DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 278 589 SO 017 759

AUTHOR Blumberg, Barbara

TITLE Celebrating the Immigrant: An Administrative History

of the Statue of Liberty National Monument,

1952-1982. Cultural Resource Management Study 10.

INSTITUTION National Park Service (Dept. of Interior),

Washington, D.C.

PUB DATE 85

NOTE 209p.; Photographs may not reproduce clearly.

PUB TYPE Books (010) -- Historical Materials (060)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC09 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Historiography; *Immigrants; Instructional Materials;

*Museums; Primary Sources; *United States History

IDENTIFIERS *Ellis Island; *Statue of Liberty

ABSTRACT

This book focuses on the history of the Statue of

Liberty National Monument from 1952 through 1982. It describes how

the monument has come to symbolize an expanding set of ideals, how

the symbolism has produced responses in various groups of people

ranging from celebrations to physical attacks upon the Statue, and

the manner in which the monument is administered and maintained. This

study includes accounts of the conception, financing, and development

of the American Museum of Immigration, as well as the history of the

incorporation of Ellis Island in the monument. The book contains

eight chapters: (1) "The Statue of Liberty: Monument to an Expanding

Set of Ideals"; (2) "A Project Is Pr.....posed and Financed"; (3) "The

American Museum of Immigration Takes Shape"; (4) "The First Decade of

the American Museum of Immigration, 1972-1982"; (5) "What Shall We Do

With Ellis Island? 1954-1965"; (6) "The Years of Neglect and

Deterioration, 1965-1976"; (7) "The Search for Consensus and Funding

Continues, 1976-1980"; and (8) "Preparing for the Centennials of the

Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island." Included are appendices giving

annual visitation figures and names of monument supervisors, notes on

sources, seven figures, and 10 full page black and white photographs.

(KWL)

***********************************************************************

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. * ***********************************************************************
CELEBRATING THE IMMIGRANT

co,

AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

OF THE

STATUE OF LIBERTY NATIONAL MONUMENT

1952 1982

CULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT STUDY NO.10

DIVISION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

NORTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL OFFICE

NATIONAL PARK SER VICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

2

U S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

Vhis document has been reproduced as

received from Ihe person or organization

originating a

O Minor changes have been made to improve

reproduction quality

Points of view or opinionsstated in thisdocu,

ment do not necessarily represent official

OERI position or policy

BEST COPY AVAILABLE
REPORTS OF THE DIVISION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service

The Division produces and prints reports on archeological, curatorial, historical, And historic architectural topics that identify, evaluate, document,

and interpret cultural resources in National Park Service units of the North

Atlantic Region. Some of these reports are of general interest for their

presentations of substantive, bibliographic, technical, or methodolosical

information. These are listed below. Those that are listed with an NTIS

number are only available from the National Technical Information service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22151. Others are availW1 from

the Division of Cultural Resources, NARO, National Park Service, State

Street, Boston, MA 02109. Prices are listed.

Cultural Resources Management Studies

No. 1 Archeological Resource Study, Roger Williams National NTIS PB81 185134 Monument. Public Archaeology Laboratory, Brown University,

1979.

No. 2 Archeo1ogicz1 Overview and Evaluation at Minute Man NTIF PB81 185142

National HistArical Park. Vernon G. Baker, 1980

No. 3 Historic Resources Study, Jamaica Bay: A History. $4.00

Gateway National Recreation Area, New York-New Jersey.

Frederick R. Black, 1981.

No. 4 Archeological site Examination: A Case Study in Urban 6.00

Archeology. Roger Williams National Monument.

Patricia E. Rutertone and Joan Gallagher, 1981.

No. 5 Archeological Resource Study, Historical Archeology at NTIS PB83 186957

Bunker Hill Monument. Boston National Historical Park.

Thomas Mahlstedt, 1981.

No, 6 Archeological Investigation at the Narbonne House.

Cal.":m Maritime National Historic Site.

7.00 Geoffrey P. Moran, Edward F. Zimmer, Anne E. Yentsch,

1982.

No. 7 Historic Resource Study, A History of Fort Wadsworth,

New York Harbor. Frederick R. Black, 1983.

4.00

No. 8 Chapters in the Archeology of Cape Cod, I. Results of 7.50 Volume 1

the Cape Cod National Seashore Archeological Surv.fT,

1979-1981 (2 volumes). Francis P. McManamon, editor,

1984. 9.00

15.00

Volume 2

Both Volumes

No. 9 The National Park Service in the Northeast: A Alltural 7.00

Resource Management Bibliography. Dwight T. Pitcaithley,

1984

(continued on inside back c wer)

3
CELEBRATING THE IMMIGRANT

AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

OF THE

STATUE OF LIBERTY NATIONAL MONUMENT

1952 1982

BARBARA BLUMBERG

THE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN HISTORY

432 PARK AVENUE SOUTH

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10016

(212) 689-1931

1985

CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT STUDY NO. 10

DIVISION OF CULTURAL RESOURCES

NORTH ATLANTIC REGIONAL OFFICE

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

4
Cover photograph by John Veltri, courtesy of Newsweek Books
CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION 1 1. THE STATUE OF LIBERTY: MONUMENT TO AN

EXPANDING SET OF IDEALS 9

2. A PROJECT IS PROPOSED AND FINANCED 28

3. THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF IMMIGRATION TAKES

SHAPE 51

4. THE FIRST DECADE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM

OF IMMIGRATION, 1972 - 1982 82

5. WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH ELLIS ISLAND?

1954 - 1965 95

6. THE YEARS OF NEGLECT AND DETERIORATION,

1965 - 1976 108

7. THE SEARCH FOR CONSENSUS AND FUNDING

CONTINUES, 1976 1980 129

8. PREPARING FOR THE CENTENNIALS OF THE STATUE

OF LIBERTY AND ELLIS ISLAND 138

APPENDIXES 149

A. Supervisors of the Statue of Liberty

National Monument, 1952 - 1982 150

B. Annual Visitation figures for the Statue

of Liberty National Monument 151

C. Annual Visitation to Ellis Island 152

NOTE ON SOURCES 153

FIGURES

ILLUSTRATIONS

r> 0
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank a number of persons who have

played key roles in enabling me to research and write

this history.

William Zeisel, of The Institute for Research in

History, served as project director, handling all of the

administrative details involved in this undertaking. He

did much else besides. He helped me sort through voluminous National Park Service and American Museum of

Immigration, Inc., records, contacted and interviewed

persons who could supply vital information, and improved

my work with his intelligent comments and suggestions.

Esther Katz and Deborah Gardner, both of the Institute,

provided many helpful suggestions and editorial comments.

David L. Moffitt, superintendent, Statue of Liberty

National Monument, Paul Kinney, curator, American Museum

of Immigration, and Marilyn Keeler, former administrative

officer, STLI NM, all generously gave their time to answer

questions, share memories, and help me find important

documents.

Paul O. Weinbaum and Edward Kallop, Jr., both

former curators at Liberty Island, have replied to my

written questions, supplied needed information to William

Zeisel over the telephone, and read earlier drafts of

this work, on which they have made essential corrections,

revisions, and additions. I also appreciate the written

comments and corrections of George A. Palmer, retired

assistant regional director of the old Region 5 office

of the NPS.

Dwight T. Pitcaithley, regional historian, North

Atlantic Region, NPS, has assisted William Zeisel and me

in countless ways. He has been the person with whom we

have worked most closely in the NPS. He has located

records for us and facilitated our contacts with other

members of the NPS.

Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Alan L.

Krumholz, and my son Mark, who encouraged me and who

good-naturedly put up with the many hours I was away

researching at Liberty Island or sitting at the typewriter.
INTRODUCTION

Two small islands located side by side in New York

harbor contain the Statue of Liberty National Monument.

On Liberty Island stands the colossal statue which the

French people gave as a gift to the United States for its

one hundredth birthday. Within the base of the statue is

the American Museum of Immigration, containing exhibits

depicting the course of immigration to this nation and

the resulting cultural heterogeneity of its population.

Nearby, lies Ellis Island, the site of the first federal

immigration station, through which some twelve million

persons entered the country between 1892 and 1954 and at

which others were detained and eventually deported.

The Statue of Liberty National Monument is unique

in that it does not commemorate a particular historic

event or personage, but rather celebrates a set of ideas.

Originally conceived as a joint memorial to the hi.storic

friendship and alliance between France and the U'lited

States, forged during the American Revolution, the Statue

of Liberty Enlightening the World became first and fore

most the symbol of the human ideals of liberty and free

dom shared by the two sister republics. The statue stood

for a second idea as well, although in the period from

its erection in 1886 to 1952, this second theme received

less attention: namely, the role of the monument as

"Mother of Exiles," beacon of hope, opportunity and a new

life to millions of immigrants who passed by her on their

entry into the United States. This view of the statue's

meaning, plus a realization that these "exiles° enriched

the culture and contributed to the physical development

of America, caught the imagination of both Frederic

Auguste Bartholdi, the creator of the statue, and Emma

Lazarus, author of the poem "The New Colossus," the lines

cf which, cast on a bronze tablet, are housed inside the

base of the statue.

With the addition to the Statue of Liberty National

Monument of the American Museum of Immigration, conceived

in 1952 and opened in 1972, and of Ellis Island in 1965,

the association of the monument with immigration and our

multiethnic heritage became deeper and more widely

recognized.

1
Where, then, does the story of this unique national

monument begin? Edouard de Laboulaye, French jurist,

admirer of American republicanism, and author of a history of the United States, during a dinner party at his estate

near Versailles, in 1865, made a proposal to his guests.

Why not have the French people present a monument to the

Americans to commemorate the centennial of their nation's

independence in 1876? One of those present at the dinner and impressed with the idea was the Alsatian sculptor

Frederic Auguste Bartholdi. No immediate action came

from Laboulaye's proposal, however, and the young sculptor

became interested in another project.

Bartholdi had traveled to Egypt in 1856 to see the

pyramids and the Sphinx. Their grand scale awed him and

confirmed his own predilection for statues of colossal

size. He returned to the land of the Nile in 1869, to

attend the opening of the Suez Canal. Bartholdi hoped to

convince the then ruler of Egypt, Ismail Pasha, to com- mission the Alsatian to create a monument in the form

of a giant peasant woman holding aloft a torch, its theme

to be "Progress" or "Egypt Carrying the Light to Asia."

This statue would be twice the size of the Sphinx and

stand beside the entrance to the canal, serving the double

purpose of monument and lighthouse. The pasha rejected the idea, and Bartholdi returned to France to rekindle

the American proposal.

The sculptor went to see Laboulaye, who was enthusiastic, brought others into the discussions, and suggested Bartholdi visit the United States to present the

project to American friends and officials. In June 1871,

Bartholdi arrived in New York. He spoke to President

Ulysses S. Grant, who showed no interest, Republican

Senator Charles Sumner of Massachusetts, who promised

support, members of the New York French-American Society

and others. The sculptor unfolded before them his

vision of a colossal statue in the classical tradition to

be known as the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World.

That same year Bedloe's Island (the name of Liberty Island

until 1956) was mentioned as probably the most appropriate

site on which to erect such a monument.1

Up to that point Bedloe's Island had served varied

purposes. In 1758 the City of New York acquired it from

its private owner to place a quarantine station there.

After the Revolution the State of New York took over

operation of the facility and, also in cooperation with

the federal government, built fortifications on the

island as part of the city's harbor defenses. In 1800

title to the property trans:ed to the federal govern2
ment, which abandoned the quarantine operation and concentrated on defense. By 1811 it had completed there a new

eleven-point, star-shaped structure known as Fort Wood.

The fort served as a garrison, and, during the Civil War,

as an ordnance depot.2

Meanwhile, back in France, Laboulaye became chairman

of the Union Franco-Americaine, which launched a fund-raising campaign to finance designing and building the statue.

Eventually it collected some $400,000 from French cities,

private citizens and French corporations doing business

with the United States. Bartholdi, starting with a draft

sketch in 1871, set to work creating the statue he had

envisioned.

In 1877 the United States Congress by joint resolution accepted the French gift and authorized the President

to designate a home for it upon either Governors or

Bedloe's Island. William M. Evarts, a prominent New York

Republican politician, chaired the American Committee

that took on the task of raising funds for designing and

building the statue's pedestal. During its ten-year

existence, the committee grew to a membership of 400 that

included such prominent people as the poet and newspaper

editor William Cullen Bryant; the first president of New

York's Metropolitan Museum of Art, John Taylor Johnson;

and industrialist Samul D. Babcock. By 1885, the committee had raised $180,000, most of it through donations from

wealthy businessmen, such as John Jacob Astor, Cyrus W.

Field, and Andrew Carnegie.3

Work in France, however, progressed more rapidly

than in America. By 1881 the statue was erected in Paris

and ready for shipment to the United States. The American

Committee, at that point, had not collected sufficient

money to permit construction of the pedestal to commence.

Its appeal to Congress for federal funds was killed in

the House, and the $180,000 that it had raised by 1885

was still not enough to complete the base. All looked

hopeless until Joseph Pulitzer, publisher of the New York

World, launched a public subscription campaign that took

in an additional $100,000 from more than 120,000 individual donors.4

In April 1883 work on the pedestal began, and by

1886 the base was ready for the colossal statue that

stood 151 feet high and weighed 450000 pounds. Shipped

in pieces from France to the United States, the reassembled figure was placed around a framework designed by

the French engineer Gustave Eiffel. On October 28

President Grover Cleveland dedicated and unveiled the

3

10
magnificent French gift, proclaiming, "We will not forget

that Liberty has made here her home, nor shall her chosen

altar be neglected."5

In the years that followed, the federal government's

administration of the property sometimes belied Cleveland's

ringing promise. The Lighthouse Board of the Treasury

Department first took jurisdiction over the statue since

some considered it an aid to navigation. In 1901 Secretary

of the Treasury Lyman J. Gage, however, stated that the

monument had no value as a navigational light and was a

financial burden on his department. He, therefore, recommended transferring its care to the War Department,

which had continued to maintain Fort Wood whose walls

surrounded the pedestal. The new arrangement was approved

by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1901.6

Although President Calvin Coolidge proclaimed the

statue a national monument in 1924, its administration by

the army continued. Not until 1933 did President Franklin

D. Roosevelt sign an executive order transferring the

Statue of Liberty to the Department of the Interior, to

be administered by the National Park Service. In 1937

the Park Service's jurisdiction was expanded to include

all of Bedloe's Island. With the help of labor supplied

through the Works Progress Administration, the NPS began

to redevelop the area for use as a park. In succeeding

years it demolished all of the military buildings outside

of old Fort Wood and erected administration, concessions

and maintenance buildings and residences for six employees.7

The early history of Ellis, the other island comprising today's Statue of Liberty National Monument, parallels

that of Bedloe's Island. Like Bedloe's, Ellis Island,

named after its last private owner, was first fortified

by the State of New York in the 1790s to defend the harbor

against a possible British or French attack. In 1808 New

York State acquired the island through condemnation proceedings from Samuel Ellis's heirs and turned it over to

the federal government for the sum of $10,000. By 1812

it had erected Fort Gibson on the site, making it, along

with Fort Wood on Bedloe's Island, Castle William and

Fort Columbus on Governor's Island, and the West Battery

(later Castle Clinton) at the southern tip of Manhattan,

New York harbor's chief defense. An interstate agreement

between New York and New Jersey in 1834 declared Bedloe's

and Ellis Islands part of New York although both lay on

the Jersey side of the main ship channel. Ellis Island

continued to house an arsenal and powder magazine until

1890.8

4

11
During the 19th century thousands of Europeans would

see the two islands from ships entering New York harbor,

but between 1855 and 1890 immigrants were admitted by New

York State at a station in Castle Garden, as Castle

Clinton was then called. Then, in 1890, the federal

government assumed control over admission of immigrants.

It made a study of New York harbor to determine the best

location for a new station since Castle Garden was clearly

no longer large enough to handle the swelling tide of

newcomers.

