Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

Copyright by Clinedinst
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT

Washington
ITS SIGHTS AND INSIGHTS

BY

Mrs. Harriet Earhart Monroe

Author of “The Art of Conversation,” “The Heroine of the Mining Camp,” “Historical Lutheranism,” etc.

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY

NEW YORK AND LONDON

1903

Copyright, 1903, by

HARRIET EARHART MONROE

[Printed in the United States of America]

Published in April, 1903

CONTENTS

ILLUSTRATIONS

WASHINGTON

ITS SIGHTS AND INSIGHTS

I
THE CITY OF WASHINGTON

The City of Washington is the central point of interest of that stage on which is being performed the second century act in the great drama of self-government.

The actors here are the representatives of 85,000,000 of people. The spectators are all the peoples of the world, to be succeeded by those of all future ages.

If this experiment in self-government should fail, all other republics will surely perish; but we believe that the Republic of the United States of America has taken its place as a fixed star in the galaxy of great nations, and that the stars on its flag will not be dimmed till dimmed in the blaze of humanity’s millennium. Therefore, the actors and the buildings of this great city, which are parts of the dramatis personæ and the furniture of the stage, can not fail to be interesting to any child of the republic.

Baron Humboldt, in 1804, when standing on the west balcony of the Capitol building, said: “This point gives the most beautiful view of its type in the world.”

Senator Sumner said: “The City of Washington is more beautiful than ancient Rome.”

Besides what one can behold of the great city from that point, across the Potomac can be seen the heights of Arlington, where sleep so many of the sacred dead of the nation.

The place is also famed as having been the home of Robert E. Lee, noted in early days for a generous Southern hospitality. If walls could speak, what thrilling stories of chivalrous men and fair women could be there heard!

On the south of Washington, in plain view, lies the quaint old town of Alexandria, where Ellsworth was killed, while far to the north is Howard University, used chiefly for the education of colored people—the one the type of the departing past, the other the emblem of the possibilities of a coming hopeful future.

Washington is the only city in the world built exclusively to serve as a capital. Just after the Revolution, Congress, sitting in Philadelphia, was grossly insulted by the unpaid returning troops, against whom the city offered no adequate protection. Congress then adjourned to the collegiate halls of Princeton, where resolutions were offered to erect buildings for the exclusive use of Congress, either on the Delaware River or on the Potomac River.

Several States were applicants for the permanent seat of government, but diplomacy and a good dinner settled the question in favor of its present site.

We are apt to think everything was done in that day on the high plane of patriotism, but prejudice, provincialism, and avarice each played its part.

Hamilton was desirous of having his treasury policy adopted. The North favored this policy, but the representatives from that section, accustomed to the comforts of New York and Philadelphia, had no inclination to establish the Capitol on a swampy Southern plantation, away from the usual lines of travel.

Washington was with the South. Jefferson gave a great dinner, where, under the influence of rare old wine and the witching words of Hamilton, Northern ease, in exchange for Southern consent to the treasury policy, gave way to the Southern desire that the nation’s Capitol should be located in its present position.

The land was purchased from four planters—Young, Carroll, Davidson, and David Burns. Mr. Burns was not willing to part with his land at the rates offered. When Washington remonstrated, the old Scotchman said: “I suppose, Mr. Washington, you think that people are going to take every grist that comes from you as pure grain; but who would you have been if you had not married the widow Custis?”

Posterity is apt to inquire, Who would ever have heard of the widow Custis if she had not married George Washington?

But government had ways, then as now, of bringing about conclusions when property was wanted for public purposes.

II
A GENIUS FROM FRANCE

Among the pathetic figures of the early days of the Capitol City is that of Major Pierre Charles L’Enfant, who was selected by Washington to draft plans for the new city.

L’Enfant was a skilful engineer who had come to America with Lafayette in 1777. He did not go back to France with his countrymen in 1783, but remained in this country, and was employed by Washington as an engineer in several places.

He devoted the summer of 1791 to planning, not the capital of a small nation, but a city which could be sufficiently enlarged should this continent be densely populated from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

There was no other man in this country at that time who had such knowledge of art and engineering as Major L’Enfant. Plans of Frankfort-on-the-Main, Carlsruhe, Amsterdam, Paris, Orleans, Turin, Milan, and other European cities were sent to him from Philadelphia by Washington, who had obtained the plan of each of these cities by his own personal effort.

Photo by Clinedinst
BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF WASHINGTON, LOOKING EAST FROM THE MONUMENT

Washington himself desired the new city planned somewhat like Philadelphia, a plain checkerboard, but L’Enfant, while making the checkerboard style the basis, diversified, beautified, and complicated the whole by a system of avenues radiating from the Capitol as the centre and starting-point of the whole system. The streets running east and west are designated by letters. They are divided into two classes or sets—those north of the Capitol and those south of it. Thus, the first street north of the Capitol is A Street North, and the first street south of it is A Street South, the next is B Street, North or South, as the case may be, and so on. These distinctions of North, South, East, and West are most important, as forgetfulness of them is apt to lead to very great inconvenience.

The streets are laid off at regular distances from each other, but for convenience other thoroughfares not laid down in the original plan have been cut through some of the blocks. These are called “half streets,” as they occur between, and are parallel with, the numbered streets. Thus, Four-and-a-half Street is between Fourth and Fifth streets, and runs parallel with them.

The avenues run diagonally across the city. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware avenues intersect at the Capitol, and Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, and Connecticut avenues intersect at the President’s house. Pennsylvania Avenue is the main thoroughfare. It is one hundred and sixty feet wide, and extends the entire length of the city, from the Eastern Branch to Rock Creek, which latter stream separates Washington from Georgetown. It was originally a swampy thicket. The bushes were cut away to the desired width soon after the city was laid off, but few persons cared to settle in the swamp. Through the exertions of President Jefferson, it was planted with four rows of fine Lombardy poplars—one on each side and two in the middle—with the hope of making it equal to the famous Unter den Linden, in Berlin. The poplars did not grow as well as was hoped, however, and when the avenue was graded and paved by order of Congress in 1832 and 1833 these trees were removed. Pennsylvania Avenue is handsomely built up, and contains some buildings that would do credit to any city. The distance from the Capitol to the President’s house is one mile, and the view from either point along the avenue is very fine.

Every circle, triangle, and square dedicated to monuments bears testimony to the taste of the original design. So little respect, however, was held for Major L’Enfant’s plans that Daniel Carroll, one of the original owners of the land, was in the act of building a handsome house right across New Jersey Avenue. L’Enfant ordered it torn down. This was done, much to the disgust of Carroll and to the indignation of the commissioners. The government rebuilt the house for Carroll, but was careful to place it in a more suitable location. The old Duddington House, on Capitol Hill, was long a landmark of the early Washington architecture.

There were some other acts of irritability on the part of L’Enfant, acts which now show his just appreciation of his own great work. He was paid $2,500 for his services and dismissed. He believed he should have been pensioned, as would have been done in Europe.

Afterward he saw the city expand as the nation grew strong, while he, a disappointed, poverty-stricken man, wandered, a pathetic figure, about the Capitol until 1825, when he died. He had lived for years on the Diggs farm, about eight miles from Washington, and was buried in the family cemetery in the Diggs garden, and when the dead of that family were removed his dust was left there alone—to sleep in an unmarked grave.

Mr. Corcoran, the great banker of Washington, who died in 1888, said he remembered L’Enfant as “a rather seedy, stylish old man, with a long green coat buttoned up to his throat, a bell-crowned hat, a little moody and lonely, like one wronged.” The heart of a stranger in a strange, ungrateful land.

The City of Washington is his monument. No one can now rob him of that honor. Let us hope that he has awakened in His likeness and is satisfied.

Could the Colonial Dames or the Daughters of the Revolution do a more beneficent and popular act than to mark the resting-place of Peter Charles L’Enfant, who drew the original plans of that city which will eventually become the most beautiful city in all the world?

