USA > Connecticut > New Haven County > New Haven > New Haven, a book recording the varied activities of the author in his efforts over many years to promote the welfare of the city of his adoption since 1883, together with some researches into its storied past and many illustrations > Part 17
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60
I74
NEW HAVEN :
reasons for opposing the appropriation. He was followed (not, answered) by a patriot appearing for a patriotic society and so fired by the "Spirit of '76" that he forgot his judicial ermine, and warmly denounced the writer as an "addle-pated loon" (truly a laughing matter) for no offense other than advocating that all public funds appropriated for memorials should be expended under the direction of a State Commission, "especially qualified by travel, training and taste, to exercise an intelligent judgment in respect to the matters to be sub- mitted to them."
In vain the writer endeavored to explain that he desired to see a memorial erected to the "Defenders," but not at public expense unless under competent supervision.
During his remarks the writer stopped to read a letter written to him by Mr. Augustus Saint Gaudens. His cor- respondence with Mr. Saint Gaudens is reprinted below and speaks for itself.
NEW HAVEN, CONN., April 24th, 1907.
Dear Mr. Saint Gaudens:
It is reported in Hartford and New Haven that you have seen and endorsed Mr. Kelly's design for the proposed "Defenders'" monument. One of our state senators tells me that it is said that you have pronounced it a "work of genius." I am unable to trace this report to its source, but that such a report is in circulation and being used as an argument in favor of an appropriation of $10,000 of state funds, is unquestioned. I have been protesting against the appropriation of state funds for this monu- ment and for two other local monuments on the principle that public funds should not be appropriated for the erection of local monuments by local committees, and have argued that in case any money is appropriated for local monuments they should be passed upon as to design, mate- rial and location by a state commission. The Defenders' Monument Committee are now asking for a rehearing, at which I shall appear, and before that hearing I should like to know the fact as to your having passed upon the monument and pronounced it a "work of genius." In my opinion the design is entirely unsuited to the location, the same being a small triangle in a level plain near the sea and rising but a trifle above it. The place is isolated and remote, and the monument could never be sup- ported by architecture, or, to any extent, by trees. In my opinion the site calls for a monument lifted high into the air, such as a shaft or a rugged tower. Mr. Kelly is the sculptor of the statue to General Buford at Gettysburg, a figure at Troy called "The Call to Arms," and some statuettes and reliefs, among the latter being the "Washington at Prayer"
175
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
tablet recently placed on the Sub-Treasury building in New York, without the approval, as I may mention, of the Municipal Art Commission of the city, which has no jurisdiction over U. S. Government buildings.
I hope you will be willing to either confirm or deny the report that you have pronounced Mr. Kelly's design for the proposed "Defenders'" Mon- ument a "work of genius." If you have in any way passed upon it, I should like to know what, in substance, you said. I have said to those who have spoken to me about it, that I felt sure that Mr. Saint Gaudens would not express any opinion about a proposed monument without hav- ing first carefully examined the proposed location for it.
An early reply will greatly oblige me.
Very respectfully yours,
MR. AUGUSTUS SAINT GAUDENS,
GEORGE DUDLEY SEYMOUR.
Windsor, Vt.
WINDSOR, VT., April 25, 1907.
Dear Mr. Seymour:
I have your letter of April 24th and am much surprised at its contents.
I could not have pronounced Mr. Kelly's design a "work of genius" for I have never seen or heard of it. If you will kindly correct any such reports you will greatly oblige me.
I am very glad to find that there is someone who will, before taking such rumors as true, apply to me for information regarding them.
Thanking you for your letter, I am,
Very sincerely yours,
AUGUSTUS SAINT GAUDENS.
GEORGE DUDLEY SEYMOUR, EsQ., 868 Chapel St., New Haven, Conn.
NEW HAVEN, CONN., May 6th, 1907.