The army wished to retain its headquarters on

Governors Island; New York public opinion objected to

the use of Bedloe's Island on which the Statue of Liberty

had been dedicated four years earlier. By process of

elimination Congress chose Ellis Island, ordered removal

of the powder magazine, and appropriated $75,000 to convert it into an immigration reception facility.9

By January 1, 1892, the station was ready. The

island had been enlarged; a ferry boat basin was constructed, along with a number of buildings made of pine.

During the next five years approximately 1.5 million

persons were examined and passed through the area. But

in 1897, fire broke out, destroying the wooden structures

and irreplaceable state and federal immigration records.

Fortunately, no one was killed or injured.

The federal government awarded a contract in 1898 to

the New York firm of Boring and Tilton to design and construct new, fireproof, brick and masonry structures. Two

man-made strips of land were connected by a narrow corridor to the original island, now enlarged with landfill.

The main or original island housed the massive immigration

building, which opened in 1900, as well as the adjacent

kitchen and laundry facility and powerhouse, completed in

1901, and other structures built subsequently. Island

two, separated from the first by a ferry slip, contained

the general hospital buildings, which were opened in

1902, and the third area was used for conL,aqious disease

wards, completed in 1909 and opened in 191i.10

The main immigration building was finished just in

time for the greatest flood of newcomers. Between 1900

and 1914 an average of about 1,000,000 pecsons a year

entered the United States, up to three-quarters of them

cleared through Ellis Island. The facilities and inspectors were strained to the limit to keep up with the flow.

Additional floors, wings and whole new buildings were

constructed to provide essential space (Fig. 1).

5

12
The outbreak of World War I in Europe in the summer

of 1914 curtailed immigration sharply, with the numbers

passing through the island gateway falling by 90 percent.

Soon, however, the facilities on Ellis were put to supplemental uses. In 1917, when the United States entered

the war against the Central Powers, some 2,200 German

sailors, from ships seized in our harbors, and other

enemy aliens, were interned there. The following year a

large hospital for wounded and injured American servicemen

opened. In 1919-1920, during the "great red scare," the

government rounded up hundreds of aliens it suspected of

being radicals, held them on Ellis and subsequently

deported many without a hearing.

The island also suffered war-related damage, when on

July 30, 1916, German saboteurs blew up munitions awaiting

shipment to Russia on the nearby Black Tom Wharf. Glass

shattered, fires broke out, and sections of :oof caved

in, requiring considerable repair and renovation.11

With the return of peace, the number of immigrants

again climbed rapidly, and the facilities at Ellis

returned to their earlier purpose. Approximately 600,000

newcomers entered the country through this portal in

1921. Restrictive legislation passed during that year

and even more importantly the National Origins Quota Act

of 1924 brought to an end the period of mass immigration

to the United States. The latter not only cut the number

who could enter annually to less than 200,000, giving

preference to those from northern and western Europe,

but also provided that prospective immigrants would be

inspected at American consular offices abroad, where

visas would be issued to those found acceptable.

From that point on, the Ellis Island station functioned primarily as a detention center for aliens who

were about to be deported because of illegal entry or

other violations of immigration rules. During World War

II the Coast Guard shared the island with a hospital for

returning wounded and injured servicemen and detained

enemy aliens.

The Coast Guard left in 1946, and Ellis continued to

hold those awaiting deportation. After passage of the

Internal Security Act of 1950, many of the individuals

were persons excluded for suspected radical beliefs or

past membership in the Communist party (or less frequently, in Fascist organizations). The Immigration and

Naturalization Service, however, was finding operation

of the huge, aging facility for this purpose costly and

inefficient, especially since the numbers detained were

6

13
declining. In November 1954, the INS transferred its

offices to Manhattan, freed on parole almost all of the

remaining aliens and notified the General Services Administration that it had no further need of the property. 12

The chapters which follow concentrate on the history of the Statue of Liberty National Monument from 1952

to 1982, since the earlier years have been ably covered by

Walter Hugins in his Statue of Liberty National Monument:

Its Origins, Development and Administration, which was

written for the NPS in 1958. The present study describes

how the monument has come to symbolize an expanding set

of ideas, how the symbolism has produced responses in

various groups of people ranging from celebrations to physical attacks upon the statue, and the manner in which the

National Park Service has administered, maintained and

planned for its famed property. This work also relates

the story of the conception, financing, and development

of the American Museum of Immigration, as well as covering

the history of Ellis Island from the time when the INS

abandoned it, through government attempts to dispose of

it, to its incorporation in the monument. The study

proceeds to discuss the NPS's problems in administering

and preserving the run-down facility. Finally, this

account summarizes the efforts now underway by the NPS, in

cooperation with the private sector, to repair, restore,

and develop the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in time

for their respective centennials in 1986 and 1992.

7

1 4
NOTES

1Frenoh-American Committee for Restoration of the

Statue of Liberty, "Statue of Liberty Chronology," 1981;

Paul Weinbaum, Statue of Liberty: Heritase of America

(Las Vegas, Nevada, 1979), pp. 6-10; Pete Hamill, "Mother

of Exiles," Sunday News Magazine, February 19, 1984.

2U.5. Department of the Interior, NPS, Analysis of

Alternatives (Environmental Assessment) for the General

Management Plan, December 1980. STLI NM, NY/NJ, p. 11;

U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, Statue of Liberty

National Monument: Its Origin, Development and Administration, by Walter Hugins, 1958, pp. 3-4.

3"Statue of Liberty Chronology"; Hugins, p. 9;

Weinbaum, Statue of Liberty, pp. 11-12.

4Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980, p. 11;

Hugins, pp. 5-13; Weinbaum, pp. 12-13; Hamill, "Mother

of Exiles,

5"Statue of Liberty Chronology"; Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980, p. 11; Hugins, p. 6.

6Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980, p. 11;

Hugins, pp. 16-17, 21.

7Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980; pp11-12; "Statue of Liberty Chronology"; Hugins, pp. 30-35,

41-43, 53-54.

8Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980; p. 12;

"Ellis Island," p. 1, D22, Construction Programs, dtd.

1974 File, Drawer 1, Administration Building, Liberty

Island.

8"Ellis Island," p. 1; Analysis of Alternatives,

December 1980, p. 12.

"Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980, pp. 12-13;

"Ellis Island," pp. 1-2; Ari Hoogenboom, "An Outline of

Ellis Island (1890-1954)," June 20, 1974, pp. 1-2,

Duplicates Pile, Artifact Room.

11Analysis of Alternati_ves, December 1980, p. 13;

"Ellis Island," p. 2; Hoog .boom, pp. 2-4. The Black Tom

Wharf explosion also caused damage to the Statue of

Liberty.

12Analysis of Alternatives, December 1980, pp. 16-17;

"Ellis Island," p. 2; Hoogenboom, pp. 5-7.

8

15
CHAPTER 1 THE STATUE OF LIBERTY: MONUMENT TO AN EXPANDING

SET OF IDEALS

Josephine Nugent, a high school senior from

Bridgeport, Connecticut, one day in April 1983, in th-.

company of her classmates, made her first visit to the

Statue of Liberty. She had come to the United States from

South Vietnam seven years previously. When a reporter

asked what she thought of the monument, she replied, "It's

one of the most beautiful symbols of the United States.

It symbolizes freedom, liberty and everything the United

States stands for." In those two sentences this recentAmerican schoolgirl, part of the newest immigrant influx

to our shores, both summed up and symbolized the ideas

that have been accumulating around the famous landmark for

nearly one hundred years.1

When Edouard de Laboulaye and Frederic Auguste

Bartholdi first thought of having the people of France

present to the people of the United States a monument on

the one hundredth anniversary of America's independence,

their main idea was to commemorate the friendship between

the two peoples. They wanted it to recall the aid which

Americans had received from France in the colonies'

struggle for freedom. They wished the statue to proclaim further that the ideal of liberty, shared by the

sister republics, was a meaningful one for the rest of

mankind as well.

Bartholdi attempted to make this evident in the

name he gave his statue, "Liberty Enlightening the World,"

and in its design. The statue's upraised arm held high

the symbolic torch of freedom; at her feet lay the broken

chain of tyranny. On her left arm rested a tablet inscribed

with the date of the American Declaration of Independence,

reminding everyone of its bold proclamation about the

"inalienable rights" of all men to "life, liberty, and

the pursuit of happiness."2

To Emma Lazarus, a poet who was asked to contribute

some inspirational lines for the pedestal fund drive, the

9

16
statue took on a still wider significance. Shortly before

composing her sonnet, "The New Colossus," Lazarus had been

touched by the sight of Jewish refugees from Czarist

Russia arriving in the United States. When she sat down

to write, she saw the statue not only as a commanding

figure enlightening the world with its torch of liberty,

but as the "Mother of Exiles," the woman who welcomed the

oppressed to our shores and offered them freedom, dignity,

and opportunity:

Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my laTp beside the golden door!3

Emma Lazarus implied in those lines that not only

would the immigrants seeking refuge benefit from the

asylum offered, but that the United States would also be

enriched by receiving the world's "huddled masses yearning

to breathe free." That was a concept apparently shared

by Bartholdi, the statue's sculptor. In an 1890 interview

he granted to the Paris correspondent of the New York

World, Bartholdi lamented that Americans neither appreciated the uniqueness of their people nor his statue's

potential for symbolizing it. He stated, "In Liberty

Island...[he insisted on calling it that at a time when

everyone else still referred to it as Bedloe's Island]

the Americans have a spot unique in the world for the

home of a temple to the glorification of their wonderful

nationality and the idealization of the strong poetry of

their race...in the cohesion into one mighty mass of elements so widely diverse."4

Bartholdi was correct in observing that most Americans

initially failed to associate the statue with immigration

and an appreciation of our multi-ethnic heritage. That

would take time. Emma Lazarus' poem was hardly known in

the 1880s. When a bronze tablet inscribed with "The New

Colossus" was placed inside the statue's entrance in 1903,

the ceremony received little attention. Not until the

the 1930s and 40s, when ironically the United States

almost sealed the "golden door," did Lazarus' sonnet

become widely admired and quoted. From that point on,

however, the significance of the statue that the poet

and its sculptor had seen began to grow in importance.5

By 1952 even a congressman who had sponsored several

restrictionist immigration bills appreciated the Mother

of Exiles theme symbolized by the statue. Representative

Francis Walter (Democrat-Pennsylvania), in May of that

10
year, introduced a resolution in the House authorizing

and directing the President of the United States to proclaim each October 28 as Statue oE Liberty Day because

the monument was dedicated on that day and because it has

since become "a welcoming beacon to the oppressed aad

persecuted of all lands and faiths" as well as "a symbol

of American liberty and freedom...."6

Congress, in 1956, took further steps to emphasize

the statue's association with the ideals of liberty and

opportunity and with the immigrants attracted to our

shores by their promise. The legislators, in a joint

resolution, gave their approval to the plans of a group

of private citizens to Einance and help the Park Servie

develop a museum of immigration at the base of the statue,

and they authorized changing the name of the home of the

monument from Bedloe's to Liberty Island. The joint

resolution stated, "...the Statue of Liberty is to the

world the symbol of the dreams and aspirations which have

drawn so many millions of immigrants to America" and "the

majestic meaning of the Statue of Liberty is to be made

more brilliant by the establishment at its foot of the

American Museum of Immigration."7

This "majestic meaning" of the statue was so widely

recognized that President Lyndon B. Johnson chose Liberty

Island as the setting for his signing of the 1965 immigration bill, finally abolishing the discriminatory national

origins quota system. He could have signed the measure

quietly at the White House, but he saw the drama and

appropria4,:eness of a ceremony using the statue as backdrop. On the fine Sunday afternoon of October 3, accompanied by Lady Bird Johnson, Vice President and Mrs.

Hubert H. Humphrey, the Governors of New Jersey and New

York, assorted other political leaders, some two hundred

reporters, and thousands of curious tourists, Johnson

arrived on Liberty Island. Speaking beneath the famed

landmark, he said:

This bill...repairs a deep and painful flaw in

the fabric of American justice. It corrects a

cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the

American nation....[F]or over four decades the

immigration policy of the United States has been

twisted and distorted by the harsh injustice of

the national origins quota system. Under that

system the ability of new immigrants to come to

America depended on the country of their birth.

Today, with my signature, this system is abclished.

Now under the monument which has welcomed so many,

the American nation returns to the finest of its
year, introduced a resolution in the House authorizing

and directing the President of the United States to proclaim each October 28 as Statue of Liberty Day because

the monument was dedicated on that day and because it has

since become "a welcoming beacon to the oppressed and

persecuted of all lands and faiths" as well as "a symbol

of American liberty and freedom...."6

Congress, in 1956, took further steps to emphasize

the statue's association with the ideals of liberty and

opportunity and with the immigrants attracted to our

shores by their promise. The legislators, in a joint

resolution, gave their approval to the plans of a group

of private citizens to finance and help the Park Servic:0

develop a museum of immigration at the base of the statue,

and they authorized changing the name of the home of the

monument from Bedloe's to Liberty Island. The joint

resolution stated, "...the Statue of Liberty is to the

world the symbol of the dreams and aspirations which have

drawn so many millions of immigrants to America" and "the

majestic meaning of the Statue of Liberty is to be made

more brilliant by the establishment at its foot of the

American Museum of Immigration."7

This "majestic meaning" of the statue was so widely

recognized that President Lyndon B. Johnson chose Liberty

Island as the setting for his signing of the 1965 immigration bill, finally abolishing the discriminatory national

origins quota system. He could have signed the measure

quietly at the White House, but he saw the drama and

appropriat.eness of a ceremony using the statue as backdrop. On the fine Sunday afternoon of October 3, accompanied by Lady Bird Johnson, Vice President and Mrs.

Hubert H. Humphrey, the Governors of New Jersey and New

York, assorted other political leaders, some two hundred

reporters, and thousands of curious tourists, Johnson

arrived on Liberty Island. Speaking beneath the famed

landmark, he said:

This bill...repairs a deep and painful flaw in

the fabric of American justice. It corrects a

cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the

American nation....[F]or over four decades the

immigration policy of the United States has been

twisted and distorted by the harsh injustice of

the national origins quota system. Under that

system the ability of new immigrants to come to

America depended on the country of their birth.

Today, with my signature, this system is abclished.

Now under the monument which has welcomed so many,

the American nation returns to the finest of its

11

18
If the symbolism of the statue has made her a rallying point for people wanting to express themselves dramatically on some aspect of liberty, she has also become,

since the civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 60s and

the anti-war protests of the 1960s and 70s, a favorite

target for take-over, occupation or even destruction by

grouns protesting what they perceive as denials of what

she rep:cesents.

Tri the summer of 1964 a youny black library clerk

from New York named Robert Eteele Collier visited Fidel

Castro's Cuba. Inspired by the racial equality he saw

there, he returned to the city to organize the Black

Liberation Front. Early in 1965 he and three other members of the group decided to make a forceful statement

about discrimination against blacks in the United States

by blowing up the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell in

Philadelphia, and the Washington Monument. After scouting the statue, the conspirators concluded that it would

be easy to break the locked door that led into the fortytwo-foot-long torch-bearing arm. There they would plant

sticks of dynamite and in one blast, as they put it,

render the "damned old bitch" headless and torchless.