The letters of General Washington abound in references to the difficulty of obtaining money to fit the new city for capital purposes. Virginia made a donation of $120,000 and the State of Maryland gave $72,000. Afterward the latter State was induced to loan $100,000 toward fitting the city for a capital.

The City of Washington was officially occupied in June, 1800. Since then it has been the ward of Congress. Strangers, even at this late day, often comment on the long distance between the Capitol building and the Executive Mansion; but Washington strongly impressed upon the mind of Major L’Enfant that the latter must be at a considerable distance, so that members of Congress should not fall into the habit of coming too frequently to call upon the President, and thus waste the time of the executive head of the nation.

It is not the purpose in these sketches to dwell too much on the history of Washington, but rather to make a picture of the city as it is in the first decade of the twentieth century. A glimpse of it, however, in the summer of 1814 is really necessary to complete our references to the early days of the nation’s capital.

In 1814 the city was captured by a small British force under General Ross, and both wings of the Capitol building, with its library and almost all the records of the government up to that date, were destroyed by fire, also the White House, as the Executive Mansion was even then called, and most of the departments, including the Navy-yard.

Mrs. Madison, in a letter to her sister, gives a graphic picture of the time:

“Dear Sister,—My husband left me yesterday morning to join General Winder. He inquired anxiously whether I had courage or firmness to remain in the President’s house until his return on the morrow or succeeding day, and on my assurance that I had no fear but for him and the success of our army, he left me, beseeching me to take care of myself and of the Cabinet papers, public and private. I have since received two despatches from him, written with a pencil; the last is alarming, because he desires that I should be ready at a moment’s warning to enter my carriage and leave the city; that the enemy seemed stronger than had been reported, and that it might happen that they would reach the city with intention to destroy it.

Photo by Clinedinst
BIRD’S-EYE VIEW OF WASHINGTON, LOOKING DOWN THE POTOMAC FROM THE MONUMENT

“... I am accordingly ready; I have pressed as many Cabinet papers into trunks as to fill one carriage; our private property must be sacrificed, as it is impossible to procure wagons for its transportation. I am determined not to go myself until I see Mr. Madison safe and he can accompany me, as I hear of much hostility toward him.... Disaffection stalks around us.... My friends and acquaintances are all gone, even Colonel C., with his hundred men, who were stationed as a guard in this enclosure.... French John (a faithful domestic), with his usual activity and resolution, offers to spike the cannon at the gate and lay a train of powder which would blow up the British should they enter the house. To the last proposition I positively object, without being able, however, to make him understand why all advantages in war may not be taken.

“Wednesday morning (twelve o’clock).—Since sunrise I have been turning my spyglass in every direction and watching with unwearied anxiety, hoping to discover the approach of my dear husband and his friends; but, alas! I can descry only groups of military wandering in all directions, as if there was a lack of arms, or of spirit, to fight for their own firesides.

“Three o’clock.—Will you believe it, my sister? We have had a battle, or skirmish, near Bladensburg, and I am still here within sound of the cannon. Mr. Madison comes not—may God protect him! Two messengers, covered with dust, come to bid me fly; but I wait for him.... At this late hour a wagon has been procured; I have had it filled with the plate and most valuable portable articles belonging to the house; whether it will reach its destination, the Bank of Maryland, or fall into the hands of British soldiery, events must determine. Our kind friend, Mr. Carroll, has come to hasten my departure, and is in a very bad humor with me because I insist on waiting until the large picture of General Washington is secured, and it requires to be unscrewed from the wall. This process was found too tedious for these perilous moments. I have ordered the frame to be broken and the canvas taken out; it is done, and the precious portrait placed in the hands of two gentlemen of New York for safe-keeping. And now, my dear sister, I must leave this house, or the retreating army will make me a prisoner in it by filling up the road I am directed to take. When I shall again write to you, or where I shall be to-morrow, I can not tell.”

We all know the story of Mrs. Madison’s flight, of her return in disguise to a desolated, burned, ruined home. She would have been without shelter except for the open door of Mrs. Cutts, her sister, who lived in the city. From that point she visited the ruins of all the public buildings while she awaited her husband’s return.

We are apt to think of the White House as a place of teas, receptions, gayly dressed people, light, music, flowers, and laughter; but it, too, has seen its tragedies.

Fifty years after the burning of the city the famous Stuart picture of Washington, referred to in Mrs. Madison’s letter, was retouched and hung in the East Room, and still constitutes one of the few ornaments of the Executive Mansion.

III
THE CAPITOL BUILDING

The corner-stone of the old Capitol, which constitutes the central portion of the new edifice, was laid the 18th of September, 1793, by General Washington, in the presence of a great concourse of people and with imposing ceremonies.

The corner-stones of the wings were laid by President Fillmore, July 4, 1851. Webster delivered the oration of the occasion.

The old building is of yellow sandstone, kept painted white to beautify and preserve it; the wings are of white marble. On its central portico all our Presidents, from Andrew Jackson to President McKinley, have taken the oath of office. President Roosevelt took the oath of office at Buffalo. This building, which fronts the east, was set in accordance with the astronomical observations of Andrew Ellicott, an engineer from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, who succeeded Major L’Enfant as general surveyor and engineer in the new city.

Ellicott is described as bearing a marked resemblance to Benjamin Franklin, except that he was more of a Quaker in appearance, wearing a long, fine gray broadcloth coat and a Quaker hat. He awaits the resurrection in an unmarked grave at Ellicott City, Maryland.

Photo by Clinedinst
THE CAPITOL

The original building was constructed from plans submitted by Stephen Hallet, the work undergoing some modifications from the plans of Dr. William Thornton.

The great wings were added during Fillmore’s administration from designs submitted by Thomas N. Walter, architect, who not only superintended the building of the additions, but also managed to harmonize them with the original design.

Years ago it was quite the fashion for Americans returning from Europe to make disparaging remarks concerning the Capitol building, but that spirit seems to have passed away, and the dignity, grace, and beauty of its architecture now receive universal commendation.

Prince Henry of Germany remarked of this noble structure: “For Capitol purposes it surpasses every other building in the world. Its architectural beauty is most impressive.”

It is not our purpose to give a minute description of the building. We have said that it faces east, for the founders of the Capitol believed the city would grow in that direction, but the landholders of early days asked such high prices that the city began to stretch toward the northwest, which is to this day the fashionable part for residences, although Capitol Hill is much more beautiful as to situation.

The base of the building is ninety-seven feet above the river. The central structure is of Virginia yellow sandstone, which is kept painted white. The wings are of Massachusetts marble, and the one hundred columns of the extension porticoes are of Maryland marble.

The building covers three and one-half acres. It is seven hundred and fifty-one feet long and three hundred and fifty feet wide.

The height of the dome above the rest of the building is two hundred and fifty-seven feet, and its weight is eight million pounds. This dome is surmounted by Crawford’s statue of Freedom, nineteen and one-half feet high, and weighing fifteen thousand pounds. The entire edifice constitutes the highest public building in America not located on a mountain, being sixty-eight feet higher than Bunker Hill monument, and twenty-three feet higher than the steeple of Trinity Church, in New York City.

Thomas G. Walker resigned his place as architect in 1865, and was succeeded by the late architect of the Capitol, Mr. Edward Clark, who died early in 1902. His great work had been to finish the west front facing the city, and to harmonize the conflicting and foreign tastes of the many decorators of the building.

Mr. Elliott Wood, the successor of Mr. Clark, had been the latter’s chief assistant. Mr. Wood had long been virtually in charge of the Capitol.

The architects had a candidate ready because Mr. Wood was practically an engineer; to meet this and yet give a faithful man his due, the name of the position was changed to that of Superintendent of the Capitol. He, like his predecessor, has much to do in getting rid of the foreign artists’ effects and in Americanizing the whole.

PLAN OF THE PRINCIPAL FLOOR OF THE CAPITOL
(Rooms numbered are for committees, etc.)