Dear Mr. Saint Gaudens:
I beg to thank you for your illuminating letter of April 25th. I am unable to trace the rumor that you had approved the Kelly design to its source, and do not expect to be able to do so. It is unfair to you, unfair to the State Committee on Appropriations, and unfair to the public, to have your name so much as mentioned in connection with any affair of this kind, without your express authority. In order that you may better understand the situation, I am sending you a paper containing my "Pro- test" to the Legislature. I am contending, as you see, for a principle. I am very reluctant to attack any particular design as I am not a competent critic and I shrink from possibly hurting Mr. Kelly in any way. I have, however, freely said that in my opinion the proposed monument is wholly unsuited in character to the location, and opposed to the best modern views on that point. The local committee who are pressing for an appro- priation of $10,000, have secured a rehearing and I shall hurry back from
1
I76
NEW HAVEN :
Washington, where I shall be on Wednesday, to appear before the com- mittee on Thursday, when I shall show the committee your letter, from which they will see that you have never passed upon the design, nor even heard of it. I may fail in this instance, though I hope not; but I mean to keep on in the hope that ultimately I may succeed in having an act passed which will place all such matters in the hands of a competent state commission.
With great regard, I am,
Very truly yours, GEORGE DUDLEY SEYMOUR. Windsor, Vt.
MR. AUGUSTUS SAINT GAUDENS,
Some Documents in the Case.
The action of the Committee on Appropriations appears in the following official document :
[File No. 665.] Substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 145. STATE OF CONNECTICUT. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
House of Representatives, June 13, 1907. The Committee on Appro- priations reported through Mr. Rockwell of Bristol, Chairman of the committee on the part of the House, that the Substitute Resolution ought to pass.
RESOLUTION
Concerning the Erection of a Defenders' Monument in New Haven and making an Appropriation therefor.
GENERAL ASSEMBLY, JANUARY SESSION, A. D. 1907.
Resolved by this Assembly:
SECTION I. That the Comptroller be and hereby is authorized and instructed to draw his order on the treasurer in favor of the Defenders' Monument Association of New Haven for such sum, not exceeding five thousand dollars, as shall be necessary to pay not more than one-fourth of the expense of the erection and completion of a monument, to be erected by said association in New Haven, commemorating the resistance made by the citizens of that and neighboring towns against an invading British army July 5, 1779; provided, that the design, material, and loca- tion of said monument shall be approved by the Commission of Sculpture; and further provided, that no such payment, or any part thereof, shall be
177
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
made unless and until said Comptroller shall find that the balance of the cost of said monument, said balance to be not less than three-fourths of the total cost thereof, has been raised and paid by said Association or otherwise, and that said monument has been erected and completed to the satisfaction of said Commission of Sculpture.
SEC. 2. The sum of five thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, in full compensation for the objects herein specified.
The foregoing resolution was replaced by another increas- ing the amount appropriated from five to eight thousand dollars, but the proviso that the design should be approved as to "design, material and location" was retained. The sub- stitute resolution was as follows :
[Substitute for House Joint Resolution No. 145.] [392.]
CONCERNING THE ERECTION OF A DEFENDERS' MONUMENT IN NEW HAVEN AND MAKING AN APPROPRIATION THEREFOR.
Resolved by this Assembly:
SECTION I. That the Comptroller be and hereby is authorized and instructed to draw his order on the treasurer in favor of the Defenders' Monument Association of New Haven for the sum of eight thousand dollars toward the erection of a monument commemorating the resistance made by the citizens of that and neighboring towns against an invading British army July 5, 1779; provided, that the design, material, and location of said monument shall be approved by the Commission of Sculpture; and further provided, that no such payment, or any part thereof, shall be made unless and until said Comptroller shall find that at least ten thousand dollars has been raised from other sources and paid in or expended in behalf of the same object.
SEC. 2. The sum of eight thousand dollars, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated to be paid out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated, in full compensation for the objects herein specified.
The action of the State of Connecticut was widely and favorably noticed by the press throughout the country. The. following notice appeared in the Quarterly Bulletin of the American Institute of Architects (Vol. VIII, No. 2, p. 96) :
178
NEW HAVEN :
Connecticut is the first State to appoint a State Commission on Sculpture, the object of which is . . . "to have all cases' in which state money is appropriated for memorials, referred to a State Commission on Sculpture, which shall have power over all matters of design, material and location," instead of leaving these very important matters in the hands of merely local committees.