They contacted a woman who was a member of a Quebec separatist society. She agreed to bring the necessary

explosives from Montreal to New York. What the plotters

did not know was that one of them was a New York City

police undercover agent, assigned to infiltrate the

militant front. This agent kept the local police, FBI

and Royal Canadian Mounted Police alerted to the plans,

and on February 16, 1965, FBI agents and New York City

police arrested the would-be bombers and confiscated

their dynamite. In June they were found guilty, the men

sentenced to prison terms of ten years, the Canadian

woman to a term of five. These sentences were later

reduced to five years for the men and a suspended sentence and deportation for the woman.12

Tim MacCormick of New Jersey and fourteen other

members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, on the

afternoon of December 26, 1971, arrived on Liberty Island

by the Circle Line boat along with other tourists. But,

when the last return ship to Manhattan sailed that evening, the veterans were not aboard. Instead, just before

closing time, they hid among the.exhibit partitions,

building materials, and storage closets which were lying

about the monument's base while work was being finished

on the American Museum of Immigration. When NPS personnel

made their 7:30 evening check-up of the statue, they found

that the veterans had seized control of the landmark and

barricaded the three ground floor entrances. The men

13

20
inside refused to speak to or admit any Park Service people, but on the door they posted a typewritten statement

addressed to President Richard M. Nixon:

Each Vietnam veteran who has barricaded himself

within this international symbol of liberty has

for many years rationalized his attitude to

war....We can no longer tolerate the war in

Southeast Asia....Mr. Nixon, you set the date

[for leaving Vietnam], we'll evacuate.13

On December 27, twenty-one National Park police flew

to Liberty Island from Washington where they were joined

by New York City police and Coast Guardsmen. These security forces stood by while the government attempted to

reach a peaceful compromise with the occupiers. They were

told that they would be permitted to picket and protest

on the island if they would simply vacate the statue,

allowing it to reopen to visitors. The veterans rejected

the offer, flew the United States flag upside down from

the statue's crown, and waited. Law enforcement officers

also waited. During that day thousands of disappointed

tourists were told at the Battery that they could not go

out to the statue. Congresswoman Bella Abzug (DemocratNew York) sent a telephone message of support to the

demonstrators.

Meanwhile, United States Attorney Whitney North

Seymour, Jr., went before District Court Judge Lawrence

Pierce to request an injunction directing the veterans

to open the doors, leave the statue except during regular

visiting hours, and permit Park Service personnel and

tourists to enter. On the morning of December 28 Judge

Pierce issued a temporary restraining order, instructing

the protestors to leave the statue "forthwith." Two

hours later, after conferring with their lawyers, the

veterans removed the barricades from the entrances and

emerged with "clenched fists raised." They had cleaned

up their debris and caused no significant damage to the

property. The monument was reopened to the public, with

the first ferry-load of visitors arriving at 2:15 that

afternoon.

Tim MacCormick issued a statement to the press

explaining why they had picked this particular target:

The reason we chose the Statue of Liberty is

that since we were children, the statue has

been analogous in our minds with freedom and

an America we love.

1 4 21
Then we went to fight a war in the name

of freedom. We saw that freedom is a selective expression allowed only to those who are

white and maintain the status quo.

Until this symbol again takes on the

meaning it was intended to have, we must continue our demonstrations....14

In April 1974, twenty members of a radical student

organization, the Attica Brigade, copied the example of

the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Barricading themselves inside the statue, they protested social injustice

in the United States and called for the ouster of President

Nixon. They finally left the monument when a force of

twenty National Park Police walked toward the barred doors

with the intention of breaking in. No one was injured,

nor was there any property damage. At a later news conference a spokesman for the protestors proclaimed that

the statue is "a facade put up to make people believe

that the ideals of democracy actually exist."15

Two years after the Attica Brigade sit-in, the Vietnam

Veterans Against the War were back. On June 6, 1976, they

occupied the statue, and on the following day, when they

refused to comply with a court order to leave, NPS police

arrested and removed them. Again, the statue escaped

with minimal damage.18

On February 15, 1977, dissident Iranians staged

the first of several take-overs of the statue.17 Protesting the lack of freedom in their country under the

Shah, they held the lady in the harbor for five"hours.

When an injunction was issued, the Iranians left voluntarily. The government filed no chargcs against the

demonstrators, who agreed to pay $310 for minor damage

they had caused to the monument.18

In October of the same year, it was the turn of

Puerto Rican national;_sts. Twenty-nine members of the

New York Committee to Free the Puerto Rican Nationalist

Prisoners seized control of the statue and draped a

Puerto Rican flag from its crown. The protestors demanded

independence for their Caribbean island, an end to discrimination against Puerto Ricans in the United States,

and freedom for all of their compatriots in prison. The

demonstrazors ignored a court injunction to vacate and

after eight and one-half hours, the National Park Police

forced their way into the statue to arrest them. No one

was injurel in the confrontation, but about $4,000 worth

15

22
of property damage occurred. The protestors subsequently

paid fines of $100 each for their parts in the takeover.I9

Every year, along with and in addition to the seizures of the site, Park Service personnel on Liberty

Island have received a number of bomb threats to the

statue. There were, for instance, four such warnings

in 1976 and nine in 1977. While thee scares have almost

always proved to be idle threats, the NPS has felt it

could not ignore them. On receipt of a bomb threat park

employees would-immediately evacuate all visitors and

personnel from the monument and gently but firmly "herd"

them to the boat docking area. The superintendent or

other park employees would notify the FBI and harbor

police as well as city authorities, although the New York

City police department bomb squad would not go out to

Liberty Island unless a suspicious object was spotted.20

On one occasion bombers struck without warning. At

7:30 on the evening of June 3, 1980, a time-delay device

blew up in the Statue of Liberty Story Room, within the

base of the monument, destroying a large share of its

exhibits and a portion of the ceiling. Fortunately, no

one was hurt since the explosives went off after closing

time, but some $18,000 worth of damage was sustained.

FBI investigators believed the perpetrators were Croatian

terrorists seeking independence for Croatia from Yugoslavia,

though no arrests were made.

The NPS responded to the bombing with increased

security measures. For the remainder of that summer two

additional Park police officers and two bomb-sniffing

dogs, as well as a mechanical bomb detector, were stationed at Liberty Island. The public-address and the

intrusion systems were also upgraded. In the following

year the owners of two New Jersey dog kennels donated to

the STLI National Monument a golden retriever specially

trained to detect explosives. Since its acquisition,

this dog has accompanied park rangers on their periodic

searches.21

As of 1982 the area of the statue that was bombed

still awaited rehabilitation. Personnel from the park

and the NPS's Harpers Ferry Center (where museum exhibits

are designed and created) wrestled with the tough problems

of how to arrange displays in such a way as not to

interfere with the large crowds that congregate in that

space to await the elevator that carries them to the top

of the pedestal, and how to avoid creating small openings,

crevices and crannies in which some future terrorist

could conceal explosive devices.22

16
The overwhelming majority of those who arrived on

Liberty Island, of course, had no wish to harm or seize

the statue, nor to demonstrate on behalf of any cause or

movement. Most visitors came to the famous landmark

because of the beauty and awesome size of the statue, the

impressive symbolism surrounding it, the challenge of

climbing its narrow stairways, the fine views that the

island and statue afford of the Manhattan skyline and the

surrounding harbor, and the pleasant ferry trip out and

back. In fact, a visit to the statue has come to be

regarded as one of the must-see tourist sights in New York,

along with the Empire State Building and the United

Nations. A trend toward steadily increasing visitation

has proceeded ever since the monument came under the

jurisdiction of the NPS. From the 1920s through the

1950s, the numbers making the trip to see the lady in the

harbor yearly rose from approximately 300,000 to over

750,000. By the mid-1960s, annual visits exceeded 1 million, and by the early 1980s, surpassed 1.5 million.23

As the statue has become ever more popular with

tourists, so it has also attracted much attention from

the media: periodicals, radio, film, and television.

Producers often want to use the statue as an incidental

setting. They have requested and usually received permission to bring camera crews and equipment to the island

for shooting on location. In April 1963, for instance,

New York/New Jersey public television station WNET/Channel

13 had video crews present, working on one of their educational programs; while in June 1967, a commercial station

filmed background scenes for a then-popular TV comedy

series called "That Girl," starring Marlo Thomas. On

September 29, 1975, Wolper Productions filmed scenes for

a movie, with Shirley MacLaine, on the promenade leading

to the statue. Alistair Cooke's British Broadcasting

Corporation production, "America," ends with a shot of

Cooke on the statue's torch balcony, this being one of

the few times a filmmaker was ever allowed into the

torch, which can only be reached by narrow, hazardous

stairs.

In September 1973, Paramount Pictures requested

the right to film scenes on Ellis Island for the motion

picture "Godfather II." After permission was granted,

the producers also asked the NPS to close off a portion

of Liberty Island to visitors for a short period. The

cameramen wanted to shoot footage of the statue as seen

from Ellis Island, without having people in 1970s dress

intruding on what in the film was a scene purportedly

occurring in the early 20th century. Despite some

17

24
initial reluctance, the NPS agreed to accommodate the filmmakers. Another problem, however, became apparent: the

new terrace beneath the Statue of Liberty, created by the

American Museum of Immigration, would also have to be

blocked out since it did not exist at the time depicted

in the movie. Ultimately, Paramount Pictures decided the

obstacles presented by the run-down condition of Ellis

Island and the changes at Liberty Island were too great

to handle, and no actual on-site shots were included in

the film.24

Other representatives of the media have wished to

make the statue itself the focus of attention. In October

1956, WCBS-TV televised the Bill Leonard show, "Eye on

New York," live from the statue in connection with the

70th anniversary ceremony for the monument. When, in

August 1958, the City of New York was preparing a public

relations movie for distribution throughout the United

States and abroad, it sent camera crews to the island,

where they filmed the scenes that opened and closed the

short. During April and May 1965, staff writers and photographers from the National Geographic were on Liberty

Island gathering material for an article about the lady

in the harbor, being written by former director of the

NPS Conrad Wirth, which was to appear in the October 1965

issue of the magazine. Also, in April 1965, NPS personnel

at the statue assisted the Educational Broadcasting Corporation in preparing a program about the famous landmark that

was to be eart of a series entitled "America's Historic

Shrines."2b

Faced with this considerable media interest in the

statue and in other NPS-administered properties, the Park

Service developed policies regarding filming and recording.

The NPS was aware of its responsibility as a government

agency with respect to the exercise of freedom of speech

and press through film, radio, and television, as well as

through the printed and spoken word. It took the position, therefore, that "amateur photographers and bona

fide newsreel and news television photographers and soundmen" were not required to obtain a filming permit or other

permission to carry on their activities at any national

park, monument or historic site. Commercial motion

picture projects, involving the on-location use of

casts, crews and equipment, however, were to be handled

differently. The production company wishing to use the

NPS facility had to apply to the superintendent of the

area for a permit and obtain the approval of both the

park and the regional directors. The content of the film

was irrelevant to the granting of a permit; the only

grounds for denial were potential damage to the natural

18

25
or cultural resources at the site, unreasonable curtailment of or interference with the right of the public to

enjoy the area during filming activities, or undue burden

upon the supervising staff in the affected region. The

superintendent might also require the motion picture or

television company to post a bond "in an amount equal to

the estimated cost to the Government of clean-up or

restoration operations that would occur in the event the

permittee failed to perform."26

Rapidly increasing visitation to the Statue of

Liberty and to other national parks, monuments and historic sites, as well as heightened media interest, produced more than just a policy on filming. The 1950s

through 1970s saw changes in NPS administrative organization, many new areas added to the national park system,

augmented interpretative and security activities, and the

undertaking of a major program of building, improvement

and rehabilitation of facilities, much of it coming under

what the NPS called "MISSION 66."

As new historic sit_es and monuments were acquired in

the New York City area, th,a superintendent of the Statue

of Liberty National Monw'c.mt was put in charge of these

as well as the lady in t i harbor. By 1952, for example,

Newell Foster, then stY: ',ntendent, also administered

Federal Hal) and Castic aton. His responsibilities

had grown by 1964 to enc 'M. ,ss seven sites: Statue of

Liberty, Federal Hall, Castle Clinton, the General Grant

and Hamilton Grange National Memorials, and the Theodore

Roosevelt Birthplace and Sagamore Hill National Historic

Sites. In January of that year the Park Service formally

recognized illese seven properties as an administrative

unit known as the New York City Group. When Foster retired

in August 1964, the service named John A. Townsley as

superintendent of the NYC Group, and he in turn appointed

management assistants to administer and report on the statue and the other component parts of the group. Lester

McClanahan became management assistant for the Statue of

Liberty.

Through the 1960s the number of sites comprising the

group continued to grow. Ellis Island became a part of

the Statue of Liberty National Monument and of the NYC

Group in 1965. In 1967, the Fire Island National Seashore

was added and the name of the group changed to the Fire

Island National Seashore and New York City NPS Group.

At the beginning of 1967, Henry G. Schmidt replaced

Townsley as superintendent of the Fire Island National

Seashore and NYC NPS Group. Three assistant superintendents served under him: one for Fire Island, one for the

19

2
Manhattan sites, and one for the Statue of Liberty and

Ellis Island. Thus, Lester McClanahan's title changed

from management assistant to assistant superintendent of

the Statue of Liberty National Monument.

By the early 1970s, however, this expanding administrative body was proving too big and cumbersome, which

led to its split. Fire Island became a separate administrative entity, with the reduced New York City Group

assuming the name for a time of New York District Office.

Reverting to the name New York City Group, the unit,

under Superintendent William Hendrickson, in 1974-75,

once again reshuffled positions internally. There were

now three unit managers responsible for and reporting to

the group superintendent: one for the Statue of Liberty

and Ellis Island, one for the Manhattan sites, and one

for Sagamore Hill (Fig. 2).

With the stepped-up activity involved in opening

Ellis Island to the public, the nation's bicentennial

celebration, and the operation of the American Museum of

Immigration, as well as other developments, the New York

City Group again appeared to be unwieldy. In August 1976,

the group was dissolved; the Statue of Liberty and Ellis

Island became an independent unit with its own superintendent, who reported without intermediaries to the

director of the North Atlantic Regional Office.

While these administrative changes were occurring

on the local scene, reshuffling was also taking place

within the Park Service nationally. Thus, until the early

1960s the Statue of Liberty and other members of the NYC

NPS Group were included in Region V of the NPS and reported to its director. Region V was redesignated the

Northeast Regional Office in the early 1960s. In 1974,

the North Atlantic Region was established, with the former

Northeast Regional area divided between it and the also

newly created Mid-Atlantic Region. The Statue of Liberty

National Monument was included in the North Atlantic

Region.27

Regardless of the changing administrative arrangements fr-r the statue, the pressure of steadily mounting

visitation necessitated that the Park Service rehabilitate, improve and expand the facilities on Liberty

Island. During fiscal years 1947 through 1957, Congress

appropriated and approved about $1.3 million for this

purpose. NPS used the money to remove the dilapidated

East Pier, install walks, and improve the West Pier (Fig.

3). The statue received a new heating system and some

interior structural repairs. New utility lines were laid

20

27
between the mainland and the island, while the concession

building (containing a restaurant) and the administrative

center were remodeled.

These modest improvements did not always impress

the public. One New York businessman, who wanted to see

much more done with the landmark, wrote to Senator Jacob

Javits (Republican-New York) in 1958, "The Statue of

Liberty badly needs a 'face-lifting.' Thousands of

people go over there on every good day and all that

greets them is a pair of iron stairs, a sleazy-looking

island and a very bad restaurant."25

Conrad L. Wirth, director of NPS at the time, was

also not satisfied that the park system was adequately

serving the growing volume of visito. In 1955, he

formulated "MISSION 66," a ten-year conservation program

aimed at replacing "outmoded and inadequate facilities

with physical improvements adequate for the expected

demands." The program was to be completed by 1966, the

50th anniversary of the establishment of the National

Park Service. In addition to physical repairs and improvements in the parks, monuments, and historic sites, the

project also called for increased staffing in the fields

of protection and visitor services. To carry out this

plan, Wirth called upon Congress to appropriate some $800

million.29

For the Statue of Liberty, the principal MISSION 66

project was construction and development of the American

Museum of Immigration in its base (which will be discussed in the following chapters). Besides that undertaking, improvements included enlargement of the West

Pier and construction of a shelter for visitors waiting

for the boat, paving the existing concrete plaza and

walkways with ornamental bluestone, and erecting markers

and signs on the perimeter walk surrounding the statue

to call attention to the history of Liberty and Ellis

Islands and other important sites visible from the path.

All but completion of the museum were accomplished by

the end of 1966. Thereafter, routine maintenance, such

as repairs to the beawall, periodic rehabilitation of the

docks and painting of the statue's interior continued.30

As the country and NPS prepared to celebrate the

nation's 200th anniversary, activity quickened once again

at Liberty Island. On May 24, 1976, the park staff opened

their major bicentennial exhibition, "The Lady in the

Harbor." This consisted of photographs, drawings, paintings, and artifacts on display in the statue's base,

relating the story of Frederic Auguste Bartholdi and the

21

23
creation of the colossal monument. By the time the show

closed on November 8, some 400,000 persons had viewed it.