Mrs. Mary Clemmer Ames says of the Capitol: “It not only borrowed its face from the buildings of antiquity, but it was built by men strangers in thought and spirit to the genius of the new republic, and to the unwrought and unembodied poetry of its virgin soil. Its earlier decorators, all Italians, overlaid its walls with their florid colors and foreign symbols; within the American Capitol they have set the Loggia of Raphael, the voluptuous anterooms of Pompeii, and the baths of Titus. The American plants, birds, and animals, representing prodigal nature at home, are buried in twilight passages, while mythological barmaids, misnamed goddesses, dance in the most conspicuous and preposterous places.”

An Art Commission was appointed as early as 1859 to decide on all artistic decorations, and it has done much. More remains to make the Capitol, like the Library of Congress, the highest exponent of the thought, taste, and artistic execution of the period which produced it.

IV
INTERIOR OF THE CAPITOL

In 1808 Jefferson made Benjamin Henry Latrobe supervising architect of what we now call the old Capitol, being the central portion of the present building.

He constructed the original Senate Chamber, now the Supreme Court Room, on the plan of the old Greek theater, the general outline of which it yet retains. The House (now Statuary Hall) also had a decidedly Grecian aspect. It was finished in 1811. Statuary Hall is semicircular in shape, and has a vaulted roof. Its ornamentation is not yet completed. This is right. It would not be well to occupy all the space in one generation. We need the perspective of time to know that which will be of permanent interest to the world.

Here Clay presided, here Webster spoke, and here Adams stood for the right of petition and for the abolition of human slavery. What pictures these scenes would make! A plate in the floor southwest of the center marks the spot in the House where John Quincy Adams fell stricken with paralysis. In a room opening from the Hall is a memorial bust, whose inscription reads: “John Quincy Adams, who, after fifty years of public service, the last sixteen in yonder Hall, was summoned to die in this room February 23, 1848.”

The room has special acoustic qualities which in early days occasioned much trouble. A whisper scarcely audible to the ear into which it is breathed is distinctly heard in another part of the hall. It is one of the most remarkable whispering galleries in the world, and its peculiar properties, accidentally discovered, produced no end of disturbances before they were fully understood. Their effect has been much modified by a recent change in the ceiling.

Each State is now permitted to place in Statuary Hall two statues of its most renowned sons.

Virginia has Washington and Jefferson. Think of that! New Hampshire has Daniel Webster, who made these walls echo with his thrilling, patriotic sentences, and John Stark, of Bunker Hill fame, who cried: “See those men? They are the redcoats! Before night they are ours, or Molly Stark will be a widow!”

Pennsylvania has Robert Fulton, the inventor, and John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, the preacher, Major-General in the Revolution. He was also Senator and Member of Congress. New York has Robert R. Livingston, of the Continental Congress, and Alexander Hamilton. The latter was Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury during both of his Presidential terms. He had much to do with securing a good financial system for the new government. His pathetic death enhanced his fame and ruined Burr; but under the search-light of history one can not help wondering had Burr been killed and Hamilton survived that duel, would the halo of the latter have faded? The statue of Hamilton is one of the best in the Hall. It was made in Rome by Horatio Stone.

The Illinois memorial is the famous Vinnie Ream statue of Lincoln. I wish, because it was done by a woman, that I could like it, but it is weak and unworthy. In every line of his strong, patriotic face lived the gospel of everlasting hope. This figure might well stand for one vanquished in the race. (Was Jesus vanquished? Was Paul? Was Luther? Was Lincoln?)

There is a small bust of Lincoln, by Mrs. Ames, which approaches nearer the true ideal of the great apostle of Liberty.

Illinois is further represented by James Shields, Senator. It would seem that men like Washington and Lincoln, who were the product of national influences, should be venerated as representatives of the nation rather than of individual States.

Missouri is represented by Frank Blair and Thomas H. Benton; Vermont, by Jacob Collamer and Ethan Allen, the hero of Ticonderoga; Oregon, by Edward Dickinson Baker, whose fine statue is by Horatio Stone.

Jacques Marquette (by G. Trentanore), in the garb of a Catholic priest, represents Wisconsin. Ohio has President Garfield and William Allen.

Roger Sherman and John Trumbull represent Connecticut, and Rhode Island memorializes Roger Williams and General Nathanael Greene, of Revolutionary fame—the former, in his quaint sixteenth century garb, standing as well for religious freedom as for the State which he founded.

Massachusetts presents Samuel Adams’s statue, by Annie Whitney, and John Winthrop’s, by R. S. Greenough. What a goodly company they are, those New England heroes!

Will Kansas have the courage to place there the statue of John Brown, of Osawatomie? He yet is a type of that unconventional State, which regards no precedent, follows no pattern; that State which, in a blind way, is striving to put the Ten Commandments on top and to uphold the principles of the Sermon on the Mount, no difference what man or what party goes down in the strife; that State of which Whittier truthfully said:

We cross the prairie as of old

The pilgrims crossed the sea,

To make the West, as they the East,

The homestead of the free.

Upbearing, like the ark of old,

The Bible in our van,

We go to test the truth of God

Against the fraud of man.

A brave fight the State has made against fraud. The fight is yet on; but who doubts that the truth of God “shall yet prevail,” and who would better stand for such a people than one who went down in that fight with the “martyr’s aureole” around his grizzled head?

Much, of course, must be left untold here; but it is hoped that what has been said will create a desire to see and learn more of those whom the State and the nation has here honored. As good Mohammedans must visit Mecca, so every good American should see these things for himself, and decide on their merits from his own standpoint.

V
THE ROTUNDA

It is not the purpose in these sketches to go into any minute descriptions of places or things in Washington. To do that volumes would be needed, and then much left untold.

The Rotunda is the central part of the old building of the Capitol, and lies beneath the dome. It is circular in form, with a diameter of ninety-five feet, and with a height to the canopy above of a little over one hundred and eighty feet.

The panels of the Rotunda are set with life-size pictures, illustrating important scenes in American history. There are “The Surrender of Burgoyne, October 17, 1777”; “The Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown, Virginia, October 19, 1781”; and “The Resignation of Washington, December 23, 1783.” These are by Trumbull. They may not be perfect, considered as works of art, but they commemorate events whose memory should never die.

The surrender of Burgoyne was the greatest triumph of American over British arms up to that date (October 17, 1777). Had his twelve hundred Hessians been English patriots the result might have been different. When the British officer was sent to inquire their condition for a fight, the answer of the British was, “We will fight to a man.” But the Hessians replied, “Nix the money, nix the rum, nix fighten.”

BRUMIDI FRIEZE IN ROTUNDA

It was in a cold, drizzling rain that Lord Cornwallis made his surrender. He sat on his horse with his head uncovered. General Washington said, “Put on your hat, my lord; you will take cold.” He replied, “It matters not what happens to this head now.” In our exultation we are apt to forget his side.

No writer that I know of praises the scene of Washington’s resignation, yet the faces are so clear-cut that you recognize every face which other pictures have made familiar. The costumes are correct historical studies, and I would not wish a line of them changed.

Another picture of the Rotunda is “The Declaration of Independence.” How familiar, how dear each face has become, from Lee, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Livingston, to the plain Quaker who stands by the door! Adams afterward wrote: “Several signed with regret, and several others with many doubts and much lukewarmness.” That shows in the picture, and contrasts with the enthusiasm of the few, who with clear vision felt the dawn of a larger liberty for the race.

We are so apt to enjoy the music and forget the singer, to enjoy the painting and forget the artist, that we venture a reminder concerning Colonel John Trumbull, the artist aide-de-camp of General Washington. He studied art in this country and in Europe. In London he painted John Adams, our first Minister to England, and, in Paris, Thomas Jefferson, our Minister to France. General Washington gave him sittings, and he traveled through the entire thirteen colonies securing portraits. It was not until 1816, after thirty years of careful preparation, that Congress gave him the commission to paint the four great historical paintings now in the Rotunda. They are the best authentic likenesses now in existence of the persons represented.

