COLONIAL Cole Digges House Historic Structures Report

Late Years and Restoration

Mr. J. R. Chandler of Yorktown knew the property when Mrs. Elizabeth Cooper was in operation here at the turn of the century. [51] He remembers her as "an English lady" who kept a store here and also had a livery stable on the property. At the time Mrs. Cooper had a dining room in the basement of the house and it was quite ample as the house had a full basement. He remembers, too, that there was a nice orchard on the property and she, as she had requested, was buried in this orchard. [52]

The "said Elizabeth A. Cooper died seized and possessed" of Lot 42 and its development some time prior to August 30, 1901, when her heirs sold the property to John Cruikshank of Yorktown, who added it to his considerable acquisitions in the town and its environs. The next year (1902) he sold a part of Lot 42 and six years later (1908) another part of the lot, leaving the old house on the corner but with little more ground associated with it than what the house itself occupied—a strip about the width of a house and a hundred feet deep. Finally in 1909 he sold the house and its site to J. C. Robinson and F. D. Cock of Elizabeth City County. [53]

The sale of the old Pate House was included among a number of parcels that Robinson and Cock bought, all for $750. For the next decade it seemingly saw a number of uses. It served as a cement company office and there was a period, too, in which it was the home of the First National Bank of Yorktown. [54] Its purchase by Mrs. Carroll (Helen L.) Paul of Michigan, who was then living in Yorktown, likely saved the old structure. This came about on December 24, 1921, when she, for $3,000, acquired the site of the house "with privileges and appurtenances thereunto belonging." [55]

It was four years after her purchase of the Pate House and the south corner of Lot 42 on which it stood that Mrs. Paul restored the structure. This was in 1925, and indications are that at the time of purchase the condition of the structure was not at all good. "Through more than two centuries," one historian reported, "the staunch old dwelling [had] withstood war, fire and decay." [56] But time took its toll and in late years a variety of uses, and perhaps some neglect, hastened the process of deterioration. Evidently, however, the main fabric of the structure was still basically sound.

It is quite clear from the photographic record of the house, a record that dates from Civil War times, that there had been a number of changes in the house, in its fenestration and, more basically, in its southwest and northwest chimney stacks. A Brady photograph shows these chimneys coming straight up at the peak of the roof and of good exterior bulk, very likely the original condition. [57] Between the Civil War and the time of the Centennial in 1881, these were changed. [58] The bases remained fixed, but the stacks were angled backward and then up behind the roof peak, allowing space for a second floor and centered end window, in each instance to improve second floor lighting and ventilation. There was further change in the southeast stuck at the time of restoration. Then the chimney was buried within the wall of the house. The porch, or covered way, along the Read Street side of the building, which was added to and then subtracted from the structure in the late decades of the last century and the early part of this century, is of passing moment but of little consequence to the basic structure of the building.

The restoration of the Pate House evidently was concerned only with the home qualities of the structure and with no thought to the store, or store-residence, aspects which it had come to have before 1781 and which it retained for some decades thereafter.

As early as May 1923 there was interest in repairing the Pate House (then referred to as the "Cooper House" but soon to be noted for a time as the "Dudley Digges House") with some thought to its old character. [59] When approached regarding some work on the house, Weaver Brothers of Newport News, through its manager, M. C. Weaver, fortunately recommended instead that it be given architectural direction: "the only way that we can see that this work can be successfully executed is to have a thoroughly competent and practical architect make full-size details for all millwork involved, establish all openings and layouts and treat each portion of the work to meet particular conditions. [60] He further recommended that the piecemeal approach, then contemplated, would not be as satisfactory as doing "the entire job at one time."

This led eventually to the employment of John H. Scarff, of the Baltimore architectural firm of Wyatt & Nolting, who wrote the owner, Mrs. Carroll Paul (then of Marquette, Michigan) on April 14, 1924:

I have your letter of April 11, regarding the restoration of your late seventeenth century brick cottage in Yorktown, VA. It is very gratifying to me to have been recommended to you by Professor Gardner of the M.I.T., and I should be glad to undertake the restoration, both because it promises to be a congenial task and because you suggest it might lead to other work in Yorktown. [61]

Actually it was in June that the restoration agreement was reached, and the architect was on the scene on July 11 making a detailed reconnaissance. [62] He toured the house with Mrs. George D. (Emma Leake) Chenoweth who, with her very sick husband, would occupy the house after its restoration. Scarff was well pleased with what he saw and, quickly warmed to the challenge, becoming immediately concerned with matters of water and electric supplies, sewage disposal, drainage, heating, and the like. He immediately wrote his employer, Mrs. Paul: [63]

The construction of the house I found as follows. The brick walls are good; the first floor joists, as far as I could see, will have to be replaced, as they have rotted. The second floor joists and the roof rafters appear to me satisfactory. . . the window frames are in very poor condition, and the sash there are not the original ones in practically all cases, seems to indicate that we must have new window frames and sash throughout.

There was need, too, for a new roof and for this Scarff "would much prefer the wood roof ['best grade cypress shingles'] to any other kind" though in this he would eventually settle, because of fire hazard, for non-fading green slate in random width, and be very pleased with its effect.