Beginning at dusk on July 4, the NPS, in cooperation with

Macy's Department Store and Walt Disney World, launched a

fireworks display from both Liberty and Ellis Islands,

which lit up the night sky and silhouetted the statue for

millions of onlookers.31

As one of its bicentennial projects, STLI National

Monument staff proposed to upgrade the system for illuminating the landmark. The statue had first been lighted

in 1916. In 1911, a new system was installed, and in

1945, it was upgraded with sixteen mercury-vapor lamps

added to the floodlighting system and six vapor lamps

placed in the torch. But with the passage of time and

the advent of brighter, energy-efficient lamps, the

system had become obsolete. Alfred V. Colabella, a

consulting engineer for the NPS, became supervisor for

the proposed lighting project. He contacted the Syracusebased Crouse-Hinds Company, an electrical f. a, which

had provided lighting systems for the Lincoln and

Jefferson Memorials and the Washington Monument. The

company sent experts to present specifications and sample

floodlighting equipment to test various illuminating concepts. NPS requests for money for other bicentennial

projects, unfortunately, led the Washington office to cut

the lighting plan out of the budget. When the CrouseHinds Company learned of this, the firm offered to donate

the new lamps as a gift. The details were spelled out

in a memorandum of understanding between the Department

of the Interior and the company, drawn up in May 1976 by

Denis P. Galvin, acting director of the North Atlantic

Region.

On July 3, 1976, the new lamps were switched on for

the first time. They threw four times as much light on

the statue as the earlier system, while using 33 percent

less energy. Inside the torch, high-pressure sodium

lamps, rich in yellow, simulated a flame. Within the

crown, mercury lamps provided a blue-green effect. Metal

halide lamps bathed the remainder of the statue in white

light, while lamps on the pedestal contained a blend of

yellow sodium and white halide to reveal the warm color

of the granite masonry. In the late 1970s, however, to

further conserve energy, there was a cutback in this

illumination.32

By the late 1970s, then, when the lighting system

was fully utilized, the lady in the harbor was beautifully illuminated, the grounds surrounding her were well

landscaped, and the promenades leading to her and encir22
cling the island were attractively paved and bore informative markers. But new, more serious problems had developed. One of these was severe congestion within the

monument. Park personnel have observed that about 50

percent of the people arriving on Liberty Island wish to

climb to the statue's crown. The capacity of the statue

for persons climbing to the crown is approximately 300 to

375 per hour, which represents only about 30 percent of

the number of visitors to Liberty Island on an average

summer day. As a result, individuals often have to wait

in line for thirty minutes or more to use the elevator at

the base that carries them to the sixth floor. Then,

they have to form another line that proceeds slowly from

the sixth-floor landing toward the foot of the double

stairway that leads to the crown. Each of these stairways is only wide enough for single-file, one-way ascent

or descent. The rate of movement up and down is controlled

by the slowest climber and by how long the average visitor

stays in the observation area in the crown. On many days,

the whole procedure may take several hours, while the

interior of the statue, packed with people, becomes

intolerably warm.

Park personnel worried that another problem might be

developing, as well. For almost one hundred years the

statue has been exposed to the corrosive salt air of the

harbor, rain, snow, freezing cold and summer heat. Had

the copper skin, the underlying structure and the connectors between the two been dangerously weakened or damaged?

The answer to that question could only be determined by

thorough engineering inspection and study.33

At the beginning of the 1980s, the NPS was seeking

ways to improve access to the crown, and architects and

engineers had started technical studies of the monument's

condition. These activities and the individuals and

organizations involved in them will be discussed in the

concluding chapter of this book, "Preparing for the

Centennials of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island."

23

.30
NOTES

1New York Times, April 9, 1983.

2Speech of John A. Krout, vice president and provost,

Columbia University, at Annual Statue of Liberty Anniversary Exercises, October 28, 1959, p. 2, Duplicates File,

Artifact Room; Mission 66 for Statue of Liberty National

Monument, pp. 1-3, A9815, Mission 66 STLI NM File,

Bayonne Records Center of the National Archives.

3Memorandum to Regional Director,_ Region 5, from

Thomas M. Pitkin, supervising park historian, STLI NM,

October 16, 1959, AMI Museum Exhibit Activities, 1959, 60,

61 File, Drawer 6, Artifact Room; Emma Lazarus, "The New

Colossus."

4New York World, as quoted in Memorandum to Regional

Director, Region 5, from Thomas Pitkin, October 16, 1959.

5U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, Statue of

Liberty National Monument: Its Origins, Development and

Administration, by Walter Hugins, 1958, pp. 75-76.

8H.J. Res. 447, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., May 12, 1952.

7S.J. Res. 114, 84th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 2, 1956.

Signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower August 3, 1956.

8Jersey Joursnal, October 4, 1965; Pete Hamill, "Miss

Liberty's Day in the Sun," New York Post, October 4, 1965;

Washington Post, December 25, 1965.

9The FBI, always worried about the presumed threat

to national security of what it saw as left-wing, radical

groups in the 1950s and 60s, regularly sent its agents to

attend the annual ceremonies of the Emma Lazarus Federation to take note of who attended. See N. H. Foster,

Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Reports, STLI NM, each

July for 1950s and July 1962.

10N. H. Foster, Supt's Monthly Narrative Report, April

1961; L. Garcia-Curbelo, Unit Manager, Monthly Highlights,

March 1975.

11Joye Forgaard to Supt., STLI NM, June 24, 1968,

Supt. Henry G. Schmidt, Fire Island and NYC NPS Grp.,

August 1, 1968, Museum and Exhibit Activities Planning Coop.

Agreement, AMI 1968 File, Drawer 6, Artifact Room.

24

31
12Sally Hammond, "They Take Miss Liberty Seriously,"

New York Post, December 29, 1,971; Time, February 26, 1965,

pp. 22-23; J. A. Townsley, supt., NYC NPS Grp., Monthly

Narrative Report, June 1965; L. McClanahan, acting supt.,

NYC NPS Grp., Monthly Narrative Report, November 1965.

13memo to Director, NY District, from James F.

Batman, supt., STLI NM, January 18, 1972; Vietnam Veterans

Against the War, Inc., "Operation Peace on Earth: An

Open Letter to President Nixon," W34, Vietnam Veterans

Against the War File, Storage Area, Liberty Island.

14memo to Director, NY Dist., from J. F. Batman,

January 18, 1972; Long Island Press, December 28, 1971;

New York Times, December 28, 1971; New York Post,

December 28, 1971; New York Daily News, December 29,

1971; New York Times, December 29, 1971.

15Newsday, April 20, 1974.

16David L. Moffitt, Supt's Annual Report, STLI NM,

1976.

17Iranians occupied the statue two more times. The

November 1979 take-over coincided with Iran's seizure of

hostages at the U. S. Embay in Teheran in response to the

admission of the deposed Shah to the United States for

medical treatment. See D. Moffitt, Supt's Annual Report,

1979.

18D. Moffitt, Supt's Annual Report, 1977.

195t. Louis Globe Democrat, October 26, 1977; D.

Moffitt, Supt's. Annual Report, 1977.

20D. Moffitt, Supt's Annual Report, 1976, 1977; U.S.

Department of the Interior, NPS, Management Report, STLI NM,

October 1975, Statue of Liberty Archives, Vertical File,

Office of AMI Curator.

21D. Moffitt, Supt's Annual Report, 1980; "Exhibits

Destroyed by Bomb at STLI NM," June 3, 1980, Acting Chief,

NARO, Duplicates File, Artifact Room; Memo from Regional

Director, NARO, to Deputy Director, NPS, Attn. Ann Bowman,

June 26, 1980, A-2623 (002), Duplicates File; U.S. Department of Interior, NPS, "News Release," November 6, 1981,

Duplicates File.

22Trip Report of Staff Curator, NARO, to Regional

Director, NARO, October 23, 1980, Duplicates File.

25

32
23"Statue of Liberty Annual Visitation Figures,"

Adm. Building, Liberty Island. For exact yearly attendance figures from 1952 through 1982 see appendix of this

book.

24N. H. Foster, Supt's Monthly Narrative Report,

April 1963; Henry G. Schmidt, Supt. Fire Island and NYC

NPS Grp., Monthly Narrative Report, June 1967; Luis

Garcia-Curbelo, unit manager, STLI NM, Bi-Weekly Highlights,

September 21-30, 1975; Ronald Colby, Paramount Pictures,

to James F. Batman, supt., STLI NM, September 14, 1973,

Ellis Island: Filming and Televising Of File, Drawer 2,

Adm. Building, Liberty Island; Written comments of Paul

Weinbaum, former curator of American Museum of Immigration,

to author, April 4, 1984.

25Foster, Supt's Monthly Narrative Report, October

1956, and August 1958; L. F. McClanahan, acting supt. of

NYC NPS Grp., Monthly Narrative Report, April and May

1965.

28Memo from Gary Everhardt, director NPS, to WASO and

Field Directorate, June 13, 1975 and Memo from Denis P.

Galvin, assoc. regional director, Park System Management,

to Supts., North Atlantic Region, July 22, 1975, Duplicates

File, Artifact Room.

27Management Appraisal Survey, 1963, A6423, Bayonne

Records Center; Draft for Master Plan of STLI NM, July

1964, Planning Statue of Liberty File, Drawer 1, Artifact

Room; Lawrence J. Zollar, Acting Supt., NYC NPS Grp.,

Monthly Narrative Report; January 1967; Memo from William

H. Henderickson, supt. NY Grp. to Regional Director,

July 9, 1975, Duplicates File; D. L. Moffitt, supt. STLI

NM, Supt's Annual Report, 1976, Drawer 1, Adm. Building.

For a listing of the superintendents, unit managers,

assistant superintendents, and management assistants of

the Statue of Liberty National Monument and their dates

of office, between 1952 and 1982, see the appendix of

this book.

28Under Secretary of Interior Hatfield Chilson to

Senator Jacob K. Javits, June 5, 1958, and Leonard Dreyfuss

to Jacob K. Javits, May 8, 1958, Museum and Exhibit

Activities (AMI) 1958 File, Storage Area, Liberty Island.

29U. S. Department of the Interior, NPS, "Questions

and Answers on MISSION 66," A-9815, Conservation and

Preservation of Areas for Public Enjoyment File, Bayonne

Records Center.
30MISSI0N 66 for the Statue of Liberty NM, A9815,

MISSION 66 STLI NM File, Bayonne Records Center; Minnie C.

Stein, acting supt., to Lillie G. Patterson, November 27,

1961, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities, 1959-63 File,

Storage Area; J. A. Townsley, supt. NYC NPS Grp., Monthly

Narrative Report, July 1965 and June 1966; Henry G.

Schmidt, Supt. Fire Island and NYC NPS Grp., Monthly

Narrative Report, March 1967; D. L. Moffitt, Supt's

Annual Report, 1977, 78, 80.

31D. L. Moffitt, Supt's. Annual Reports, 1976; U. S.

Dept. of Interior, NPS, News Release, June 20, 1976,

Duplicates File.

32News Bureau, Grey & Davis, Inc., NY, Press Release,

June 23, 1976, Colabella-Lighting STLI, Gray-blue folder,

Storage Area; Hugins, p. 62; Written comments of Paul

Weinbaum to author, April 4, 1984.

33U. S. Dept. of the Interior, NPS, Analysis of Alternatives (Environment Assessment) for the General Management

Planr December 1980, STLI NM, NY/NJ, p. 57; U. S. Dept.

of the Interior, NPS General Management Plan, September

1982, STLI NM, NY/NJ, p. 35.

27

3 4
CHAPTER 2

A PROJECT IS PROPOSED AND FINANCED

The American Museum of Immigration originated out of

the attempt by Robert Moses, head of the Triborough Bridge

and Tunnel Authority, to destroy Castle Clinton. When

Moses announced his intention to demolish the historic

fort to make way for a Brooklyn-Battery Bridge, he ran

into determined opposition. The American Scenic and

Historic Preservation Society, incorporated in 1895 and

numbering among its members a goodly sprinkling of New

York's old, upper-class elite, spearheaded the drive to

save Castle Clinton. In the end, the intervention of

two presidents was required to preserve the fort: FDR

stopped the bridge and Eisenhower declared the fort a

national monument.1

In 1951, William H. Baldwin, one of the trustees of

the Preservation Society, proposed an imaginative new

use for the site. He suggested housing a museum in the

fort, which would depict the story of the millions of

immigrants who had flocked to the United States in search

of liberty and opportunity. The location seemed highly

appropriate since Castle Garden, as it was then named,

served as a processing station through which some seven

million persons had entered the country from 1855 to

1890.

Baldwin, along with other members of the Preservation Society, was also concerned about the cold war with

Communism that loomed large in the political rhetoric

of the 1950s. An immigration museum stressing the

theme of unity out of diversity "could renew our faith

and strengthen America's role in the worldwide struggle

for men's minds and aspirations."2

Baldwin won the backing of other trustees and officers

of the Preservation Society, including its president,

Alexander Hamilton, the great-oreat grandson of America's

first secretary of the treasury. This group approached

the National Park Service with their idea. A series of

meetings followed to discuss the proposal, at which NPS

2 8

35
was represented by Dr. Francis S. Ronalds, superintendent of Morristown National Historic Park; Newell Foster,

superintendent of the Statue of Liberty; and Regional

Director Ronald F. Lee.

These NPS staff member3 argued against development

of an immigration museum at Castle Clinton on the grounds

that such an installation would interfere with restoration

of the site as an historic fort; in addition, they pointed

out that the shape and size of the building made it unsuitable for exhibits of any magnitude. The group suggested

locating such a museum at the Statue of Liberty.

Ronalds, Foster, and Lee claimed that the base of the

statue had never been properly completed. According to the

original plans of architect Richard M. Hunt, the monumental

figure of Liberty was to rest on a stepped terrace, bounded

by the walls of star-shaped Fort Wood. (Actually, Hunt prepared several designs for the pedestal, and the American

Committee for the Statue of Liberty, in the 1880s, chose

another Hunt plan, calling for a smaller base that did not

fill the entire fort area.) Ronalds, Foster, and Lee believed

lack of money had forced the Committee to settle for the

less attractive design, and the NPS had never been able to

remedy the situation due to its limited funds. Consequently,

the intervening space between the fort walls and the statue's

pedestal had been and remained filled with a mound of earth

on which some grass was planted.

The NPS officials reasoned that placing an immigration

museum in the base of the statue would serve a double purpose.

The area under the existing pedestal and under the excavated

earth mound, bounded by the fort walls, would provide an ample

and fitting home for the museum with at least two floors for

exhibits. "The foot of our great symbol of the American Ideal

was the most appropriate place," noted their report, "for presenting the fruits of that ideal." At the same time, building the museum in that space would make it possible to complete the superior, stepped-terrace design from among Hunt's

original plans.

Finally, in a meeting at Castle Clinton in April 1952,

Lee, Ronalds, Foster, and NPS historians James Holland and

Ned Burns, along with Baldwin, Walter Binger, Gardner Osborn

and others from the Preservation Society, decided unanimously

that "Castle Clinton was not physically adapted to the plan

but that the Statue of Liberty offered a much more exciting

locale for such an Immigration Museum...."3

For a time, the Preservation Society continued as the

chief sponsor of the museum project, entering into a contract

29
with Baldwin and Mermey (William Baldwin's public relations firm) to publicize the undertaking so that financial

backers could be attracted. To broaden the appeal,

Baldwin and other officers of the Preservation Society

formed a National Committee for the American Museum of

Immigration in March 1953.