BRUMIDI FRIEZE IN ROTUNDA

“The Embarkation of the Pilgrims,” by Wier, is considered the best picture of the Rotunda. All the self-sacrifice of leaving country, home, and friends is in the women’s faces, “All for God” is in the men’s faces. It is the little leaven of Puritanism which yet keeps this country sweet.

It is amusing to see the bands of Indians who are sent here to meet the “Great Father” stop before “The Baptism of Pocahontas,” painted by Chapman. Evidently neither the faces nor the costumes suit them, for they hoot and laugh, while they grunt with evident approval at the picture of Boone’s conflict with the savages and that of William Penn’s conference with the Indians of Pennsylvania.

At a height of sixty-five feet above the floor, and encircling the wall at that point, about three hundred feet in circumference, runs a fresco, by Brumidi and Castigni, in imitation high relief, which well depicts periods of American history, illustrating from the days of barbarism to civilization. It is incomplete at this time.

Brumidi was, while yet a very young man, banished from Italy for participating in an insurrection. He went to Mexico, and finally was brought to Washington through the instrumentality of General Meigs. His first work is in the room of the Committee of Agriculture of the House, where he represented Cincinnatus leaving the plow to receive the dictatorship of Rome; General Putnam, in a similar situation, receiving the announcement of the outbreak of the Revolution, and other fine works are scarcely appreciated by the clerks who daily work beneath them. For eight dollars a day, the compensation he first received, Brumidi did work which thousands of dollars could not now duplicate. Almost every one knows that Brumidi began the decoration of the frieze around the Rotunda of the Capitol. He had completed in charcoal the cartoons for the remainder of the decoration, and these drawings he left to his son, supposing that the designs would be purchased from him by the successor selected to complete the work. This man, however, obtained in some unknown way an idea of the sketches Brumidi had made, and attempted to carry them out without the aid of the originals.

At the east door of the Rotunda are the famous bronze doors designed by Randolph Rogers at Rome in 1858, and cast at Munich. The high reliefs illustrate leading events in the life of Columbus.

From near the Rotunda one can ascend to the dome and overlook the entire District of Columbia.

VI
CONCERNING SOME OF THE ART AT THE CAPITOL

Among the interesting pictures in the Capitol is Frank B. Carpenter’s picture, “The First Reading of the Emancipation Proclamation, September 22, 1862.” Mr. Lincoln was accustomed to speak of the act which this picture represents as the central act of his administration. Historians have recorded it the leading event of the nineteenth century.

It changed the policy of the war, and was received by the army and the people as a necessary war measure. According to Mr. Carpenter, he takes the moment when Mr. Lincoln has just said: “Gentlemen, I now propose to issue this Emancipation Proclamation.”

Montgomery Blair said: “If you do, Mr. President, we shall lose the fall elections.” To this no one offered a reply. Mr. Seward, who sits in front of the table, said: “Mr. President, should we not wait for a more decisive victory, so that the rebels may know we are able to enforce the Proclamation?” Mr. Lincoln leaned forward and said, in a low voice: “I promised my God, if Lee were driven back from Maryland, to issue the Proclamation.” Mr. Seward said: “Mr. President, I withdraw every objection.” Chase, who stands back of the President in the picture, and who was not always in sympathy with Mr. Lincoln, laid his hand affectionately on Mr. Lincoln’s shoulder, to show the President that in this matter they were in perfect accord.

THE FIRST READING OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

The Proclamation came just after the battle of Antietam, which was far from being a decisive victory. The Proclamation set forth that, unless rebellion ceased by January 1, 1863, the slaves at that time would be declared free. It was a case of “man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.”

Another picture which well merits a full description (which we have not space to give) is W. H. Powell’s spirited picture, “The Battle of Lake Erie, September 13, 1813.” It represents Commodore Perry transferring his colors from the disabled flagship Lawrence to the Niagara in the midst of a fire from the enemy. Perry deserved all the glory he so richly won.

Mary Clemmer Ames thus beautifully describes that great picture, “Westward the Star of the Empire Takes its Way.” The picture is in the stairway of the south wing:

“At the first glance it presents a scene of inextricable confusion. It is an emigrant train caught and tangled in one of the highest passes of the Rocky Mountains. Far backward spread the eastern plains, far onward stretches the Beulah of promise, fading at last in the far horizon. The great wagons struggling upward, tumbling downward from mountain precipice into mountain gorge, hold under their shaking covers every type of westward moving human life. Here is the mother sitting in the wagon front, her blue eyes gazing outward, wistfully and far, the baby lying on her lap; one wants to touch the baby’s head, it looks so alive and tender and shelterless in all that dust and turmoil of travel. A man on horseback carries his wife, her head upon his shoulder. Who that has ever seen it will forget her sick look and the mute appeal in the suffering eyes? Here is the bold hunter with his raccoon cap, the pioneer boy on horseback, a coffeepot and cup dangling at his saddle, and oxen—such oxen! it seems as if their friendly noses must touch us; they seem to be feeling out for our hand as we pass up the gallery. Here is the young man, the old man, and far aloft stands the advance-guard fastening on the highest and farthest pinnacle the flag of the United States.

“Confusing—disappointing, perhaps—at first glance, this painting asserts itself more and more in the soul the oftener and the longer you gaze. Already the swift, smooth wheels of the railway, the shriek of the whistle, and the rush of the engine have made its story history. But it is the history of our past—the story of the heroic West.”

There are pictures and busts, or full-length statues, of almost every great man of our nation. Some of them, within one hundred years, will be turned over to the man’s native State or town, with complimentary notes and speeches the inner meaning of which is: “We need the room for bigger men.”

Before leaving the Capitol plaza a word must be said of Horatio Greenough’s statue of Washington, which sits in lonely grandeur before the Capitol. Greenough was much in Rome, and the antique became his model. The statue represents Washington sitting in a large chair, holding aloft a Roman sword, the upper part of his body naked, the lower part draped as Jupiter Tonans.

This conception brings out the majestic benignity of the face of Washington, and shows to the life every muscle and vein of his magnificent form. Greenough said of his own work: “It is the birth of my thoughts; I have sacrificed to it the flower of my days and the freshness of my strength; its every lineament has been moistened with the sweat of my toil and the tears of my exile. I would not barter its association with my name for the proudest fortune that avarice ever dreamed of.”

The work, however, has met with more of criticism than of praise. A statue should represent a man in the costume of his time. Washington should have been shown either in the knee-breeches or in the full military costume of his period. We want no foreign effects in our statues. Washington had no aspiration to be either Jupiter or Mars, but he earnestly desired to be a good and useful man. As such he should be represented.

In this connection a few words in relation to the character of future paintings that shall be selected for the adornment of the nation’s great Capitol building may not be amiss.

In Paris, at the Exposition in 1900, the writer was greatly impressed by the manner in which France perpetuates historic events. The best picture of the commission which settled the Spanish-American War was painted by a Frenchman, the best picture of the Peace Commission at the Hague was also French. One picture, which will ever be valuable, represented President Carnot and his Cabinet in the Exposition of 1889 receiving the representatives of all the colonies of France.

Our country should have pictures of the inauguration of the President, with his leading men about him; also of the receptions on New-year’s day, showing faces of foreign Ministers, the Cabinet, Members of the Supreme Court, and our naval and military commanders.

I remember one brilliant company at Secretary Endicott’s, during the first Cleveland administration. The Ministers of various foreign nations, in court costumes and with all their decorations, were present. General Sheridan, full of life and repartee, was there. General Sherman had come over from New York to grace with his presence the reception given by the Secretary of War. General Greely, of Arctic fame, wore for the first time the uniform of a brigadier-general. All the leading army officers, in brilliant uniforms, were present. Senators Edmunds, Sherman, Logan, Evarts, Ingalls, Wade Hampton, Leland Stanford, Vance, Voorhees, Allison, with many others, were part of that memorable company. Mrs. Stanford wore the famous Isabella diamonds. Among the guests were Secretaries Vilas, Whitney, Bayard, and their accomplished wives; Mr. Carlisle, then Speaker of the House, and his stately, genial wife; and President and Miss Cleveland, who made an exception to the Presidential rule of non-attendance at such functions, and by their presence added to the pleasure of the occasion. Chief Justice Waite and Justices Field, Miller, Blatchford, Gray, and Strong were present.