This principle has been recognized by placing the "Defenders'" monu- ment and. the Compo Beach monument in the hands of a committee created for the particular purpose of procuring sculptures for the State Capitol building, acting as a state committee in these instances, and consisting of Professors Henry W. Farnam and Bernadotte Perrin of Yale University, Mr. Burton Mansfield of New Haven, Mr. Charles Noel Flagg of Hartford, Arthur L. Shipman, Esq., of Hartford, and Mr. Kirk A. Leavens of Norwich.
Connecticut is certainly to be congratulated on having taken the initia- tive in this direction and it is expected to follow it up at the next session of the legislature, when it is hoped that still more definite laws will be passed.
New York State, as the writer understands, followed the example of Connecticut in referring such matters to a committee of experts.
The State Capitol Commission of Sculpture, to whom the design for the "Defenders' " monument was referred by the resolutions printed above, examined the design and surveyed the proposed site and reached a conclusion adverse to the design. But unwilling to assume the entire responsibility they appealed to the National Sculpture Society, which appointed a committee to pass upon the proposed design. The sculptor properly asked for time in which to perfect his model on the full scale and it was not ready for submission to the committee appointed from the national society until the summer of the year 1909. The report was unfavorable- on what grounds the design was objected to, the writer, who was in Europe at the time, does not know. The State Cap- itol Commission of Sculpture then reported unfavorably on the design. but on what grounds the writer is not informed.
On July 8th, 1909, the following Petition and Resolution was presented to the General Assembly :
"To the General Assembly of Connecticut:
"The petition of the Defenders' Monument Association of New Haven respectfully represents that it is an organization formed in 1895 for the
179
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
purpose of erecting a monument at New Haven to commemorate the resistance made by citizens of that and neighboring towns to an invading British army, July 5, 1779; also that for about ten years past Mr. James E. Kelly of New York City, a sculptor of repute, has been engaged in designing and constructing for it a group of figures to be cast in bronze as a part of said monument.
"Your petitioners further represent that at its session of 1907 the General Assembly granted an appropriation of $8,000 in aid of said monument, conditioned on the sum of $10,000 being raised and paid in from other sources, and also on the design for said monument being approved by the State Commission of Sculpture.
"Your petitioners represent that a full size plaster model of the group for said monument was completed early in April last (1909) at which time nearly $5,000 had been paid in from other sources in aid of said monument, and the balance required to secure the State appropriation was expected to be quickly raised as soon as the Sculpture Commission aforesaid should approve the design for the group, and of this your petitioners had no doubt, not only from their own impressions as to the merit of the group but from the encomiums which it had received from various disinterested art-experts of high authority. '
"In the confidence of such expectations your petitioners on April 12th notified the said. Sculpture Commission that the said model was ready for their inspection in the Bronze foundry at Mt. Vernon, N. Y., and urged early action on their part as of great importance to your petitioners. But said Sculpture Commission instead of visiting said model for them- selves so as to render an independent and unbiased opinion on its merits, turned the matter over to the so-called National Sculpture Society for its decision and report. As said National Sculpture Society is a species of art-trust located in New York City which is reputed to be intolerant and hostile toward those sculptors who, like Mr. Kelly, are outside of its membership, your petitioners remonstrated against such reference, and dur- ing the delay which followed repeatedly urged the Sculpture Commission to inspect the model themselves and to form their own opinion on its merits without waiting for the report of said Society; but the Sculpture Com- mission persistently neglected and refused to do so. Finally on June 23d. or nearly two months and a half after your petitioners' application, said Sculpture Commission notified your petitioners that a committee of the National Sculpture society having reported on May 21st against accepting the model, they had themselves inspected it on June 16 and had voted to reject it. No special reasons for such rejection were given, and your petitioners are in complete ignorance of the grounds upon which such rejection is based.