A delegation of the committee, headed by industrialist Pierre S. du Pont, 3rd, called upon President

Eisenhower at the White House on the morning of August

10, 1954.4 After outlining their plan to him and explaining that they had the warm encouragement of Secretary of

the Interior Douglas McKay, they received the President's

hearty endorsement:

This is a nation of nations. Our forefathers came here from all the countries of the

world....United as one people we have created

new freedom, and new opportunity for all. There

is no story like it in history, and the idea of

telling it at the foot of the Statue of Liberty

is a splendid one.5

Additional backing for the project came from Senator

John 0. Pastore of Rhode Island and Representative Brook

Hays who introduced a Joint Resolution in Congress to

change the name of the Statue's home from Bedloe's to

Liberty Island. This should be accomplished, the resolution proclaimed, because the meaning of the monument was

"to be made more billiant by the establishment, at its

foot, of the American Museum of Immigration as the gift

of individual Americans to the American people for

all future generations." Congress finally passed and

Eisenhower signed the measure in the summer of 1956.6

Encouraged by the support they received in Washington and favorable publicity in the press, the national

committee of the AMI, chaired by retired Major General

Ulysses S. Grant, III (grandson of the eighteenth President of the United States), decided to incorporate as

a non-profit, educational organization. The American

Museum of Immigration, Inc., was chartered by the State

of New York on January 28, 1955, for the purpose of constructing and developing a museum at the base of the

Statue of Liberty in cooperation with the National Park

Service. Further, the corporation was entitled to solicit

and hold funds from the public for their project.7 The

new group took over from the Preservation Society all

monies and oblir:ations of the museum undertaking, and

negotiated a reutsed contract with Baldwin and Mermey,

appointing the firm public relations counsel for the AMI

at a retainer of $3,000 per month, plus expenses.8

30

37
Meanwhile, Congress laid the legal groundwork for

cooperation with this and other private groups by passing,

in August 1955, the New York City National Shrines Advisory

Board Act (69 Stat. 632). This legislation instructed the

secretary of the interior to appoint a board of citizens

"to render advice" on the rehabilitation and the preservation of historic properties in the New York area (Federal

Hall, Castle Clinton, and the Statue of Liberty) and

authorized him "to accept donations of funds" for the

purpose.9

Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay and the AMI,

Inc., signed a cooperative agreement on October 7, 1955,

which more precisely stated the terms of the partnership.

It provided that the AMI would "conduct a national campaign

to raise funds for the cost of the design and construction"

of the museum and for an endowment fund for its future

use. The NPS and Department of the Interior would plan,

design, build, and administer the museum with "the advice

and counsel of the AMI." Much of the consultation would

occur at periodic meetings of a Joint Development Committee. That body first met in Washington, D.C., on May 14,

1956, at which time it was decided that its membership

should include the secretary of the interior, the director, and other designated personnel of the NPS, selected

officers of the AMI, and three public members, one of

whom should be president of the American Scenic and

Historic Preservation Society. The trustees of the

AMI also created an Historians Committee, chaired by

Dr. John A. Krout of Columbia University; among its

members were such respected scholars as Oscar Handlin of

Harvard, Theodore Blegen of the University of Minnesota,

and Carl Wittke of Case Western Reserve University. The

committee defined as its role advising the Joint Development Committee on the themes and content of the museum

exhibits. However, the "final decision with respect to

specific displays" rested with the NPS."

Even before the AMI, Inc., and the National Park

Service signed their cooperative agreement, the backers

of the museum began to organize their fundraising campaign. In April 1955, the AMI opened its national

headquarters at 270 Park Avenue in New York in space

donated by business executive William Zeokendorf. The

professional staff it hired proceeded to implement the

preliminary operations plan, drafted by Baldwin and

Mermey. 11

The plan called for initially soliciting large

donations as seed money to attract further funds. Chairman of the AMI Executive Committee du Pont contributed

31

38
$50,000 and lent another $50,000 to underwrite administrative expenses. The other trustees pledged similar or

lesser amounts. During 1955-56, such business and labor

organizations as Baker and Co., Inc., of New Jersey, Circle

Line-Statue of Liberty Ferry, the International Ladies

Garment Workers' Union, and the Sidney Hillman Foundation

agreed to become group sponsors, each donating between

$5,000 and $7,500.12

Simultaneously, national headquarters attempted to

organize campaign committees in twenty key cities which

contained the bulk of the nation's population. These

included Cleveland, Chicago, St. Louis, New York,

Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. Baldwin,

Grant, and other AMI leaders traveled to these cities

to persuade prominent local citizens to head the groups.

Among the chairmen they recruited were steel executive

Benjamin F. Fairless in Pittsburgh, Major General L. J.

Sverdrup in St. Louis, department store magnate Cyril

Magnin in San Francisco, and motion picture executive

Samuel G. Engel in Los Angeles. National headquarters

aided these committees by supplying them with promotional

literature and, in several instances, hired local professional fund-raisers to work with them.

Finally, the AMI contacted various national and

ethnic organizations to obtain both their endorsement for

the museum and promises that they would raise money from

their chapters all over the country. Early successes in

this field came when the Ladies Auxiliary of the Veterans

of Foreign Wars voted to collect $50,000 from its members;

B'nai Britht, Catholic War Veterans, and the LithuanianAmerican Council, among others, also agreed to conduct

drives within their groups.13

Meanwhile, both national headquarters and some of

the AMI community committees sought to popularize the

project with as much media coverage as possible. On

December 9, 1955, du Pont appeared on Edward R. Murrow's

"Person to Person" show on CBS television to discuss the

planned museum and appeal for contributions. A short

film made by 20th Century Fox, entitled "Lady of the

Golden Door," informed a large audience about the project

in 1956 when it played at the Roxy Theater in New York

and many other movie houses. Du Pont and United Steel

Workers President David J. McDonald (co-chairman of the

national public appeal) were interviewed on Ed Sullivan's

CBS program on October 21, 1956. In June 1955 and in

1956 the AMI staged National Unity gatherings at the

Statue of Liberty to attract further publicity. The 1956

celebration featured movie stars such as Celeste Holm, a

32
speech by David Sarnoff of RCA, and a tree planting ceremony with representatives of thirty-seven ethnic groups,

many in their traditional costumes. The Chicago committee

even ran a "Goddess of Liberty" beauty contest to select

the girl who most nearly typified the ideals of freedom

and beauty symbolized by the statue. The winner would

receive a free trip to Paris, a modeling course, a "wardrobe fit for a goddess" and a movie screen-test.14

Unfortunately, the hoopla and other efforts did not

produce impressive financial results. By September 1956,

only 34 individuals had contributed $2,500 or more to the

museum; the AMI had hoped for at least 200 such founders

before initiating the formal national appeal. Only five

business corporations had donated $5,000 or more, not the

target number of 100. The foundations which commonly supported cultural and arts development had offered nothing,

and most of the community committees were costing more

to maintain than they were producing. As of November 1955,

national headquarters had sunk almost $18,000 into the

Chicago area and some $6,500 into Cleveland, with no cash

return. The most important metropolitan committee, New

York, was barely functioning because no one would volunteer to take the chairmanship. On the eve of what was

supposed to be the climax and final stage of the campaign,

the AMI had a balance sheet that showed a deficit of

approximately $117,000.15

Nonetheless, the organization pushed ahead bravely,

announcing that between October 28, 1956, and Thanksgiving

Day it would appeal to the American people for $5,000,000

to develop the museum. AMI kicked off Operation Unity,

as they dubbed the drive, with a celebration on Liberty

Island commemorating the 70th birthday of the statue's

dedication. A twenty-one-gun salute from Fort Jay on

Governors Island preceded an address by Secretary of

the Interior Fred A. Seaton and the lighting of a symbolic cardboard cake with the appropriate number of

candles.16

Operation Unity received many small donations,

including some from school children as far away as the

Marianas Islands. Labor support also grew, with $5,000

contributions from the Industrial Union Department of

the AFL-CIO, the International Brotherhood of Electrical

Workers, the Textile Workers Union, and several others.

As Thanksgiving approached, however, it was obvious that

the organization was not going to achieve its $5,000,000

goal. As of November 14, 1956, AMI had barely $50,000

over its expenses. To complicate the situation, national

headquarters received notice that the building it occupied

33

4 0
would be torn down by mid-December. Still, Baldwin

believed that given more time the drive would gather

momentum. He therefore recommeded to the Board of Trustees that Operation Unity be extended until at least

March 31, 1957. Zeckendorf offered new office space on

42nd Street, and so the Board decided to press on.17

Despite the renewed efforts, giving did not increase

significantly and administrative costs relentlessly

absorbed most of the funds. In an attempt to reorganize

and refocus Operation Unity, AMI terminated all paying

contracts with William Baldwin, who thereafter continued

as vice chairman of the national committee on a volunteer

basis. To supervise its staff, the AMI hired D. Kenenth

Rose, former vice president of John Price Jones, professional fund-raisers. Early in April, Rose and the Executive Committee wrote to each member of the Board of

Trustees, asking him or her to personally solicit funds

from five to twenty corporate, individual or foundation

prospects. Rose and the Executive Committee also tried

to recruit more businessmen with "good connections" to

sit on the Board of Trustees. Neither of these efforts

proved successful. Many of the trustees resented being

asked to act as individual fund-raisers, and only one

donation materialized. Rose, additionally, wrote to

Spyros Skouras, an AMI trustee and president of 20th

Century Fox, requesting that he obtath contributions from

movie stars.

All seemed to no avail. By the target deadline

March 31, 1957, AMI accounts showed receipts (including

pledges) since January 1955 of $882,823, and expenditures

of $643,689. In other words, the museum fund netted only

$239,137, indicating that administrative overhead had

consumed nearly 73 percent of the contributions. Word

from the field only heightened the gloom. The chairman

of the Cleveland committee, for example, reported

there were no more big gifts to be raised in his city:

"Cleveland must be written off for the moment."18

With growing desperation, the AMI leaders looked

to the federal goverLinent for assistance. As Rose put

it, they had to convince the Eisenhower Administration

of the "...importance of a successful AMI campaign to

America's prestige in the cold war. ..." Hoping it

would boost collections in the West, Grant invited Vice

President Richard M. Nixon to serve as honorary chairman

of the Southern California Citizens Committee for AMI.

In May 1957, Nixon consented to do so. On May 9, Grant,

du Pont, and Hamilton met with Under Secretary of the

Interior Hatfield Chilson and told him of their financial

34

41
situation. They implored Chilson to use the influence of

the department and the entire Eisenhower Administration

to talk some distinguished industrialist into chairing

the still leaderless New York committee and to recruit

another prominent executive to head a new AMI National

Corporations Committee aimed at obtaining sizable grants

from big business. The Under Secretary sympathized with

them and promised administration backing. Grant went so

far as to write to Eisenhower, asking him to become

honorary chairman of Operation Unity. This, however, the

President declined on the ground that it was his policy

not to head any private group.19

Even while the AMI Board members sought this help

from the Administration, they realized Operation Unity

could not be salvaged. At its May 28, 1957, meeting, the

Executive Committee voted to terminate the public appeal

as of June 30 "...in order not to spend any more of the

contributed monies on administrative expenses." Kenneth

Rose tendered his resignation. Plans were made to furlough almost all the remaining staff and to dispose of

the office furniture.

By the spring of 1957, du Pont, Grant, Hamilton and

the others had concluded that to keep faith with those

who had sent donations and to actually build and develop

a museum, they would have to explore additional means of

financing besides the free will gifts of the American people. On April 2, Grant wrote to Ronald Lee, then chief

of the Division of Interpretation of the NPS, asking the

following questions. First, under the 1955 New York City

National Shrines Advisory Board Act, did the federal

government have the authority to match the AMI's privately

donated funds with money appropriated by Congress? If

so, would the Service be willing to do that in order to

complete the museum? Second, could the NPS find tax dollars to finish the pedestal of the statue, allowing contributions of the AMI to go solely for preparation of the

interior for the museum and the design and contruction

of its exhibits?

Two weeks later, NPS Director Conrad Wirth answered

Grant's queries. The solicitor of the Department of

Interior had discovered that the 1955 law provided only

for federal matching funds for purposes of "rehabilitation" and "preservation" of Federal Hall, Castle Clinton

and the Statue of Liberty. In the solicitor's opinion

the museum was a development project and, therefore, not

covered under the act. Director Wirth wrote that the

department was prepared to remedy this difficulty by

requesting Congress to amend the existing statute to

35

42
include development, and he was hopeful of the outcome.

However, he cautioned, "This, of course, will take time."

Wirth also indicated that the service would be "glad

to explore with AMI the possibility..." of using tax monies rather than private donations to complete the pedestal.

On June 7, Hamilton met Wirth to discuss this idea more

fully. Subsequently, Wirth instructed the chief of the

Division of Design and Construction to prepare cost estimates for finishing the statue's base, including "all

excavation and rough construction work necessary to provide sufficient space" for the proposed museum. The

Director mentioned the job might be done with funds available for MISSION 66 (the ten-year program of the NPS to

improve, develop, and protect the scenic and historic

resources under its care and make them adequate to serve

the steadily increasing numbers of visitors).20

As Wirth had warned, amending the law took time,

but also as he had predicted, it was approved. The

Department submitted a draft bill to Congress in September

1957, which simply inserted the word "development" into

the 1955 act. Congress passed and President Eisenhower

signed Public Law 85-658 in August 1958.

Since Wirth was almost certain the amendment would

pass, he agreed with du Pont, Grant, and Hamilton that

the 1955 cooperative agreement between the secretary of

the interior and the AMI must also be changed to reflect

the new financing arrangements. At the Joint Development

Committee meeting of May 9, 1957, attended by both Wirth

and Lee, the document was amended to read that the NPS

would build and develop the museum out of funds contributed by AMI "and other sources and funds made available

by Congress." These "other sources" might be appropriated "outright or on condition that they be matched with"

privately donated monies. The director submitted the

amended agreement to the department's solicitor and to

the secretary of the interior for final approval, which

was obtained in September 1957.21

Hamilton, du Pont, Grant, and the others were much

encouraged by these government commitments; they took

further comfort from a new, modest architectural plan

drawn up in early 1959 by the NPS Division of Design and

Construction that indicated an immigration museum might

be built for about $2,350,000 instead of the $4,500,000

estimated at an earlier date. With the matching arrangement, that meant the AMI, Inc., had to raise approximately

$1,175,000, rather than the $5,000,000 orginally announced.

36
The brighter outlook led the Executive Committee of

AMI to contact G. A. Brakeley & Co., Inc., professional

fund-raisers. After months of consultation, the AM1

hired this organization in February 1959 to examine why

Operation Unity had failed, to weigh the chances for

future success, and to make recommendations for a revitalized money-rasing campaign.

During this evaluation the Brakeley people interviewed members of the AMI Board of Trustees and its former

staff, key contributors, labor, business and foundation

executives, and knowledgeable public officials. Many of

those interviewed attributed the failure, at least in

part, to inept leadership. Kenneth Rose, former executive

director of AMI, said du Pont and Hamilton were two "nice

guys" but not able executives. Baldwin, he charged, knew

nothing about fund-raising. At least one trusteee criticized du Pont and Hamilton for signing a contract with

Baldwin and Mermey for an "excessive retainer."22

Similar assessments came from sources other than

the Brakeley study. In August 1958, Leonard Dreyfuss

and Gardner Osborn (trustees of the AMI), met with NPS

regional director Daniel J. Tobin. They claimed that

Grant, du Pont and Hamilton were simply not "workers,"

and they doubted that under their guidance the AMI would

ever be able to raise $1,000,000. Baldwin himself, in a

1961 letter to du Pont, wrote:

What I frankly fear is that we may again drift

into the perennial pattern of Sandy [Alexander

Hamilton] going abroad in the early spring,

returning just a few days before you go on

vacation, and then himself leaving for a

summer in Maine.

In addition to poor leadership, several of those questioned

felt the AMI had not thought through either the location

or type of museum it wanted to develop. Lacking a clear

conception, it could not sell the idea to a broad public.

Edward Corsi, former commissioner of immigration and an

AMI trustee, suggested tying the museum to rehabilitation

of Ellis Island and thereby making "one big project with

real appeal." Robert Moses said more bluntly, "The

American Museum of Immigration has no appeal. Immigrants

went through Castle Clinton and Ellis Island, not Liberty

Island."23

The Brakely investigation pointed to two other

weaknesses of the earlier drive: excessive administrative

costs ("about the highest of any reputable campaign we

37

4 4
know about") and failure to recruit a chairman for a New

York committee, in the city that should have spearheaded

the whole national effort. Nonetheless, the report stated

that the public relations achievements of Operation Unity

had been "very real": millions of people were made aware

of the project. As a result, donations had continued to

come in after June 1957, and by early 1959 the AMI had

collected more than $300,000 for the museum.