What a picture for history that representative company would now be! We need an art fund—perhaps the Carnegie University beneficence may provide it. Concerning the Capitol building, Charles Sumner said: “Surely this edifice, so beautiful, should not be open to the rude experiment of untried talent.”

The Commission of Artists said: “The erection of a great National Capitol occurs but once in the life of a nation. The opportunity such an event affords is an important one for the expression of patriotic elevation, and the perpetuation, through the arts of painting and sculpture, of, that which is high and noble and held in reverence by the people; and it becomes them as patriots to see to it that no taint of falsity is suffered to be transmitted to the future upon the escutcheon of our national honor in its artistic record. A theme so noble and worthy should interest the heart of the whole country, and whether patriot, statesman, or artist, one impulse should govern the whole in dedicating these buildings and grounds to the national honor.”

Photo by Clinedinst
STATUARY HALL

Photo by Clinedinst From the painting by Emanuel Leutze
“WESTWARD HO!”

Photo by Clinedinst From the painting by Brumidi
WASHINGTON DECLINING OVERTURES FROM CORNWALLIS

Photo by Clinedinst
THE SENATE CHAMBER

SOME PROMINENT SENATORS
William P. Frye (R.), Maine, President pro tem.
1. Marcus A. Hanna (R.), Ohio
2. John T. Morgan (D.), Ala.
3. Henry Cabot Lodge (R.), Mass.
4. Edward W. Carmack (D.), Tenn.
5. George F. Hoar (R.), Mass.
6. Henry M. Teller (S. R.), Col.
7. Benjamin R. Tillman (D.), S. C.
8. John C. Spooner (R.), Wis.
Photos of Senators Lodge and Spooner copyright by J. E. Purdy, Boston

Photo by Clinedinst
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SOME PROMINENT REPRESENTATIVES
Joseph G. Cannon (R), Ill., Speaker
Copyright by J. E. Purdy, Boston, Mass.
1. William P. Hepburn (R.) Iowa
2. George B. McClellan (D.), N. Y.
3. J. D. Richardson (D.), Tenn.
4. Champ Clark (D.), Mo.
5. David A. De Armond (D.), Mo.
6. Charles E. Littlefield (R.), Me.
7. Sereno E. Payne (R.), N. Y.
8. J. W. Babcock (R.), Wis.

Photo by Clinedinst
THE ROTUNDA BRONZE DOOR

VII
THE SENATE CHAMBER

In visiting the Capitol building most people desire first to see the Senate Chamber, possibly from the fact that the names of the Senators are more familiar, because, as a usual thing, men have been long in public life before they have become Senators.

The Senate Chamber is 112 feet in length, 82 feet wide, and 30 feet high. The floor rises like that of an amphitheater; the walls are white, buff, and gold in color, and the ceiling consists of panels of glass, each one bearing the coat of arms of a State. Opposite the main entrance, on a platform of dark mahogany, are the desk and chair of the President of the Senate, who is the Vice-President of the United States, or, as in the present administration, a Senator elected by his colleagues to preside over them when the office of Vice-President has become vacant. Below the President is a larger desk for the use of the Secretary of the Senate and his assistants.

The heating and ventilating of the Senate Chamber is said to be very good. In winter, however, the room seems to be too warm. After an absence of fifteen years, I find men who have been in the Senate during that time have aged much more in appearance than their contemporaries outside.

The mahogany desks of the Senators stand on a moss green carpet, making a good color combination. The room is surrounded by a gallery which seats about a thousand persons. This gallery is divided. There is a private gallery for Senators’ families and friends, one part of which is set apart for the family of the President. It is seldom occupied by the dwellers in the White House, but often by visiting friends. The reporters’ gallery is over the Vice-President’s desk. There sit those busy, bright men who keep you informed of what the Senate is doing. The gallery opposite is for the diplomats. It is always interesting to watch the faces of these distinguished foreigners as they scan this body of lawmakers. Besides these there are the gallery for ladies, or for gentlemen accompanied by ladies, and the public gallery for men.

The Senate is the citadel of American liberty. Its great debates have defined our constitutional rights and duties, and prevented many violations of fundamental law. Here Clay, Calhoun, Webster, Benton, Chase, Sumner, Seward, Harrison, Edmunds, Evarts, Ingalls, Logan, and Wade Hampton, with hundreds of others equally eloquent and equally patriotic, have stood for the right as they saw it, or sold their souls for the mess of pottage.

The Republicans sit on the Vice-President’s left and the Democrats on the right. Although differing in ideas of governmental policy, we must believe both sides are actuated by a love of country.

The world is beginning to expect the United States to be the final court of appeals in behalf of the lesser nations, especially the other American republics. It is the Senate’s natural destiny, because of its treatymaking power, to facilitate a better understanding between nations, to prevent wrongs, to increase commerce, to secure international peace, and thus to improve the governmental powers of the world. So will our republic be the bridge over which the nations of the earth will enter on a period of universal education and modified self-government.

In my youth, on a visit to Washington, I saw Schuyler Colfax preside over the Senate. He was a nervous, restless man, who gave no attention to the Senator speaking, and while he was in the chair the Senate became a noisy, turbulent body. At another time, for a few hours, I saw Henry Wilson, who was Vice-President under Grant’s second term, preside over the Senate. Quiet, self-contained, serene, watchful, attentive, he was an ideal presiding officer. Every battle of life had left its mark on his strong, rugged face.

In December, 1885, I came to Washington and remained three years. Vice-President Hendricks had died, and the Senate, which was Republican, was presided over by John Sherman. He was in public life from 1848 to the time of his death, and his name was identified with almost every public measure from that time to the end of the century. He was a man of great wisdom and good judgment, but cold and without any of those qualities which tend to personal popularity. Later, John James Ingalls, of Kansas, was elected President pro tempore. Tall, stately, dignified, scholarly, thoughtful, a skilled parliamentarian, it is probable the Senate never had a better presiding officer. When Senator Ingalls occupied the chair the business of the Senate was put through with such celerity and dispatch that a visit to that usually prosy body became interesting.

Later, I saw Levi P. Morton, of New York, preside as Vice-President. He was a fine business man who had served his country with honor abroad, but had no training as a presiding officer. He was regarded as fair in his rulings.

The Senate is now presided over by Senator Frye, of Maine, who has had a long experience in legislative bodies, having served six terms as representative from Maine, and having been elected to the Senate in 1881, to fill the vacancy left by Blaine when he became Secretary of State under Garfield. He was also a member of the Peace Commission which met in Paris, September, 1898, to settle the terms of peace between the United States and Spain. He was elected President pro tempore of the Senate in 1896, and reelected March 7, 1901. He is considered extremely fair to both sides, and is an able officer.

When I take friends to the Senate now I notice they ask first for Mr. Hoar, of Massachusetts; Hanna, of Ohio; Spooner, of Wisconsin; Dollinger, of Iowa; Quay, of Pennsylvania; Hawley, of Connecticut; Lodge, of Massachusetts; Nelson, of Minnesota; Depew and Platt, of New York. Then strangers desire to see Tillman and McLaurin, of South Carolina; Vest, of Missouri, and Morgan, of Alabama.

