“Registered Architects”

Progress, Volume XII, Issue 2, 1 October 1916, Page 747

“Registered Architects”

Why the Term should be Used. I ——

"An important decision respecting the Association of Architects of the Province of Quebec has just been handed down in the Court of Jtteview by Acting Chief Justice Archibald and Justices McDougall and Mercier. It appears that a Mr. Gariepy had transgressed the rules of the Association of Architects of the Province of Quebec by giving himself the title of "architect" without first becoming a member of the Association. The Assoclaton took the matter up and the Supreme Court, some time ago, confirmed a ruling of the Association, which condemned Mr. Cariepy to pay a fine of IUU dollars. The Court of view now reverses the judgment of the Supreme Court and, in so doing, denies tne Association of Architects of the Province of Quebec the right to exclude architects, who are not members of the Association, from practising in Quebec."

The foregoing extract from a recent issue of the Journal of the Society of Architects, London, is of interest to members of the New Zealand Institute of Architects, since the same question has been raised in this Dominion and the same decision arrived at. When the New Zealand Institute of Architects Act, 1913, was being framed, the Institute endeavoured to have the word "architect" protected, so that only members of the Institute could claim the title. This the Crown Law offices declined to agree to, on the grounds that no person or group of persons could secure the exclusive use of a Avord that is in common use. They agreed, hoAvever, to the term "registered architect" being reserved for the exclusive use of members of this Institute; and the clause in the Bill Avas drafted accordingly. The Institute's action in asking for the protection of the term architect Avas supported by several good reasons, all of Avhich aimed at keeping the profession on a high plane and protecting the public against unskilful or half-trained architects. The fact that a professional man has been admitted to membership of an elective body is usually regarded as proof of his ability and good character. But unless the public makes special inquiries on the point there is often nothing to indicate Avhether an architect is a member of such a body, Avhose endorsement of his ability and integrity is a guarantee.

The same arguments which Avere put forAvard to secure the exclusive use by the Institute's members of the Avord " architect, apply Avith equal force to the term "registered architect." Every member of the Institute should always use it after his name in business affairs. There are, it is true a few members Avho say that the name "architect" has served them very avcll for many years and they do not care to change iioav. But conditions have changed. As a duty to their Institute and as a

guide to the public, they should adopt the title. The fact that the question has been raised in Canada shows that the need for protection is not a purely local one. In other professions in which changed conditions have made it necessary, the addition of the word "registered" to the title has been made without demur. In no profession is there a greater need for expert knowledge and integrity than in that of architecture; and the registered architect should let the public know that he is a member of the Institute of Architects and has that body's endorsement of his skill and standing.