The Brakeley study concluded there was a good prospect for success with a renewed campaign, provided the

following steps were taken: 1) attract new, active leadership and a more competent administrative staff at AMI

headquarters; 2) find private underwriting for the drive

to assure contributors that all donations would be used

for the museum; 3) approach the Rockefeller and other

foundations with a clear, concise museum project proposal;

4) concentrate on twenty-five or thirty prospective big

donors; 5) broaden and intensify the appeal to ethnic

groups, especially Czechs, Jews, Italians, French, and

Germans; and 6) hire an experienced fund-raising firm.

The AMI began to implement the recommendations.

They raised underwriting money, most of it contributed by

du Pont, who also paid more than $8,000 in fees for the

Brakeley report out of his own pocket. The AMI staff,

relocated in space provided by the NPS at Federal Hall,

showed renewed energy. The Executive Committee hired

Brakeley and Co. to serve as its fund-raising advisor on

the reactivated effort.24

The fund-raising campaign initiated in the fall of

1959 proved less costly than the earlier one, but was no

more successful. The AMI received some additional gifts

from ethnic groups and from business executives, but

appeals to foundations and corporations produced little

but rejection letters.

Then, in October 1960, Hamilton wrote cheerfully

to Leonard Dreyfuss, "There may be good news around the

corner!" Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton had

decided that rehabilitation, preservation, and development projects at Castle Clinton, Federal Hall, and the

Statue of Liberty should be completed in time for the

World's Fair scheduled to open in New York in 1964.

Seaton was prepared to ask Congress for stepped-up

appropriations to further meet this objective and had

requested the New York City National Shrines Advisory

Board to help raise private money as well.

38

45
Hamilton, who among his other offices served as

chairman of that board, reported to Dreyfuss that it would

form a non-profit corporation known as the New York City

National Shrines Associates. The Associates would act

as a coordinating group, assisting the AMI, Inc., Federal

Hall Memorial Associates, Inc., and Castle Clinton Monument Association in their separate drives to raise money

for each of the sites. Among the directors of the Shrines

Associates were such prominent New Yorkers as retired

Admiral John J. Bergen, chairman, Graham-Paige Corporation; John D. Butt, chairman, American Trust Company; and

L. Porter Moore, vice president of the Downtown-Lower

Manhattan Association. These men, Hamilton reasoned,

would have better connections for obtaining foundation,

bank and corporate gifts than AMI.25 While Hamilton's

sanguine expectations for the Shrines Associates never

materialized, the combined efforts of the AMI and the

Shrines Associates brought collections for the museum to

nearly $419,000 by September 30, 1961.

During the previous summer an Interior Department

Appropriations Act passed Congress and was signed by

President Kennedy. It contained an item providing

$1,000,000 to match private donations for the work at

the New York City monuments. Four hundred thousand

dollars of this was earmarked for the American Museum of

Immigration at the base of the statue. In September,

the NPS notified the Shrines Advisory Board of these

facts and requested the matching contribution. On the

evening of October 10, 1961, at a dinner in New York

given by the Downtown-Lower Manhattan Association, Pierre

du Pont handed Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall

the AMI matching check that would, finally, enable construction to begin.26

The federal appropriation and private monies were

almost enough to cover the first stage of construction,

that is, excavation of the landfill between the statue's

pedestal and the walls of Fort Wood and erection of the

concrete shell of the base which would also house the

museum. To complete the project by the 1964 World's Fair,

however, the AMI still had to produce the remainder of its

half of the cost. Therefore, the search for donations

continued.

In April 1962, Mayor Robert Wagner, a member of the

New York City Shrines Advisory Board, requested the city's

Board of Estimate to amend the capital budget to provide

a contribution of $250,000 toward the work underway at

Federal Hall, Castle Clinton, and the Statue of Liberty.

The Board of Estimate gave its approval and the city

39

4 6
presented a check to the Shrines Advisory Board in July.

The Shrines Advisory Board, in turn, allocated $50,000 of

the donation to the museum of immigration.27

The following spring, L. Porter Moore, secretary of

the Shrines Advisory Board, met in Washington, D.C., with

Mrs. Dexter Otis Arnold, president of the General Federation of Women's Clubs. He approached her because in 1954,

the group she headed had contributed $200,000 to restore

and refurnish the first floor of Independence Hall. Moore

wondered if the civic-minded women might be willing to

undertake a similar fund drive to build and develop the

immigration museum. Mrs. Arnold was interested to know

more, and Moore agreed to ask the NPS to present a detailed

account of the project.

Director Conrad Wirth and Supervisory Historian

Thomas Pitkin, who had written the Prospectus for the

museum, arrived soon afterward to acquaint Mrs. Arnold

with the plans and urge her to help raise the money to

make the museum a reality. Mrs. Arnold responded that

fund-raising for the AMI would become the principal activity of the Women's Clubs for the rest of the year. In

order to fire the enthusiasm of the organization's members, she invited Wirth to address its annual convention

in Milwaukee on June 14 and to distribute brochures and

other promotional literature to the delegates. The

"Strengthen the Arm of Liberty" drive, as the Women's

Clubs called their collections effort, eventually raised

over $41,000 for the museum.

Meanwhile, the fund-raising firm of Brakeley & Co.

persuaded George Textor, president of Marine Midland

Bank, to chair an AMI Finance Committee aimed at obtaining large gifts from the business world. Pierre du Pont

generously pledged another $50,000 and Lawrence Rockefeller,

$20,000, but before the campaign made much headway it was

undermined by allegations of misuse of funds.28

On June 11, 1963, the New York World-Telegram ran a

critical article and editorial about the AMI, Inc., and

its activities; these were followed by stories in the New

York Times and the Herald Tribune. The newspapers clarri-Jd

that in eight years (1955-1963) the AMI had received

$1.3 million in contributions from the public, of which

it had spent $800,000 in "so-called expenses--travel,

lunches, professional fund-raisers and so on," leaving

only $450,000 for building the museum. The World-Telegram

proclaimed, "All those people who have given...deserve

more of an explanation than they have received."

40

4 7
At an emergency strategy meeting, attended by du

Pont, Textor, George Brakeley, and Pitkin (representing

the NPS), the AM1 attempted to repair the harm done to its

public image. The participants decided to issue a "White

Paper" stressing that the New York Attorney General's

Office had given the AM1 a clean bill of health and that

since 1957 the whole administrative expense of fund-raising

had been privately underwritten. In that way, AM1 could

assure donors that every penny they ga-;e went directly

for developing the museum. While this answe7 may have

soothed the injury somewhat, it did not cure itoz9

As of June 30, 1963, the situation was as follows.

Congress had appropriated another $450,000 for the museum

in fiscal 1963, and program adjustments within the NPS had

provided an additional $170,400. To date, the federal

government had put $1,020,400 into the construction. Private donations had reached $512,000, though the AM1 had

actually turned over to the NPS a little over $400,000.

If the museum was to be completed by October 1964, in

time for the World's Fair, the supporters still had to

raise over $700,000.

With the flow of new gifts reduced to a trickle

after the news stories, the AM1 came nowhere close to

reaching the goal. As a result, by the target date, the

exterior of the base was nearly finished, but nothing had

been accomplished on the interior. In November 1964, the

NPS notified the AM1 that all further work would have to

halt at the expiration of the contracts then in effect.

No new obligations could be assumed since government

appropriations had run out and donated monies lagged far

behind the ff..?deral investment.

Left with an empty shell, the museum backers were

challenged to find new ways to raise money. Soon the

National Shrines Advisory Board came forward with a scheme.

Under the authority of Public Law 88-262, passed by Congress in January 1964, the board proposed to strike and

market commemorative medallions of the Statue of Liberty.

To finance this project, L. Porter Moore wrote to the

General Federation of Women's Clubs requesting an interest-free loan of $25,000 out of the $41,000 the women

had collected for the immigration museum. The money

would be repaid out of proceeds from the sale of the

medallions, and many additional dollars would be taken

in to initiate.work on the interior.

The Women's Clubs agreed, and in June 1964 the

medallions went on sale at Gimbels and other department

stores--bronze at $4, silver for $10. Unfortunately, the

41

4 3
Shrines Advisory Board apparently overlooked other and

probably better marketing outlets. The concessionaire

at Liberty Island felt certain he could have sold many

of these medals to tourists, but he never received any.

Sales proved so limited that they did not provide enough

revenue to pay back the loan, much less earn any profits

for the museum. In 1967, when the NPS requested the

Shrines Advisory Board to return the $25,000, the board

replied by asking if the service would accept as repayment unsold medallions having a retail value of $40,000.

The NPS declined, stating that even if it could eventually

dispose of the medals it saw no leg _i. way to manage such

a transaction. As late as the mid-1970s the loan had not

been repaid and boxes of unsold medallions rested in the

basement of Federal Hall.30

In November 1964 a new personality appeared on the

scene. Cerald A. Kearney, a New York attorney who once

described himself as "one of the last [Irish] immigrants

to pass through Ellis Island," sent John A. Townsley,

superintendent of the New York City NPS Group, a letter

and certificate of incorporation in the State of New York

for the National Historic Shrines Foundation. Kearney's

letter and the document explained that the purpose of his

foundation was to raise funds for the museum and for any

future development of Ellis Island that the NPS might

undertake, as well as to solicit donations of immigrant

artifacts for exhibits in the immigration museum. Since

Kearney had not cleared his plans with the NPS or entered

into a cooperative agreement with it, Townsiey and Regional

Director Ronald Lee, whom the superintendent informed

about the matter, were wary and asked Kearney to delay any

money-raising campaigns until they had time to study his

proposals and to coordinate them with those of the New

York City National Shrines Advisory Board.

Kearney's energy and interest soon persuaded several

major New York politicians, such as Paul O'Dwyer, Emmanuel

Celler, and Mario Procaccino, to lend their names as honorary trustees for the foundation. Although the Park Service never formalized a relationship with the organization, it did, for a time, cooperate with the group. NPS

Historian George Svejda and Kearney showed journalists

some of the objects already obtained for the museum.

Statue of Liberty Superintement Lester McClanahan helped

Kearney arrange a public relations tour of the island for

members of the press and potential foundation supporters.

They led the guests through the bare cavity under the

shell that would someday, they hoped, house the museum.

42

4 9
Kearney wrote press releases about the need for

money to complete the museum and urged the public to send

donations to the Historic Shrines Foundation. He presented an hour-long television program on WOR-TV, Channel

9, on the evening of February 22, 1966. Called "They

Entered the Golden Door: The Immigrant Impact on America,"

the show featured Kearney discussing the museum with

Celler, Procaccino, O'Dwyer, and Judge Samual A. Spiegel.

Kearney's most ambitious plan, however, involved persuading well-known artists to contribute their works to the

foundation so that it could auction them off and hand the

proceeds to the Park Service for the museum. Louise

Nevelson contributed a sculpture worth $15,000; Salvador

Dali promised to paint a picture of the Statue of Liberty

on a television program and then allow it to be auctioned

to the highest bidder. Kearney anticipated it would bring

in at least $25,000.

Controversey soon swirled around Kearney's activities. Historian Svejda wrote memos to his supervisors

complaining of the lawyer's treatment of him personally,

the inaccurate statements in Kearney's press releases and

TV program, and the undignified ways in which he solicited

contributions. Kearney sued Salvador Dali for reneging

on his offer to paint on television, and a representative

from the New York State Attorney General's office called

the NYC NPS Group on February 9, 1966, to report "several

complaints concerning the National Historic Foundation,

Inc. and the American Museum of Immigration activities."

In May 1967, Acting Regional Director George A. Palmer

wrote to Washington, "Ever since Gerald Kearney and his

National Historic Shrines, Foundation, Inc. have come on

the scene we have gone through periods of tension, controversy and even a few personal arguments. It would

appear public interest is not always the driving force

in some of these fund-raising drives."

Kearney never held the auction nor did he turn over

any money to the NPS. Eventually, complaints against the

organization led the New York Attorney General's office

to order it dissolved and the art objects returned to

their creators. As late as 1969, puzzled painters who

inquired of the Service what had happened to their works

were being referred to the Charity Frauds Division of the

Attorney General's Office.31

The AMI, Inc., meanwhile was barely functioning. Its

fund-raising drive had corm? to a halt and the increase in

its capital account came almost entirely from interest

the money was earning. By September 30, 1967, AMI had

transferred $492,273 to the NPS out of that fund and had

43

5 0
remaining in it $209,719. It had no ability to launch

still another public campaign since at the end of 1967 it

had a mere $9.28 left in its General Fund for operating

expenses. Only a $2,000 gift from General Grant and

similar underwriting from other Executive Committee

members kept the office open and tiny staff employed.

As a result of these experiences NPS Acting Regional

Director Palmer advised in 1967 that the work on the

museum be finished with congressional appropriations as

they became available. The time had come, he wrote, to

"arrange some appropriate...luncheon at the Cosmos Club or

elsewhere to recognize the great contribution that General

Grant, Sandy Hamilton and Pierre du Pont have made; tell

them so publicly, and announce...that private fundraising

is over."32

While Palmer's superiors in the Department of the

Interior did not follow his advice about the luncheon or

the public announcement, they agreed with him about

obtaining public funds. In fiscal year 1967, without

waiting for matching donations, the department requested

and received from Congress $900,000 to begin work on the

interior of the base. Fiscal year 1968 brought another

appropriation, but funds for completing the museum were

deleted fro-11 'le fiscal 1969 budget and so progress again

halted. ,,a, monies provided by Congress and small

additional donations from the AMI's caoital account, the

project was finally finished in 1972. By that time, actual

costs were double the 1959 estimate because of inflation,

the piecemeal way in which contracts were let, and con

troversies over the exhibits which led to several revi

sions. In short, the total cost of the museum, $5,000,000,

was primarily paid by the taxpayers of the United States.

Of that $5,000,000, approximately $450,000 came from

private donations, and the City of New York contributed

$50,000.33

44
NOTES

1Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker (New York, 1974),

pp. 644-689; Thomas Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate (New

York, 1975), pp. 180-181.

2AMI News, October 28, 1962, p. 2; William H. Baldwin,

"The AMI at the Statue of Liberty, Status of AMI-Operation

Unity Campaign, April 1961," New York City File, Drawer

18, AMI, Inc. Papers, Artifact Room Statue of Liberty,

Liberty Island.

3Pitkin, Kee ers of the Gate, p. 181; AMI News,

October 28, 1962, p. 2; Minutes of the Board of Directors

of the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society,

April 16, 1952, pp. 1-2, Special Collections, New York

City Public Library; Written comments of Edward Kallop,

former curator of the American Museum of Immigration, to

author, August 24, 1983.

40ther members of the delegation included Spyros P.

Skouras, president of 20th Century Fox Film Corporation;

Anna Lord Strauss, former president of the League of

Women Voters; Messmore Kendall, trustee of the American

Scenic and Historic Preservation Society; and Orme Lewis,

assistant secretary of the interior. New York Times,

August 11, 1954.

5Ten Eyck Lansing, managing director, AMI, to Gardner

Osborn, secretary, the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society, March 23, 1955, Duplicates File, AMI,

Inc. Papers, Artifact Room; New York Times, August 11,

1954; Douglas Mc Kay, secretary of the interior, to Major

General U.S. Grant, 3rd, June 17, 1954, D62, Museum and

Exhibit Activities (AMI) 1956 File, NPS Papers, Storage

Area, Liberty Island; Dwight D. Eisenhower to Major General

Grant, August 27, 1954. D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities

(AMI) 1954 File, Storage Area, Liberty Island.

6"Congress Praises AMI in Joint Resolution," Duplicates File, AMI, Inc. Papers, Artifact Room; S.J. 114,

July 1956, 84th Congress, Second Session.

