In the paper the writer endeavored to bring out the fact that this is one of the few instances where the aesthetic design of a structure of this sort is of prime importance, and cost a secondary consideration. There is, therefore, no use in comparing its cost with that of a structure in no way its equal in this respect and the use of which would not have been permitted any more than the use of the ordinary type of steel structure, even though the estimated cost were 75% less. Mr. Mensch has been pleased to term this design amateurish, presumably because of the conservative character of the stresses used and because of its cost; at the same time, he sets up the design to which he makes reference as a good one simply because of its cheapness. He will find the "enormous discrepancy," to which he calls attention, accounted for by the fact that the "good design" would not have been tolerated because of its appearance and because of the fact that the excessively high unit stresses, of which Mr. Mensch is an exponent, did not commend themselves either to the designer, in common with most engineers, or to Victorian taste; while the design used has proven eminently satisfactory to a more than usually conservative and discriminating community. Mr. Mensch's statement of unit costs, even though applied to a much plainer structure, is not calculated to inspire confidence in the soundness of his deductions in any one familiar with Victoria conditions. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote A: Presented at the meeting of March 16th, 1910.] [Footnote B: Now Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E.] [Footnote C: "The Reinforced Concrete Pocket Book," p. 124.]