When I was here from 1885 to 1888 the following were the stars: Edmunds, who for quiet strength, massive force, persistent effort, fertility of resource, and keen sagacity was never surpassed on the floor of the Senate. Like Mr. Hoar, his sentences in rhetorical and grammatical construction were fit for the Record just as they fell from his lips. William M. Evarts, of New York, famous as counsel in the Beecher trial, and attorney for the Republican party before the Electoral Commission. He seemed like a man about to do some great thing, but he originated no important national or international law. Leland Stanford, noted for his philanthropy and great wealth, and Wade Hampton and Senator Butler, both of South Carolina, were picturesque and interesting figures. General Logan, Don Cameron, Preston B. Plumb, Blackburn, and Beck, of Kentucky, stood next in interest, but most of these have given place to a younger generation.

The most interesting rooms in the north wing beside the Senate Chamber are the President’s room, Vice-President’s reception-rooms, and committee room of the District of Columbia.

The walls of the President’s room are in white and gold, with crimson carpet, table, and chair effects—rather high lights if one had to live in it, but very pleasing for the short visits made by the President to the Capitol. On the last day of each term of Congress the President comes to this room for an hour or two and signs any bills which yet remain. He also answers the perfunctory question as to whether he desires to present any further business to the Senate.

The Vice-President’s room is much more used. When the Vice-President in the Senate chamber grows tired “of weary lawyers with endless tongues,” he calls some one to the chair and slips into the Vice-President’s room, to rest and attend to his correspondence.

Among our Vice-Presidents who have occupied this room were William R. King, in the administration of Pierce; then John C. Breckenridge, under Buchanan; Hannibal Hamlin, Lincoln’s first Vice-President, and Andrew Johnson, his second Vice-President; Schuyler Colfax and Henry G. Wilson, under Grant (Henry G. Wilson died November 22, 1875, in this room); William A. Wheeler, Vice-President during Hayes’s administration; Chester A. Arthur, under Garfield for a short time; Thomas A. Hendricks, in the first Cleveland administration; Levi P. Morton, under Harrison; Adlai E. Stevenson, under Cleveland; Garrett A. Hobart, in the first McKinley term, and Theodore Roosevelt, in the second. In addition to these were many other distinguished men who were acting Vice-Presidents.

Garrett A. Hobart was the fifth Vice-President of the United States to die during his term of office. The others were Elbridge Gerry, William Rufus King, Henry Wilson, and Thomas A. Hendricks. Gerry was one of the great statesmen of the revolutionary period and hailed from Massachusetts. He was Vice-President in 1812, and died November 23, 1814, while on the way to the capital.

King, of Alabama, was chosen Vice-President in 1852. He was obliged to go to Cuba during the campaign on account of his health, and the oath of office was administered to him there by special act of Congress. He returned to the United States April 17, 1853, and his death occurred on the following day.

Wilson, of Massachusetts, was elected Vice-President on the ticket with General Grant in 1872. He suffered a stroke of paralysis in 1873, and was infirm until the time of his death, which was caused by apoplexy November 22, 1875.

Hendricks, of Indiana, was elected on the ticket with Cleveland in 1884. He died in Indianapolis November 25, 1885.

VIII
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The Hall of Representatives is in the south wing of the Capitol, and is similar in form and design to the Senate Chamber, being semicircular, with a gallery of twelve hundred seating capacity extending around the entire hall.

Like the Senate, the walls are white, buff, and gold, and the ceiling panels of glass, each showing in connection with a State coat of arms the cotton plant in some stage of development.

The Speaker of the House sits at a desk of pure white marble, and in front of him are several desks for the Secretary and his many assistants.

A silver plate on each desk bears the name of its occupant. As in the Senate, the Republicans occupy the left of the Speaker and the Democrats the right.

When the House is in session the mace is in an upright position at the table of the Sergeant-at-Arms on the right of the Speaker, and when the House is adjourned, or in committee of the whole, it is removed.

THE MACE

The mace is a bundle of ebony rods, bound together with silver bands, having on top a silver globe, surmounted by a silver eagle. In the British House of Commons the mace represents the royal authority, but in the United States it stands for the power of the people, which, tho not present in bodily form, yet is a force always to be reckoned with. The one now in the House has been in use since 1842. The Sergeant carries it before him as his symbol of office when enforcing order, or in conducting a member to the bar of the House by order of the Speaker.

The Speaker’s room is across the lobby back of his chair, and is one of the most beautiful rooms in the building. It has velvet carpet, fine, carved furniture, large bookcases and mirrors, and its walls, as well as the walls of the lobby, are hung with the portraits of every Speaker, from our first Congress to the present one.

Most of the pictures in the House of Representatives with which I was familiar fifteen years ago have been removed. Now there remains but one—Brumidi’s fresco representing General Washington declining the overtures of Lord Cornwallis for a two days’ cessation of hostilities. Washington, like Grant, was an “unconditional surrender” man.

Each State is entitled to a number of Representatives in Congress, proportioned upon the number of its population. The State is districted by its own State Legislature. Then the district selects its own man, who is supposed to understand its wants and needs, and elects him to represent his people for two years.

He must be twenty-five years of age, seven years a citizen of the United States, and a citizen of the State which he represents. There are about three hundred and fifty-six members and delegates. The latter represent the territories of Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, and Hawaii.

THE SPEAKER’S ROOM

Congress is an aggregate of selfish units, each fighting for his district. No doubt good influences prevail, but no one class of men, either the extremely good or the extremely bad, has the entire say, for law is the formulated average public opinion of the age and country in which it is made.

It can not be too strongly impressed upon the voters of this country that it is their duty to select good, strong, noble men with high convictions of public duty, and then to keep them in Congress term after term if they desire their district to be represented by anything more than a mere vote. Important places on committees are given men not alone in proportion to intellectual merit, but in proportion to Congressional experience. All men will not become leaders from remaining there a long time, but none will without it.

It is a wonderful thing to note the changes in the House since 1885. At that time John G. Carlisle was Speaker of the House. So fair in his rulings was Mr. Carlisle that one might spend hours in the gallery and be unable to decide which side he favored.

Samuel J. Randall and Roger Q. Mills, of Texas, were the leaders on the Democratic side, and the Mills bill concerning tariff the chief object of legislative interest before the country. Springer, of Illinois, and Breckenridge, of Kentucky; Crisp, of Georgia; Hooker and Allen, of Mississippi, were also among the leaders of the Democracy. Of these some are now out of politics, some are dead, and one disgraced.

Thomas B. Reed, of Maine, was the acknowledged leader of the Republican side, with McKinley, Cutcheon, Burrows, Boutelle, Holman, Butterworth, Henderson, Payne, Morrill, of Kansas, Negley, of Pennsylvania, and Cannon his backers.

It was great fun to see Reed come down the aisle ready to puncture the pet plans of the Democrats. In sharp, keen, extemporaneous, partisan debate he has never been excelled in this country, and possibly never in any other. No man ever appreciated his own power more accurately than he. He charged on few windmills; but when he placed himself in antagonism to a measure, it usually failed to pass, altho the Democrats had a working majority. When he became Speaker of the House, old members assured me, in spite of his name “Czar” Reed, he was not more arbitrary than either Blaine or Randall in the same position. As a presiding officer no man ever put the business of the House through more rapidly or more gracefully. He was a fine parliamentarian, quick in decisions and most able in his rulings.

My note on McKinley in 1885 says: “He can not be considered a leader, for a leader is one who can champion a party measure. This he can not do, as he is not keen in repartee—the opposition walk all over him; nor can he support a new man. He makes two or three well-prepared, eloquent speeches each year; these are usually on the tariff. He is a genial, pleasant gentleman, probably with more personal friends in the entire country than any one man now before the nation.”

William C. P. Breckenridge, of Kentucky, was considered the most eloquent man for a prepared speech on the Democratic side. But it was the eloquence of a musical voice, graceful gesture, and an abundant use of adjectives, not the eloquence of deep thought. While he was speaking it was hard to believe that it was not the best speech which could possibly be made on that subject. When one read it in the Record he wondered that he had been even interested.

In December, 1889, Mr. Breckenridge lectured in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, to the Teachers’ Institute. His subject was “Kentucky’s Place in History.”