7The incorporators, who became the first Board of

Trustees of the AMI, included Horace M. Albright, William

H. Baldwin, Walter Binger, Edward Corsi, Robert W. Dowling,

Pierre S. du Pont, 3rd, Charles W. Engelhard, Sylvan

Gotshal, Ulysses S. Grant, III, Alexander Hamilton, John

A. Krout, Mary Phillips Riis, William Rosenwald, Spyros

P. Skouras, Hans Christian Sonne, Anna Lord Strauss and

James G. Van Derpool. Charter and Bylaws of the American

Museum of Immigration, Inc., pp. 1-3.

45

52
8The AMI received $241.69 in cash and agreed to pay

approximately $15,000 owed to Baldwin and Mermey for

earlier expenses. Contract among Baldwin and Mermey,

AMI, Inc., and ASHPS, March 9, 1955.

9Thomas Pitkin, "Material Prepared for AMI Ceremonies

October 28, 1959," Duplicates File; Charter and Bylaws of

the AMI, Inc., January 28, 1955, Duplicates File; Contract

among Baldwin and Mermey, the AMI, and the ASHPS, March 9,

1955, Dup1.71.cates File; H.R. 3120, 84th Congress 1st

Session, January 26, 1955.

10Cooperative Agreement Between the Secretary of the

Interior and the AMI Relating to the Establishment of the

American Museum of Immigration at the Statue of Liberty

National Monument, October 7, 1955, AMI (Assoc.) File,

Drawer 2, NPS Papers, Artifact Room; AMI Newsletter, June

1956, A-42, AMI National Committee, 1954-56 File, Drawer

3, NPS Papers, Artifact Room; Minutes of the Organization

Meeting Joint Development Committee, AMI, May 11, 1956,

D6215, AMI 1956--Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer

6, Artifact Room; AMI News, October 28, 1962, p. 4; May 16,

1956, Duplicates File.

11AMI, "Report of the Managing Director for the

Calendar Year 1955," Duplicates File; AMT, "Preliminary

Operations Plan for National Appeal, March 15, 1955," by

Baldwin and Mermey, Duplicates File.

12Memo from U.S. Grant to Members of the National

Committee of AMI, D6, Museum and Exhibit Activities (AMI)

1955 File, NPS Papers, Storage Area; AMI NEWS, September 28,

1956; Minutes of the AMI Executive Committee Meeting,

September 14, 1955 and January 4, 1956, Duplicates File;

AMI Newsletter, September 7, 1956, Duplicates File.

13AMI News, September 28, 1956, A-42, AMI National

Committee, 1954-56 File, Drawer 3, NPS Papers, Artifact

Room; AMI, "Preliminary Operations Plan."

14AMI News, December 1, 1955; Bulletin to Friends of

AMI, January 11, 1956, A-42, AMI National Committee 1954-56

File, Drawer 3; AMI Newsletter, September 7, 1956; AMI

News, June 28, 1956, Drawer 15, AMI 1956, Drawer 6;

Chicago, Ill. Austinite, October 12, 1955; The Galesburg,

III. Daily Register-Mail, August 6, 1955.

15Minutes of the AMI Executive Committee Meetings,

September 13, 1956, November 18, 1955, Duplicates File;

AMI News, September 28, 1956.
16prog ram for the 70th Birthday of the Statue and

Opening of the National Appeal for AMI, October 28, 1956,

D6215, AMI, 1956 File, Drawer 6; New York Journal-American,

October 29, 1956; New York Herald Tribune, October 29, 1956.

17American Museum of Immigration, Statue of Liberty,

U.S.A., publicity leaflet of AMI, Duplicates File; AMI

Group Founders (Labor), February 25, 1957, Duplicates

File; Report of the Vice Chairman, National Committee to

2nd Annual Meeting of the Board of Trustees, November 14,

1956, Statue of Liberty Society File, Drawer 30, AMI, Inc.

Papers, Artifact Room; Minutes of the Meeting of the AMI

Executive Committee, November 14, 1956, Duplicates File.

18Alexander Hamilton to Conrad L. Wirth, director,

NPS (no date), 1-42, AMI National Committee, 1954-56

File, Drawer 3; "Suggested Plan for Revitalization of the

AMI Fund-Raising Efforts," Drawer 51, AMI, Inc. Papers,

Artifact Room; Minutes of the Special Meeting of the AMI

Board of Trustees, April 17, 1957, Duplicates File;"D.

Kenileth Rose to Spyros P. Skouras, May 8, 1957, Duplicates

File; "Analysis of AMI Receipts v. Expenditures, April 5,

1957," Mr. Hamilton File, Drawer 18, AMI, Inc. Papers;

John W. Andrews to D. K. Rose, April 12, 1957, Duplicates

File.

19D. Kenneth Rose to U. S. Grant, March 28, 1957,

Duplicates file; U. S. Grant to Richard M. Nixon, March 26,

1957, Duplicates File; D. K. Rose to Spyros P. Skouras,

May 8, 1957, Duplicates File; Minutes of the Meeting with

Hatfield Chilson, May 9, 1957, Washington, D.C., A-42,

AMI National Committee 1954-56 File, Drawer 3; Bernard M.

Shanley, secretary to the President, to U S. Grant, March 1,

1957, Duplicates File.

20Minutes of the AMI Executive Committee Meeting,

May 28, 1957, Duplicates File; U. S. Grant to Conrad

Wirth, June 3, 1957, Duplicates File; Conrad Wirth to U.

S. Grant, April 16, 1957, D6215, mu 1957--Museum Exhibit

Activities File, Drawer 6; Conrad Wirth to Chief, Division

of Design and Construction, July 2, 1957, D62, Museum and

Exhibit Activities (AMI) 1957 File, NPS Papers, Storage

Area.

21Roger Ernst, assistant secretary of interior, to

Speaker of the House of Representatives, September 4,

1957, Alexander Hamilton-1957-58 File, Drawer 50, AMI,

Inc. Papers, Artifact Room; Public Law 85-658, 85th

Congress (72 Stat. 613), August 14, 1958; Minutes of the

Meeting of the AMI Joint Development Committee, May 9,

1957, A-42, AMI National Committee 1954-56 File, Drawer

5; Ronald F. Lee to Alexander Hamilton, September 6, 1956,

D6215, AMI 1957-Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6.

47

5 4
22Minutes of the Meeting of the Board of Trustees of

the AMI, October 28, 1959, Duplicates File; Henry Lee

Munson for George A. Brakeley & Cc. to Alexander Hamilton,

December 16, 1958, Duplicates File; Working Notes of

Henry Lee Munson and Eugenie Owens of G. A. Brakeley &

Co., February 16, 1959, Duplicates File; G. A. Brakeley &

Co., Inc. Fund-Raising Study for the Trustees of the

American Museum of Immigration, July_1, 1959, Duplicates

File; Survey Interview with Sylvan Gotshal by H. L.

Munson, February 11, 1959; Interview with Frank Mitchell,

February 11, 1959; Interview with Alfred H. Horowitz,

February 25, 1959; Interview with D. Kenneth Rose by

Eugenie Owens, September 25, 1959, AMI Survey Interviews,

File, Drawer 11, AMI, Inc. Papers, Artifact Room.

23Daniel J. Tobin to Director, NPS, August 13, 1958,

D6215, AMI 1958, July-December--Museum Exhibit Activities

File, Drawer 6; William H. Baldwin to Pierre S. du Pont,

January 5, 1961, Mr. Hamilton File, Drawer 18, AMI, Inc.

Papers; Interview with Edward Corsi, February 19, 1959;

Interview with Robert Moses, March 30, 1959, AMI Survey

Interviews File, Drawer 11, AMI, Inc. Papers.

24G. A. Brakeley & Company, Fund-Raisins Study,

July 1, 1959; Minutes of AMI Board of Trustees Meeting,

October 28, 1959; Newell H. Foster, Superintendent's

Monthly Narrative Report, October 1959, NPS Pape-s,

Administration Building, Liberty Island,

25Hoo Sharor (newsletter of the Armenian General

Benevolent Union), August 1, 1960; "Present State of MI

Fund-Raising Campaign," D6215, AMI 1953: January-June--

Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; AMI 4 (1959-61)

File, Drawer 26, AMI, Inc. Papers; A. Hamilton to Leonard

Dreyfuss, October 5, 1960, Mr. Hamilton File, Drawer 18;

L. Porter Moore to Fred A. Seaton, September 23, 1960 and

Certificate of Incorporation of NYC National Shrines

Associates, Inc. L58, Proposed Areas File, NPS Papers,

Bayonne Record Center.

26Minutes of the AMI Executive Committee Meeting,

October 10, 1961, Duplicates File; Ronald F. Lee to

Carleton D. Smith, July 17, 1961, D6215, AMI, 1959, 60,

61, Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6.

27L. Porter Moore to Newell H. Foster, May 8, 1962,

D6215, AMI-SLNM 1962 File, Drawer 6; New York Times,

May 3, 1962; John D. Butt to A. Hamilton, July 19, 1962,

Duplicates File; Abraham D. Beame to John J. Bergen,

March 15, 1963, Re: 1964 Annual Meeting File, Drawer 31,

AMI, Inc. Papers.

48

55
28Charles W. Porter, 3rd, chief historian, to Conrad

Wirth, April 26, 1963; Howard R. Stagner, acting assistar,t

director, Conservation, Interpretation and Use, to Regional

Director, Northeast Region, May 7, 1963, D6215, AMI 1963:

January-June, Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6;

L. Porter Moore to Newell H. Foster and L. Porter Moore

to Pierre S. du Pont, July 29, 1963, D6215, AMI-STLI NM

1963 File, Drawer 6; U. S. Department of the Interior

News Release, June 14, 1963; Jackson E. Price, assistant

director, Conservation, Interpretation, Use, to Mrs. Dexter

Otis Arnol3, April 9, 1963; Foster, Superintendent's

Monthly Narrative Report, April 1963; "Present State of

AMI Fund-Raising Campaign," D6215, AMI 1963: JanuaryJune-Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; Minutes of

the AMI Board of Trustees Meeting, November 7, 1963, AMI

(Association) File, Drawer 2; Minutes of the AMI Board of

Trustees Meeting, November 12, 1964, Re: 1964 Annual

Meeting File, Drawer 31, AMI, Inc. Papers.

29New York World-Tele9ram, June 11, 1963; New York

Times, June 11, June 12, 1963; New York Herald Tribune,

June 11, 1963; Minutes of AMI Conference, June 11, 1963,

D6215, AMI 1963: January-June--Museum Exhibit Activities

File, Drawer 6; T. Pitkin to N. H. Foster, June 12, 1963,

D6215, AMI 1963: January-June--Museum Exhibit Activities

File; AMI News (no date), AMI-STLI UM 1963 File, Drawer 6.

30"AMI Fund Status, April 25, 1963," D6215, AMI 1963:

January-June--Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6;

Minutes of the AMI Board of Trustees Meeting, November 12,

1964, Re: 1964 Annual Meeting File, Drawer 31, AMI, Inc.

Papers; Mrs. William H. Hasebrook, president, General

Federation of Women's Clubs, to George B. Hartzog, director NPS, July 9, 1964, Re: 1964 Annual Meeting File,

Drawer 31; New York Journal-American, June 20, 1965;

Director NPS to A. Hamilton, April 8, 1970, Funding File,

Drawer 2; Interviews conducted by author with Marilyn

Keeler, administrative officer, STLI NM and David Moffitt,

supt., STLI NM, spring 1983.

31New York Post, June 2, 1966; Gerald A. Kearney to

John A. Townsley, November 9, 1964; John A. Townsley to

Gerald A. Kearney, November 10, 1964; Townsley to Regional

Director Ronald Lee, November 10, 1964, D6215, AMI-STLI

NM 1963 File, Drawer 6; Universal Public Relations, Inc.

Press Release, April 19, 1966, D6215, AMI 1966: JanuaryJune--Museum Exhibit Activities, Drawer 6; George Svejda

to Supt. NYC NPS Group, February 23, 1966, D6215, AMI

1966: January-June--Museum Exhibit Activities File;

Gerald A. Kearney to A. C. Stratton, June 30, 1966, D6215,

AMI 1966: January-June File; New York Times June 8, 1966;

49
Svejda, Memo for Internal Use, April 22, 1966, D6215, AMI

1966; January-June File; Memo G. J. Svejda, February 9,

1966, D6215, AMI 1966: January-June File; George A.

Palmer to Director NPS, May 3, 1967, D6215, American

Museum of Immigration File, Drawer 2; Arthur L. Sullivan,

assistant supt., STLI NM to Henry Curtis Ahl, November 7,

1969, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities (AMI) 1968 File,

Storage Area.

32S.D. Leidesdorf & Co., Certified Public Accountants,

The AMI Report on Financial Statements As At September 30,

1967, Drawer 5; Minutes of the Meeting of the AMI Board

of Trustess, December 6, 1967, Drawer 5, NPS Papers;

George A. Palmer to Director NPS, May 3, 1967, American

Museum of Immigration File, Drawer 2.

33George B. Hartzog, Jr., director, NPS, to Representative Frank M. Karsten, July 18, 1966; "History of

the AMI" (no date), Drawer 2; "The American Museum of

Immigration," AMI Interim Exhibits, May 17, 1968 File,

Drawer 2; William C. Everhart, assistant director, Interpretation, to Representative Frank Annunzio, November 7,

1968, D6215, Museum and Exhibit Activities Planning

Cooperative Agreement AMI 1968 File, Drawer 6; New York

Daily News, October 3, 1971.

50

5
CHAPTER 3

THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF IMMIGRATION TAKES SHAPE

The early promotional literature of the American

Museum of Immigration, Inc., described quite a grandiose

museum to be built within the completed base of the

Statue of Liberty. It would have 50,000 square feet of

floor space. There would be main exhibit halls arranged

in a hollow square around the existing pedestal and

"accent" galleries for special displays in the star

points made by the walls of Fort Wood. In addition, the

museum would contain a library, work and storage rooms,

office space, a Hall of Records in which all who had contributed money would receive recognition, and a large

auditorium where ethnic groups could gather to celebrate

holidays of special significance to them, such as

Columbus, St. Patrick's, or Bastille Day (Fig. 4).

As a preliminary step to preparing architectural

drawings for such a museum, NPS Elpervisory Historian

Thomas Pitkin wrote a report on the structural history

of Fort Wood. At its April 1957 meeting, the Joint

Development Committeel instructed Alexander Hamilton to

contact NPS Director Conrad Wirth to formally request

that the Eastern Office of Design and Construction,2

under Edward S. Zimmer, begin immediately to develop

architectural plans.3

The assignment went to EODC Supervising Architect

John B. Cabot, assisted by Donald F. Benson. They worked

in cooperation with Pitkin and with Alden B. Stevens, a

museum specialist and exhibit planner hired by the NPS

to aid Pitkin. Stevens and Pitkin were simultaneously

creating a preliminary exhibit plan. Cabot presented

the drawings and cost estimates to the January 9, 1958,

meeting of the Joint Development Committee. The layouts

showed all of the features described in the AMI's promotional brochures, including two-story lobby and exhibit

halls and a 300-seat auditorium. The accompanying price

tag for exterior and interior construction, as well as

preparing the exhibits, read $4,479,000. Cabot explained

the seemingly high figure to the committee as resulting

51
from the island's location. Labor would be more expensive

than in Manhattan, as would disposing of excavated landfill. To provide workers and materials continuous access

to the island would require building a dock costing

$80,000. Apparently satisfied with what he had heard,

General Grant moved that the preliminary general plan and

cost estimates be approved as submitted, and all present

unanimously agreed.4

The AMI officers, however, began to have second

thoughts. Their public fund-raising drive had produced

results well below their goal, and attempts to revive

the campaign were progressing slowly. By the fall, the

Executive Committee decided it could not back such a

costly project. Hamilton reported this to the October

Joint Development meeting, noting, "the estimate of

$4,479,000 [is] so far in excess of any fundraising

expectation of the AMI, even with the matching-funds

provision invoked, that they could not conscientiously

solicit additional contributions on such a basis." At

best, Hamilton said, they could raise $1,000,000.

When Hamilton reiterated this AMI stand at the next

session a month later, Wirth's reply indicated the staff

of the NPS had been thinking of ways to cope with the

changed situation. The NPS Director suggested that substantial savings might be realized by placing the museum

on the intermediate or second-floor terrace and reducing

overall floor space to around 20,000 square feet.