There were other matters, too, such as a wet cellar and the lowness of the house in relation to streets, sidewalks, and ground line. He was also troubled by the existing chimney on the southeast side of the house, believing that originally it was like that on the opposite end of the house—"that tall narrow chimney, at that end of the house is very objectionable to me." He concluded his preliminary account: "I think not only your house, but its location opposite the Custom House and York Hall, is charming, and I am in perfect sympathy with your desire to restore it, and not to remodel it, and we shall use every effort to keep the spirit and at the same time make it a practical restoration." Prior to his departure he "went with Mrs. Chenoweth and Mr. Aplin (the Superintendent of York Hall) through York Hall, and we discussed the very important question of who we could get to do the work."

This now set the stage of serious discussion and planning in which architect and owner (sometimes with an assist from her husband) sought to get the expression that each wanted, with compromise frequent here and there. To an important degree, too, Mrs. Chenoweth, a close friend of Mrs. Paul, and the expected occupant, made these negotiations even more complex, lacking as she did a good deal of the architectural and aesthetic feeling shared by the architect and Mrs. Paul. Major decisions were needed in regard to many aspects as room use, adequate stairway, access to the second floor and the basement, the location of the kitchen, plumbing and bathrooms, electric power, and cellar entrances.

In the discussions, there were major matters, among the myriad of detail, that needed resolution.

1. This included the depressed location of the house. "I am raising," Scarff reported, "the first floor approximately seven inches, which will materially help the condition at the main Entrance door. This is about all it can be raised to have the staircase headroom practical and keep the window sill at a normal relations." [64]

2. Scarff wrote farther on July 28: "The east chimney I contemplate taking down and re-building on the inside of the wall."

3. "The partitions between the hall and the Dining Room and Living Room, I have indicated in wood, as characteristic of the period." [65]

4. The long room (parallel to Main Street) in the basement came in for a lot of discussion. Scarff thought of it being treated as "a Colonial Kitchen." He had anticipated that there would have to be "four inches of brickwork for the support of the new first floor joints," but in the end this was not deemed necessary. Here he favored whitewashed brick walls and a brick floor. But Mrs. Paul had other ideas for this. "My idea is to make this large room, with heavy boxed beams across the ceiling, and whitewashed brick walls except across the fireplace end, which would have chamfered boards in the old style, a combination of museum, and assembly room for D.A.R. meetings, and other gatherings." [66] This area would not, however, be completed in the project.

5. "The lines of the house [on the exterior]" Scarff summarized, "have been kept intact, with the porch to the rear, repeating the lines of the old porch, now collapsed. The front window of the dining room will be a repetition of the front windows in the living room; the present door from the dining room to Reid [Read] Street will be a similar window," [67] he continued.

6. There was much consideration of an addition at the Read Street northeast end of the house to accommodate a variety of things (pumphouse, kitchen, toilet, shower) until it was eventually reduced to the now existing modest and simple, lean-to-type of new appendage. Most living functions were incorporated in the main house. [68]

7. At one point Mrs. Paul considered that the "dining room" as a "room, like the basement assembly room, would be more or less at the service of visitors; a room where books and maps and historical data could be kept for consultation, and where Mrs. C. would do business without disturbing the privacy of the Living Room." [69]

When the project got underway, it remained "the intention of this restoration to preserve the spirit of an early Eighteenth Century cottage in all details." This fact, it had been noted, was even to be a consideration in estimating. And in the formal plans and specifications (both dated January 26, 1925), [70] and in the work itself there were interesting details some of which seem pertinent here.

1. It was specified that:

Great care must be taken with the brick work, so that when the work is completed the cottage will appear in good condition never restored. To this end it is contemplated leaving the existing white wash and matching it as nearly as possible with weak new white wash, broken bricks will not be replaced, but only structurally bad places in the wall repaired. All old bricks salvaged and in good condition will be reused, and old bricks should be used if procurable in preference to new (care should be taken to preserve the glazed blue headers in old brick). The size of the old brick is 2-1/2" x 4" x 8".

Any new bricks were to have the same size. "The brick work, will only be repointed where thought necessary for the preservation and safety of the building." [71]

It is of interesting note, as Scarff related on June 15, 1925, that the search for old brick was successful:

We were fortunate in obtaining enough old Brick to complete the work. Mr. Owings [Pate House Restoration Superintendent] located a chimney on some Government land, and was at first told he could have it, but when the C. O. learned that it was for private benefit, he said permission to sell would have to be obtained from the War Department. A few days later, Aplin, as President of the local Garden Club, was presented with the chimney, but he was unable to throw it, and called on Owings for Assistance. Owings threw it in an hour or two with a truck, and was presented with two loads of old brick for his trouble, which was all we wanted. [72]

2. It was stipulated that: "First floor construction over Colonial Kitchen," Main Street basement section, was to have two 12-inch I-beams, "with bearing plates and shelf angles, supporting wood joists. It is contemplated at some future time to box these in. The wood joists will be what old suitable timber that can be procured in the neighborhood." [73] These steel beams remain visible in the basement and are uncovered.

