel roofs. Work done by Prospect Industries, Inc. of McLean, Virginia.

1928—Copper gutters and downspouts also replaced by new enlarged system designed after the system in use in 1861. This work restored the 1861 appearance of the exterior of the north and south wings.

1973—Main mansion roof had reconstructed 1861-type snow guards installed by Virginia Roofing Company of Alexandria, Virginia.

1973—The copper flashing of the chimneys of the main mansion roof, laid down by the War Department in 1928, was renewed with 16 oz. copper flashing by the Virginia Roofing Company of Alexandria, Virginia.

1974—Slate roof of the main house repaired.

10. Structural Weakness Problems

1975—Because of apparent structural weakness on second floor, number of visitors limited to 15 at one time.

1976—Civil Engineer Longworth completed study of mansion on structural stability and condition on January 8, 1976.

1976—In 1929 the War Department introduced a truss in the partition wall between second floor Rooms 206 and 207, which are located above Room 112. The weight of the second floor partition had caused the ceiling of Room 112 to sag nearly 5 inches. Cracks had appeared in the ceiling of Room 112 and also in the partition wall between Rooms 206 and 207. The introduction of the truss corrected this problem in 1929. NPS carpenters repaired the 1929 truss in 1976. Heavy chandelier (not of period) in Room 112 was taken down.

1976—Room 101 flooring was braced with posts, placed in basement.

1976—Weakened lintel over doorway in basement room (Room BO-2) replaced, braced, and backed with steel.

1976—Because of continued worry over structural safety, during July and August, the months of heavy visitation, a system of guided tours was introduced. Each group was limited to 25 people, and there were 15 minute intervals between each tour. The guided tour system was utilized every summer from 1976 to 1980.

1978—Additional posts placed in basement to brace first floor. Three beams with two posts each placed under north stair hall (Room 110) and similar system of beams and post under south stair hall (Room 113). Posts placed in winter kitchen (Room BO-2), under Rooms 101 and 112.

1979—Additional bracing for first floor installed. A beam with five posts in Room BO-2, under Rooms 105 and 106, in north wing; in south wing, a beam and two posts under segmental arch under Room 115.

From 1972 to 1979 more than $109,370.68 was spent for repair and restoration of Arlington House. During fiscal year 1979 $100,000 was received for the emergency stabilization and repair of the mansion.