"Your petitioners feel that they have suffered great injustice and injury by the aforesaid course of the Sculpture Commission, in virtually turning over to a hostile and prejudiced society outside of the State, the decision of a question which the General Assembly had confided as a special trust and confidence to themselves. They feel that if the result of such con-
180
NEW HAVEN :
duct shall be to defeat the erection of a meritorious patriotic memorial whose progress has been widely announced, it will bring discredit to the State, disappointment and humiliation to your petitioners who have spent several years in unselfish labor in promoting that memorial, the sacri- fice of large sums of money, which interested citizens have contributed in its behalf, and to discourage similar movements of a patriotic or public character. We also feel that a great and cruel wrong has been inflicted on an excellent artist, who has devoted several of the best years of his life to this work with the deepest interest, and has received for it from reliable judges much flattering commendation.
"Your petitioners therefore pray that your honorable body will grant relief in the premises by adopting the resolution hereto annexed, and your petitioners will ever pray.
"New Haven, June 30, 1909.
"THE DEFENDERS' MONUMENT COMMITTEE.
"By its Executive Committee :
President.
Secretary. "
The resolution offered is as follows :
"Resolved, by the senate and house of representatives in General Assem- bly convened :
"That an act entitled, 'An Act Concerning the erection of a Defenders' Monument in New Haven and making an appropriation therefor' which was adopted by the General Assembly at its January session of 1907, and is printed in the volume of private acts and resolutions of 1907 on pages 359 and 360 of said volume, be and the same is hereby amended by striking out the following words therein which appear in lines 5 and 6 on page 360 of said volume, to wit: 'Provided that the design, materials and location of said monument shall be approved by the Commission of Sculpture ;' all the other parts and provisions of said act to remain in full force and effect."
Since the writer was contending for a principle and aimed from the first to avoid personal allusions, the Petition is reprinted without any of the signatures that were appended to the original document. Nor will he make any comment upon the attacks upon the good faith of the State Capitol Commis- sion of Sculpture and the concurrent attack upon the good
181
ON PUBLIC MONUMENTS
faith of the Committee appointed by the National Sculpture Society. With these matters-with the discussion that fol- lowed the presentation of the petition, with the means employed to "put the thing through"-he is not at present concerned. It is sufficient to say that the Act was amended so as to enable the money to become available without the approval of the State Capitol Commission of Sculpture. The text of the document follows :
[Senate Joint Resolution No. 192.] [388.]
AMENDING A RESOLUTION CONCERNING THE ERECTION OF A DEFENDERS' MONUMENT IN NEW HAVEN.
Resolved by this Assembly:
That section one of a resolution concerning the erection of a defenders' monument in New Haven and making an appropriation therefor, approved July II, 1907, is hereby amended by striking out after the figures "1779" the following: "provided, that the design, material, and location of said monument shall be approved by the Commission of Sculpture; and further," so that said section as amended shall read as follows: That the Comptroller be and hereby is authorized and instructed to draw his order on the treasurer in favor of the Defenders' Monument Association of New Haven for the sum of eight thousand dollars toward the erection of a monument commemorating the resistance made by the citizens of that and neighboring towns against an invading British army July 5, 1779; provided, that no such payment, or any part thereof, shall be made unless and until said Comptroller shall find that at least ten thousand dollars has been raised from other sources and paid in or expended in behalf of the same object.
Since the writer's judgment of the design was confirmed by the verdict of the State Capitol Commission of Sculpture and that of the committee appointed by the National Sculpture Society, he may well rest content. He was not contending against a single work so much as for the principle of placing the expenditure of public money for public memorials under the direction of a body of men qualified by education, training, travel and natural taste to pass upon such questions.
Connecticut was the first State in the Union to refer a ques- tion of sculpture to a permanent Commission of Experts, so
182
NEW HAVEN :
far as the writer is informed. Though she retreated from that position, he believes she will ultimately return to the common sense view and again place matters requiring expert knowledge in expert hands.
To this long article I append a reproduction of the cut (a full page illustration) accompanying the appeal of the Defenders' Monument Association for funds, the appeal con- sisting of a circular letter dated December 6th, 1905.
NOTE: The Defenders' Monument as designed by Mr. Kelly was duly erected and the writer is content to wait for the judgment of posterity upon it both as a design considered by itself and as a suitable design for the site in question. He still adheres to the view that a sculptor of the first rank would not have attempted three figures in the round in violent action at the corners of a triangle formed by the cannon and its carriage and that the real defenders would have had their gallantry better per- petuated by a rugged tower of masonry or a tall shaft commanding the situation even as they did. The placing of tall memorials on low places and low memorials on high places is a fairly safe rule to follow. In placing the Civil War Memorial on top of East Rock we have an example of a high memorial on a high place. The writer once pointed out this memorial to a distinguished foreign visitor whose laconic comment was "I should say that the monument has far too fine a pedestal."