3. In regard to the roof it was stipulated that it be "carefully placed to give the appearance of an old roof where the ridge sags slightly." This was "to prevent the mechanical appearance of a newly constructed roof." This was considered "an extremely important feature of the house" requiring "unusual care . . . in laying to secure an irregular and uneven effect." [74]

4. There was an interesting specification for: "All interior wood work except floors [which was] to be first coated with a saturated solution of permanganate of potash, and after that is dried a water stain is to be applied of walnut crystals repeated until proper color is obtained. Some experimenting will be necessary to obtain the effect of old pine that has never received any finish." [75]

5. Plastering was required to be done with "a steel trowel [to get the] colonial finish, and not the hard smooth finish of modern plastering." [76]

6. Early in the work there was an interesting find: "Mr. Marshall has just told me," wrote Scarff "that in tearing down the partition between the Dining Room and rear stair hall an old doorjamb and a portion of a boarded wall was uncovered. The detail of the doorjamb corresponds exactly to what was shown on our working drawings, and the boarding is of pine, which confirms me in my original plans. (We are planning to re-use the old pine boards)." A little later (March 27) Scarff reported further: "A very pretty segmental arch has been uncovered at this doorway, between the Sitting Room and the rear wall, and I think it gives a decided note of interest, and as it is undoubtedly original, I decided to leave it, and put a pair of doors here in the arch." [77]

Architect Scarff strongly recommended outside shuttered windows as a desirable feature and wrote: "Now for the precedent. The cottage at one time had outside shutters, some of them (of good detail and by no means modern) are now stored in the lean-to. They were attached to the frames with wrought pin hinges which indicates a respectable antiquity. However, you will note in the Addenda to the specifications that this item is to be decided later when our diminished bank account may add an eloquent argument for omission!" [78] They were, however, purchased near the close of the project and the architect "was able to salvage some of the old shutter hardware." [79]

7. On March 16, 1925, Scarff recorded: "Both the second floor and the roof construction are mostly sound, but need reinforcement, which is being added now."

Working plans came in January 1925 and the contractor, it was decided, would be the John E. Marshall Building Company of Baltimore (with special attention from its president, Morgan Marshall) whose on-site field representative was Superintendent W. Owings. Mr. Marshall Dadds of Yorktown, who "was employed by Norcross during the restoration of York Hall," was signed on as a carpenter. Owings came to Yorktown early in March to get the work underway and to remain with it. He brought, or at least he planned to bring, his wife and son with him for the duration. [80]

The work, begun in early March, went well, for on June 1 Scarff could report to Mrs. Paul:

I spent the morning of May 30 in Yorktown and found that the brick work had been completed, and the plastering, with the exception of pointing up. The roof was three quarters on, and enough old flooring had been salvaged to lay the two (second floor) bed rooms on Main Street. Glazing had started, and the fitting of the sash and doors. The staining of the interior mill work is progressing, and both fireplaces are completed. The Sitting Porch is on, with the exception of the floor, and framing for the Kitchen porch has been begun.

The work continued to go well and the project was essentially complete by mid-July 1925. On the 22nd Scarff wrote that he was going to Yorktown on the 29th with Mr. Marshall "and that will probably be our last visit." Then he added in a humorous vein: "I hope we will see the cottage completed and on the day of its completion, a classic (like the parthenon.)" [81] Within a few days the house was turned over to Mrs. Chenoweth, who occupied it in last August. It would be October before the owner could inspect the completed restoration.

Following its restoration, the Pate House again became a home and it still functions entirely as a residential unit. Mrs. Chenoweth and her husband found it a delightful place to live though he would not enjoy it very long. She, the first and long-time regent (26 years) of the Comte de Grasse Chapter, Daughters of the American Revolution, continued in residence here after her husband's death, until her own death in 1947. The sale of the property by Mrs. Paul to George Waller Blow in 1946 made no change in this arrangement. [82]

Though a Blow acquisition, the House was never integrated into the York Hall Estate and, on the death of Mrs. Chenoweth, it became basically a rental property. It was being managed as such when the United States acquired it, along with York Hall and other Blow properties in Yorktown, in October 1968. Prior to this the larger part of Lot 42 had been acquired by the United States. This has paved the way for the restoration of the identity of the lot, an identity which pertained in all of its historic period. [83]

Strategically located at an important and busy intersection in Yorktown, the Pate House is a principal relic of Yorktown," [84] having been built "when roofs were excessively steep and when a story-and-a-half form was typical." [85] It has been described as a house "built in the early American style of architecture . . . [with its] steep slanting roof dormer windows, high chimneys and small-paned windows; a dormered L extends back from one end." [86] Its interior, as restored, is partly pictures in five plates in Edith Tunis Sale's Colonial Interiors. [87]

In appraising the architectural qualities of the home, Clyde F. Trudell concluded that it is "an example of all that was fine and most lasting in Colonial domestic architecture . . . and such is its outward charm that few traveling Darbys and Joans but have exclaimed on driving by, 'That is exactly the sort of house we have always wanted.'" [88]