He began by saying: “I was a rebel. I am glad of it. If I had it to do again, I would do the same thing!” Now, think of that before a Northern audience, especially in a mountain county which is always noted for patriotism. If his audience had been petrified they could not more quickly have frozen in their places.

He told the thrilling story of Kentucky in words of matchless humor and pathos. He tried fun; no one smiled, I was sitting on the platform, and the stories were so amusing I was obliged to retire to the wings, as to laugh in the face of that angry audience would have been an indignity. He tried pathos. No one melted. As he came from the stage, I said: “Colonel, you gave a most eloquent address.”

“What in thunder is the matter with that audience?” he said. I replied: “When you said you did not regret being a rebel, and you would do the same again, you killed that audience so far as you were concerned.”

Just at that moment Mr. Matthew Savage, the County Superintendent, came up. He flung down on the table his check for one hundred dollars, and said: “Take that, but I hope never to see your face again. I am a Democrat, and the people of this county will think I hired you to come here and talk treason. You have spoiled my chances for the Legislature.” The people, however, understood the case, and it did not hurt Mr. Savage politically.

IX
CONCERNING REPRESENTATIVES

It is not all “skittles and beer” to be a Senator or a Representative at Washington. The continued pressure from a man’s constituents that he shall accomplish certain legislation for his district, and the iron-clad rules which prohibit his every movement, if in the House of Representatives, are enough to break an ordinary man’s health.

A new member goes to the House full of enthusiasm, hoping to accomplish great things for those who have trusted him; he finds that he is scarcely permitted to open his mouth the first term. But he does his best in committee, which is little enough; he runs his feet off to get places for some hundreds of people from his district who must be taken care of. Then he keeps trying to be a good party man, and to do some favor for the leaders, who, he hopes, will reward him by giving him an opportunity to accomplish much-needed legislation for his district, till in his second or third term he becomes desperate, breaks out in meeting, and knocks things about generally. If he proves to be really an orator and succeeds in catching the ear of the House, he may then begin to be more than a mere party voter. On the other hand, he may be so squelched that he subsides into “innocuous desuetude.”

In the meantime he has borne all forms of unjust and unkind criticism at home. His opponents of his own party and of the opposite party point, in scorn and malice, to how little has been done for the district, and tell in startling sentences how they would do it and how they will do it when they are elected. Then a “nagger” comes to Washington, who is still worse. He demands a position, tells the Representative how the latter owes his place to said nagger, and insists on being immediately made chief clerk of some department accessible only through the Civil Service, and needing four times the influence a new member can bring to bear. A man must learn to be serene under nagging, misrepresentation, and even positive lies, and rely upon time and his own best efforts to vindicate him.

There have been more caucuses held during the last term than usual. A caucus is a good thing, as it gives a man a chance to influence in a very slight degree the decisions of his party. (See Henry Loomis Nelson’s excellent article in the Century for June, 1902.)

The House is at present (session 1902–1903) ruled by only a few leading Republicans: Speaker Henderson, Grosvenor, Payne, Dalzell, and about two or three others. How long will such a hierarchy, dominating nearly three hundred intelligent men, be permitted to exist? The House is run like a bank, of which the President and a few clerks do all the deciding. Any correspondent who has the ear of any of these few can tell you the fate of a measure before it comes to vote.

The chairmen of committees, and a few others who have been long in the House, are called into a committee room to decide on how much debate will be permitted, who will be heard, and whether or not the bill shall pass; and the rank and file, desiring to be good party men, obey orders, and the bill fails or goes through in exactly the form decided upon by the clique. This is most un-American. It is true, more business is thus accomplished; but the business does not represent the average public opinion of the House.

The Committee on Rules, or its majority, constitutes a stone wall against which men break their hearts and ruin their reputations. Let us have less done, but let what is done be an average result of public opinion.

The President can do but little to influence legislation. His clubs are personality and patronage. If as persistent as Mr. Roosevelt, he may eventually get an “Administration” measure (like Cuban reciprocity) through, despite opposition. Present Congressional methods make politicians out of men capable, under broader training, of becoming statesmen. But Mr. Roosevelt did not “arrive” by the good will of the machine, but in spite of it. If he attains a second term, it will be against the plans of the machine; but as in Lincoln’s second term, politicians may be forced to nominate him, or themselves go down before the storm of public indignation.

In the meantime legislators in the House will go on presenting little bills which they know they can never get passed, but printed copies of which can be sent to constituents to make them believe that their representatives are really doing something.

The present method has this benefit: it shuts off much of the lobbying which formerly disgraced the anterooms of Congress.

There is a small cloud in the horizon. Mr. Littlefield, of Maine, whom rumor claimed, at the opening of the last Congress, to represent Presidential opinion, has seen his trust bill turned down. However, Mr. Littlefield always delights his hearers, who realize that his fight against commercial monopolies is no make-believe.

The following extracts from a late speech of Hon. F. W. Cushman, of the State of Washington, on the question of reciprocity with Cuba, will throw much light on present legislative methods in the House of Representatives:

THE RULES OF THE HOUSE

We meet in this Chamber to-day a condition that challenges the consideration of every patriotic man, and that is, the set of rules under which this body operates, or perhaps it would be more nearly correct to say, under which this body is operated. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I deem it my duty, knowing as I do that this measure could not have been brought here in the shape in which it now is, save and excepting for the remarkable conditions created in this House by these rules—I say, sir, I deem it to be my duty to pause for a moment or two on the threshold of this debate and place a few cold facts about these rules into this Record and before the 70,000,000 of people to whom we are responsible.

I approach this subject with a decided degree of deference. In the three years which I have been a member of this body I have endeavored to conduct myself with a modesty that I conceive to be becoming alike to the new member and to his constituency. I represent a Congressional district comprising the entire State of Washington, a Congressional district with half a million people in it, and with vast and varied interests demanding legislation for their benefit and protection in many of the channels of trade and branches of industry.

It is with humiliation unspeakable that I rise in my place on this floor and admit to my constituents at home that in this House I am utterly powerless to bring any bill or measure, no matter how worthy or meritorious it may be, to a vote unless I can first make terms with the Speaker.

It may be a matter of news to some of the good people within the confines of the American Republic to know that there is no way of getting an ordinary unprivileged measure considered and voted upon in this House unless it suits the Speaker. I am aware that there are several theoretical ways of getting a measure up; but they have no actual reality—no fruitage in fact. I make the statement on this floor now, that no member of this body who introduces a bill—not a private bill, but a public bill—can get it considered or brought forward for final determination unless it suits the Speaker. And if any one wants to deny that statement I am in a personal position and in a peculiarly happy frame of mind right now to give a little valuable testimony on that point! [Applause and laughter.]

Imagine, if you please, a measure—not a private measure, but a public measure—which has been considered at length by a great committee of this House and favorably reported with the recommendation that it do pass. That bill is then placed on the “Calendar.” The Calendar! That is a misnomer. It ought to be called a cemetery [laughter], for therein lie the whitening bones of legislative hopes. [Laughter.] When the bill is reported and placed on the Calendar, what does the member who introduced it and who is charged by his constituency to secure its passage do?

Does he consult himself about his desire to call it up? No. Does he consult the committee who considered the bill and recommended it for passage? No. Does he consult the will of the majority of this House? No. What does he do? I will tell you what he does. He either consents that that bill may die upon the Calendar, or he puts his manhood and his individuality in his pocket and goes trotting down that little pathway of personal humiliation that leads—where? To the Speaker’s room. Ay, the Speaker’s room. All the glories that clustered around the holy of holies in King Solomon’s temple looked like 30 cents [prolonged laughter and applause]—yes, looked like 29 cents—compared with that jobbing department of this government! [Applause and laughter.]

Then you are in the presence of real greatness. What then? Why, the Speaker looks over your bill, and then he tells you whether he thinks it ought to come up or not!

There is a condition which I commend to the patriotic consideration of the American people. Contemplate that for a method of procedure in the legislative body of a great and free republic.