X
A PROPOSITION TO RESTORE CENTER CHURCH TO ITS ORIGINAL APPEARANCE"
"The Churches are regularly full; and an interest is apparently felt in the concerns of religion, which cannot fail of being grateful to the mind of a good man. Rarely is a more beautiful object presented to the eye; (I have never met with one) ; than the multitudes, crossing the Green in different directions to the House of God. A general softness and civility of manners also prevails among the inhabitants of every class. Their hospitality is honourable to them; and is not excelled in New Eng- land, unless in some of the towns along the Eastern shore of Massachu- setts." Dwight's "Travels in New England and New York." New Haven, 1821-22, p. 196.
To the Editor of the Journal-Courier:
It is unnecessary for me to apologize for sending you a letter by Mr. Cass Gilbert on the proposed restoration of Center Church to its original exterior appearance as a structure of red brick with white woodwork. This is a project in which I have long been interested, and which I suggested in an open letter published in June, 1906, in advocacy of securing from experts a plan for the improvement of New Haven.
Having talked with some members of the Church Commit- tee, I laid the matter before Mr. Gilbert, who would, I knew, be particularly interested as an architect and would be able to pass upon the desirability and feasibility of removing the paint from the brickwork. He wrote me the letter referred to and I turned it over to the Committee of the Center Church Society. The matter of restoring the church to its original design as a red brick church, with painted white woodwork, is now, I believe, under advisement by the Committee, though with no definite plans as to when the work will be undertaken, if at all.
The project is one in which the entire community is con- cerned, for Center Church must be regarded as something more than the house of worship of the First Society-as 77 From the New Haven Journal-Courier of December 9, 1909.
184
NEW HAVEN :
belonging to the entire community. Beyond question it is, both architecturally and historically, the chief public monu- ment, so to speak, of New Haven County, and one of the chief buildings in the State of Connecticut. Hence the pro- priety of discussing the project in print.
The restoration of Center Church to its original appear- ance-to the appearance which it was designed to have by Ithiel Town, its architect-would do more than any one thing to improve the general appearance of the old Green, and to offset the loss of the elms which for more than three-quarters of a century made New Haven famous as The City of Elms.
When the three churches in a row on the Green were built, I am confident that it was intended that Center Church should be the dominant structure. But whether that was the intention or not is immaterial. The fact remains that it was in every way entitled to be given that dominance, since it had the central position, since it was the oldest, and since in its great traditions and services it outranks all New Haven churches. But when in 1845 it was submerged, so to speak, woodwork and brickwork, in a bath of colored paint, the structure lost much of its artistic value as a design as well as its dominance of the Green.
Trinity Church, Center Church and the North Church were built about the same time; Ithiel Town designed the two former, and David Hoadley the latter. The three buildings were unquestionably designed so as to produce a harmonious group. Center Church had the leading position, and very prop- erly was given the leading form. Trinity Church, as origin- ally designed, had a square tower furnished with a Gothic parapet which brought it into no competition with the graceful classical spire of Center Church. The belfry of the North Church, with its domical cap, avoided all conflict with the spire of the Center Church. I am not concerned at this writing with Trinity Church, but may say in passing, that when it was built it was regarded as one of the finest specimens of architecture in the United States. The first President Dwight praised it, and it was extravagantly lauded by Nathaniel
185
RESTORATION OF CENTER CHURCH
Parker Willis in an article entitled "The Gothic Church, New Haven," in an elaborate work published in Europe in 1839 on "American Scenery." In his "Chronicles of New Haven Green," Mr. Henry T. Blake refers to the regard in which the church was once held as a piece of beautiful architecture. No one with any knowledge of such subjects will deny that it suffered a great loss when in 1870 its tower was rebuilt, carried higher, and furnished with a slate-covered stunted spire which should come off.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.