WHO IS THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE?

Who is the Speaker of this House who sets up his immaculate and infallible judgment against the judgment of all comers? Is there anything different or superior in the credentials that he carries from the credentials that were issued to you and to me from 70,000,000 of American people? When he entered this House at the beginning of the Fifty-sixth and Fifty-seventh Congresses he was simply a Congressman-elect, bearing credentials like every other man on this floor. He has no greater power now than any other member, save the additional power we ourselves bestowed upon him by electing him Speaker and then adopting this set of rules. The question that now arises to confront us is: Have we put a club in the hands of some one else to beat us to death? Have we elevated one man on a pinnacle so high that he can not now see those who elevated him? Is the Speaker of this House a mere mortal man of common flesh and clay, or is he supernatural and immortal? What miracle was wrought at his birth? Did a star shoot from its orbit when he was born, or did he come into existence in the good old-fashioned way that ushered the rest of us into this vale of tears?

Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world

Like a Colossus, and we petty men

Walk under his huge legs and peep about

To find ourselves dishonorable graves.

Men at some time are masters of their fates:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars

But in ourselves, that we are underlings.

I make no onslaught on the individual. I have a high regard for the Speaker of this House personally and for him politically; but we face the fact that we have adopted a set of rules in this body that are an absolute disgrace to the legislative body of any republic.

Throughout the entire three years of my service in this body I have been up against the little machine that dominates the proceedings and the deliberations of this House. During the entire three years prior to this time I have always treated that machine with the deference due to its age and its reputation. I trust you will excuse my frankness when I tell you that from this time on I shall devote a little of my time and a tithe of my energy to putting a few spokes in the wheel of that machine that the designers of the vehicle never ordered. [Laughter.]

I for one expect to live to see the day in this House not when the Speaker shall tell the individual members of this House what he is going to permit them to bring up, but when those individual members, constituting a majority, will inform the Speaker what they are going to bring up for themselves.

X
THE SUPREME COURT ROOM

Continuing our examination of what is called the original Capitol building, we would stop next at the Supreme Court room, once the Senate Chamber of the United States. For quiet, harmonious beauty it is unequaled by any other room in the building.

It was designed by Latrobe, after the model of a Greek theater—a semicircular hall, with low-domed ceiling, and small gallery back and over the seats occupied by the dignified judges of the Supreme Court of the United States.

“The Bench” is composed of large leather upholstered chairs, with the chair of the Chief Justice in the center, and those of the Associate Justices on either side. In front of these is a table around which the counsel are seated, and back of a railing seats are arranged around the wall for spectators.

On the walls are the busts of the former Chief Justices of the United States: John Jay, of New York; John Rutledge, of South Carolina; Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut; John Marshall, of Virginia; Roger B. Taney, of Maryland; Salmon P. Chase, of Ohio; and Morrison R. Waite, of Ohio. Back of the judges is placed a number of graceful Ionic columns of Potomac marble, the white capitals copied from the Temple of Minerva.

The Standard Guide of Washington pictures the present court in this way:

SEATING PLAN OF THE SUPREME COURT CHAMBER
Chief Justice occupies Chair No. 1
His colleagues sit on either side
No. 10—Clerk’s Desk
No. 11—Marshal’s Desk
No. 12—Reporters’ Desk
No. 13—Attorney-General’s Desk
No. 14—Counsel’s Desk

In this hall Webster answered Hayne, and here Benton and John Randolph made their great speeches. On the left side of the Senate stood Calhoun in many a contest with Clay and Webster on the right.

One day Calhoun boasted of being the superior of Clay in argument. He said: “I had him on his back; I was his master; he was at my mercy.”

Clay strode down the aisle, and, shaking his long finger in Calhoun’s face, said: “He my master! Sir, I would not own him for my slave!”

It is said to be the handsomest court room in the world. Every week-day from October till May, except during Christmas and Easter holidays, just at twelve o’clock the crier enters the court room and announces: “The Honorable Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States,” at which everybody, including visitors and lawyers, stand. Just then nine large, dignified old gentlemen, led by Chief Justice Fuller, kicking up their long black silk robes behind them, enter the room; each, standing before his chair, bows to the lawyers, the lawyers and spectators bow to them, then all are seated.

The crier then opens court by saying: “O yea! O yea! O yea! All persons having business with the honorable the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to draw near and give their attendance, as the court is now sitting. God save the United States and this honorable court.”

After this quaint little speech business begins.

The members of the court wear gowns like the ecclesiastical robes of the Church of England. This began in early days when this country took English law and customs for pattern and precedent.

The seats of the judges are placed in the order of the time of their appointment, the senior judges occupying seats on either hand of the Chief Justice, while the latest appointments sit at the farthest end of each row.

This order of precedence extends even into the consulting-room, where the judges meet to talk over difficult cases, the Chief Justice presiding at the head.

Our country is justly proud of its judiciary. The Supreme Court of our country is the last rampart of liberty. Should this court become corrupt our free institutions will surely perish.

The Supreme Court of the United States has, however, made some grave mistakes—witness the famous decision of Justice Taney—but, for the most part, time has only verified their decisions.

The men who have sat here have not only been fair representatives of the legal knowledge of their day, but also men of unimpeachable integrity and of the highest patriotism. Many of them have been devout Christians. Some on the bench at present are among the best church workers of Washington.

Courts are conservative bodies. Conservatism produces nothing, but is useful in preserving that which enthusiasm has created.

This Supreme Court room has been made further memorable as being the place in which, in 1877, sat the Electoral Commission which decided the Presidential contest as to whether Hayes, of the Republican party, or Tilden, of the Democratic party, should be the Executive of a great nation for four years.

In the fall of 1876, when the elections were over, it was found that the result was in serious and dangerous dispute. The Senate was Republican, the House Democratic. Each distrusted the other. It was feared that on the following 4th of March the country would be forced to face one of two series dilemmas: either that the country would have no President, or that two would-be Presidents would, with their followers, strive to enter the White House and take violent possession of the government. Men would have shot the way they voted. On the 7th of December, Judge George W. McCrary, a Representative of Iowa, afterward in Hayes’s Cabinet, later a circuit judge of the United States, submitted a resolution which became the basis of the Electoral Commission. Three distant Southern States had sent to the Capitol double sets of election returns—one set for Mr. Tilden, one set for Mr. Hayes. On these nineteen votes depended the Presidency for four years.

If they were counted for Tilden, he would have two hundred and three votes and Hayes one hundred and sixty-six; or, if counted for Hayes, he would have one hundred and eighty-five votes and Tilden one hundred and eighty-four. The States whose certificates of election were in dispute were Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon.

The members of the Electoral Commission were selected either as representatives of their party, or men considered the embodiment of honor and justice. The Commission consisted of five Senators, five Judges of the Supreme Court, and five Representatives from the Lower House of Congress. The attorneys were the leading lawyers of each party. The Cabinet, leading Senators, Congressmen, foreign Ministers, and distinguished people from all portions of the country, were present. The wit, the beauty, the writers, the wisdom of the country assembled in this room to weigh the arguments, and at last to hear the decision that Rutherford B. Hayes was rightfully to be the President of the United States.

This tribunal, and the wise patriotism of Mr. Tilden and his party, saved the country from a bloody civil war.

XI
INCIDENTS CONCERNING MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Chief Justice of the United States is the highest legal officer in this country.

The position has always been filled by men of great learning and of high integrity, and, differ as we may concerning the wisdom and justice of some Supreme Court decisions, yet we must believe the judges were sincere and honest in their renditions.

When the country loses confidence in the integrity of this court, the very foundation of our government will be in danger.

The first Chief Justice was John Jay, appointed September 26, 1789. He soon resigned to accept the position of Envoy Extraordinary to England, where, after the Revolutionary War, the adjustment of our affairs demanded a person of great learning and skill. The country was fortunate in having John Adams, John Jay, and, later, John Quincy Adams as its representatives in this delicate and important service.