Hamilton greeted the idea with relief, whereupL.n the

participants asked Zimmer, who was also present at the

meeting, to prepare new drawings and estimates along the

lines proposed by Wirth, for a museum whose total cost

must not exceed $2,600,000.5

On February 5, 1959, Zimmer notified Wirth that

EODC had accomplished the task. The revised plan called

for a facility with 24,000 square feet of floor space,

rougly 9,000 of it occupied by a second-floor museum and

corridor. They had arrived at the latter size in consultation with Pitkin and Edward J. Beirly of the Museum

Branch, who had suggested the minimum space required to

mount a meaningful exhibit. Pitkin and Beirly also provided information on visitor traffic flow patterns at the

statue.

In the revised plan, the two-story lobby remained

because it was, "essential...to create the dignity and

impressiveness needed for this museum," but the 300-seat

auditorium was gone, along with most of the special

display areas and office, library, and work space. The

52
plan did contain, however, one feature not found in

earlier drafts: in a hall leading to the elevator 1,690

squore feet was earmarked for use as a Statue of Liberty

Story Room. The accompanying cost estimate showed a price

of $2,350,000, which included $350,000 for development of

the exhibits and another $350,000 for contingencies.

Wirth passed on the news and sketches to Hamilton,

Grant, du Pont, and the other AMI executives. In the

months that followed, the plan received formal approval

from Regional Director Lee, Superintendent Foster, Director Wirth, and finally in October 1961, the Executive

Committee of the AMI. During the same year, the AMI

contributed $10,000, matched by an equal sum of federal

funds, to finance preparation of final architectural

drawings based on the February 1959 plan. All that was

needed to start construction was money, which came thanks

to Congress and the AMI check handed to Secretary Udall

in October 1961.6

The following month the NPS awarded a contract for

$69,000 to the Acme Excavation Corporation of the Bronx.

This first phase of construction involved digging out

12,000 cubic yards of landfill between the statue's

pedestal and the ramparts of Fort Wood, and removing

the material on barges. Work commenced on November 13

and was finished by mid-December.

Robert E. Smith, chief architect of the EODC, initiated phase II of the building process when, in April

1962, he forwarded to Superintendent Foster blueprints

and specifications for the concrete and steel base that

would complete the pedestal and house the museum. The

NPS invited contractors to study these plans and submit

bids for the job.

In Washington, on June 19, 1962, Secretary of the

Interior Udall signed a joint contract for $944,220 with

representatives of the two lowest bidders, the Lewis

Morris Demolition Company and the Peter Reiss Construction

Company, both of Queens, New York.7 Their labor crews

arrived on the island in July, but according to Foster,

the work progressed slowly during that summer.8

By October 28, the 76th anniversary of the statue's

dedication, enough had been accomplished to permit the

laying of the cornerstone for the American Museum of

Immigration. The AMI, Inc., and the Ladies Auxiliary of

the Veterans of Foreign Wars together staged a grand

ceremony for the occasion. Alexander Hamilton presided

over-speeches by Assistant Secretary of State W. Averill

53

GO
Harriman and NPS Director Wirth. The president of the

Ladies Auxiliary of the VFW handed Pierre du Pont the

final installment of her organization's $50,000 contribution for the museum. Mayor Wagner proclaimed this

October 28th "American Museum of Immigration Day." Midway through the proceedings, Pierre-Christian Taittinger,

president of the Municipal Council of Paris, arrived by

helicopter to bring the good wishes of the people of Paris.

Earlier in the week, a metal box implanted in the corner

of the original pedestal was removed. The box, with its

19th-century contents, was placed in a larger copper container, along with such 20th-century artifacts as United

States coins minted in 1962, presidential medals, and

the charter of the AMI, Inc. The gathered dignitaries

then embedded the new box in the cornerstone of the

museum.9

With the official celebration over, construction

activities resumed but all did not proceed smoothly.

Foster continued to complain of slow progress, while

David 0. Smith, project supervisor, reported the work

was often of poor quality. Smith had to constantly

thwart the attempts of the contractor to "circumvent"

requirements of the specifications. Whatever the difficulties, by the end of 1963 the concrete shell was completed and stood for all to see.

When the statue's next anniversary rolled around,

the Ladies Auxiliary of the VFW hosted a celebration

inside the new building. John A. Townsley, superintendent

of the NYC NPS Group, invited them to walk out upon the

broad terrace formed by the roof of the structure. He

pointed to four large doorways in the original pedestal,

which, until then, had been ornamental but functionless.

Townsley told the group gathered on the new terrace,

"We intend for you to be the first official party to

enter one of those doors....""

The third phase of building got underway in April

1964 when the NPS awarded a contract for $984,562 to the

Teaco Construction Corporation of the Bronx. The agreement called for facing the concrete shell with granite,

constructing a massive stonework entryway, and repaving

the promenade surrounding the base and the mall in

front of it with bluestone. Superintendent McClanahan

reported that the rate and quality of work were satisfactory and by mid-summer 1965, the pedestal was finished.

It did, indeed, reflect one of Richard M. Hunt's plans,

which envisioned a stepped-t:?.rrace design.

54

61
The completed base was officially dedicated on

October 28, 1965, but no further work was immediately

undertaken. The NPS had signed no contracts for preparing the interior because congressional appropriations had

run out and no additional private donations were forthcoming. For the next two and one-half years the cavernous

space beneath the base waited untouched.11

Congress. finally made phase IV of construction

possible with its appropriation for fiscal year 1967.

The task of supervising this stage of the job fell to

the Philadelphia Planning and Service Center, Design and

Construction, of the NPS, with Judson S. Ball named as

coordinating architect. Drawings and specifications were

prepared to show to prospective contractors, and the

Superintendent of the NYC NPS Group issued an invitation

for bids in October 1967. On December 15, the Philadelphia

Center entered into a contract for $1,097,888 with the

low bidder, Gagliano and Gagliano, a Brooklyn firm owned

by five brothers whose parents had emigrated from Italy. 12

Under the terms of the agreement, the Gaglianos

served as general contractors, bringing in a number of

smaller companies to perform various parts of the work.13

These firms finished approximately 17,000 square feet of

the interior, consisting of a main lobby, the Statue of

Liberty Story Room, public rest rooms, office, kitchen

and other facilities, and the upper-level lobby in front

of the space reserved for the museum. Their activities

ranged from installing plumbing, electrical, heating,

and cooling systems to laying carpeting, plastering

ceilings, and reinforcing the concrete structure. Work

commenced in January 1968 and by the spring of 1969, all

stood ready but the 7,500-square-foot area where the AMI

would go.14

The exhibits to be displayed in the Statue of Liberty

Story Room still had to be prepared. In 1966, the NPS

had signed a contract with a Miami, Florida-based designer,

Gart Urban, to prepare an exhibit plan for the Statue of

Liberty story. Based on this work, the Eastern Museum

Laboratories of the NPS prepared the exhibits, and the

Statue Story Room opened to the public on February 22,

1970.15

The NPS had intended to start the fifth and final

phase of construction, finishing the AMI museum area and

installing the exhibits, in the summer and fall of 1969,

but with the cost of the Vietnam War rising relentlessly,

Congress decided to cut back on domestic spending. One

of tla casualties of these cutbacks was the fiscal 1969

appr)priation for completing the, by now, almost 20-yearold project.

55

62
When federal revenues again became available in

fiscal year 1971, phase V finally got underway. On

January 15, 1971, the NPS invited companies to submit

bids for a contract that covered all of the remaining

work on the American Museum of Immigration, ranging from

preparing the floors to putting in the air-conditioning,

from doing the electrical wiring to creating the exhibit

walls and cases. Three bids arrived at the Office of the

Superintendent of the Fire Island and NYC NPS Group. To

the consternation of the NPS staff and the leaders of the

AMI, Inc., the lowest asked for $914,200, the highest

$987,654. The government had estimated that this final

portion of the job could be accomplished for $430,000,

and the NPS had available only $440,000.16

A few days later, on February 23, Judson Ball and

Donald Benson from the Eastern Service Center, Russell

Hendrickson, chief of the Museum Division, Ray G. Martinez

of the Procurement and Contracting Office, and several

others met to discuss the situation. The participants

decided to redesign the project and break it into separate

contracts for plumbing, air-conditioning, electrical work,

floor covering, wall and exhibit case systems, and so on.

They reasoned that breaking up the package would permit

smaller companies to bid, and the competition among firms

in each trade would produce lower prices.

This attempt to stimulate competition met with a

problem in one area. Very few businesses existed with

the specialized skill and experience to prepare exhibit

walls and display cases. Russ Hendrickson thought he

knew of one that possibly had the expertise and would

undertake the assignment at a reaonable figure. He and

Judson Ball contacted Presentations South, Inc., an

Orlando, Florida, firm. After investigating its facilities, Henrickson and Ball, in March, recommended that

the contract be awarded to Presentations South, which

would do the work in Florida where labor was cheaper

than in New York. The walls and cases would then be

shipped to Liberty Island for assembling and installation.

The Procurement and Contracting Office waived the requirement for further competitive bidding since Presentations

South, Inc., was agreeing to do the work for $272,231 as

opposed to $375,000 quoted for that part of the project

by the lowest of the bids received under the package

dea1.17

The NPS signed the contract with Presentations

South in June 1971. During that summer and fall, the

Service also negotiated agreements with various companies

to prepare the floor surfaces, install acoustical tile

56

63
ceilings, build in heating, air-conditioning, and electrical systems, and finish general construction.16

The Eastern Service Center, which was coordinating

and supervising the many activities, set September 15,

1972, as the target date for completion, but several AMI

leaders hoped for a swifter pace. On July 20, 1971,

AMI Board members Spyros P. Skouras and Alfred Horowitz

called upon NPS Director George Hartzog, Jr., Associate

Director J.E.N. Jensen, Northeast Regional Director

Henry G. Schmidt, and Fire Island and NYC NPS Group

Superintendent Jerry Wagers to discuss ways to expedite

the project. Skouras especially urged haste. Hartzog

promised the NPS would make every effort to move the

finishing date up to March 15 by instituting the following

measures: laying and adhering to a strict time schedule

for each job; processing contractor's vouchers for

immediate payment; providing labor crews with transportation at 7:00 a.m. on the Park Service utility boat, rather

than having them wait for the first Circle Line ship at

9:00 a.m.; and finding space on Liberty Island for a contractor's house trailer and for storage of building supplies.

Grant A. Cadwallader of the Eastern Service Center,

who served as project supervisor, put these measures into

effect. Superintendent Wagers issued monthly progress

reports to Director Hartzog, representatives of the AMI,

Inc., and all others concerned in the effort. A Daily News

reporter, visiting the Statue in October 1971, described

the work scene inside the base as one of "deliberate haste."

On March 14, 1972, an inspection team that included Superintendent Jim Batman, Museum Curator Edward Kallop, Architect

Judson Ball, Supervisor Cadwallader, and others, toured

the site. They found all construction acceptable and

all the work, except for a few minor items, finished.19

The museum was now ready for the public to enter.

However, such acrimony had developed over the content

of the exhibits that it threatened to postpone the opening

indefinitely. To understand the controversy, one must go

back to the 1950s and trace the long evolution through

which exhibit planning had gone.

As early as 1954, the AMI, Inc., the cooperating

Historians Committee, and key NPS staff members had

agreed upon a number of basic concepts which guided

exhibit planning and development.20 In a meeting on

June 9, 1954, that included William H. Baldwin, Alexander

Hamilton, Gardner Osborn, John Krout of Columbia University, and from the NPS, Regional Director Ronald Lee,

Chief Historian Herbert E. Kahler, and Superintendent of

57

64
the Morristown Park Francis S. Ronalds, a consensus was

reached on the aim of the exhibits. They agreed that

the museum should inform visitors where the immigrants

came from and why they came; it should emphasize "Americanization" or the "flowing together of the various races,

creeds and cultures into one main stream"; and it should

highlight the "contributions of nationality groups and

famous immigrants to the development of America in such

areas as economics, culture, science, etc." Ronald Lee

offered to find a NPS historian who could do the research,

assemble materials, and put together a museum prospectus

along the lines discussed.21

Lee assigned the job to Dr. Thomas M. Pitkin, and

during 1955 he spent most of his time preparing a Preliminary Draft Prospectus. In early 1956, Pitkin submitted

his work to the regional and Washington offices of the

NPS and to the AMI Historians Committee. At its March 22

gathering, the committee unanimously approved the prospectus and recommended its acceptance to the Joint Development Committee.22

In part, the favorable response to the prospectus

stemmed from the fact that it held very closely to the

principles agreed upon earlier. It also shared a point

of view prevalent among many of these men in the 1950s.

For example, Pitkin echoed the Cold War thinking of

Baldwin, Hamilton, and du Pont, when he stated in the

prospectus, "In a time of conflicting ideologies, when

the competition for the loyalties of groups and individuals is keen," the purpose of the museum must be to foster

national unity. Further, Pitkin's prospectus reflected

the then widely held "melting pot" theory about the role

of immigrants in American society. He stated that the

museum would concentrate on the contributions made by

people of diverse origins to a "common national life."

According to the prospectus, the heart of the story

presented by the museum should be that of the European

migration between 1815 and 1914. Such an emphasis could

be justified, in part, by the fact that during the years

1820-1920, nearly 34,000,000 immigrants entered the United

States and, as Pitkin pointed out, the "overwhelming majority of these came from Europe." On the other hand, concentration on the Europeans mirrored the general neglect

by historians in the 1950s of the African, Asian, and

Hispanic minorities. This would lead to much criticism

of the museum plan in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

If Pitkin shared much of the outlook of his colleagues,

he also appreciated the complexity of the topic and the

impossibility of covering it thoroughly in one museum of

limited size. In the prospectus he quoted historian Oscar

Handlin who stated:

58

63
Once I thought to write a history of the

immigrants in America. Then I discovered

that the immigrants were American history.

As I worked, the conviction grew upon me that

adequately to describe the course and effects

of immigration involved no less a task than

to set down the whole history of the United

States.23

After the Joint Development Committee approved

Pitkin's prospectus, it wished to begin development of

exhibits based on the narrative in that document. In

November 1956, the AMI, Inc., donated $20,000 to the NPS

to cover the expense of employing a muse' m specialist and

exhibit planner to assist Pitkin. Lee, Ronalds, Chief of

the NPS Museum Branch Ralph Lewis, and Pitkin decided

Alden Stevens was the man for the position. Stevens had

helped to design the NPS museums at Shiloh National

Military Park and Rocky Mountain National Park. He had

also served as associate director of the NPS museum

laboratory at Berkeley.

Between February and June 1957, Stevens 'c.ranslated

Pitkin's prospectus into museum exhibits. He began by

writing a proposed story line for the museum. Then, he

compiled a tentative list of 61 different exhibits and

made rough sketches of the content of each, with accompanying label copy. Using the remainder of the money

donated by the AMI, Inc., the NPS signed a contract with

artist Clifford Young to illustrate the exhibit plan with

black-and-white and colored drawings. By June, Young had

done this for eight of the 61 units.

During the summer, Stevens took a temporary leave

without pay from the NPS, while Pit' In showed the exhibit

plan to various experts for their c iticisms and suggstions. In June, Pitkin traveled to Cleveland to confer

with Dean Wittke of Western Reserve University, who was a

member of the AMI Historians Committee. The following

month he met at Federal Hall with Dean Blegen of the

University of Minnesota, another member of the committee.

Finally, in November 1957, Pitkin, Stevens, and Young

attended an AMI exhibit planning conference in Washington,

D.C. with Lee, Kahler, Lewis, Ronalds, and others to consider the advice of Wittke, Blegen, and others and give

the plan a thorough review. The participants decided the

number of exhibits was excessive and cut them back from 61

to 47. Most of the units removed, or combined and condensed, dealt with the pre-19th centur period. They

decided to add, on the other hand, some displays of the

59
Statue of Liberty and its symbolism. Lastly, they set

late 1958 as the target date for making all necessary

revisions and producing the finished exhibit plan.24

Pitkin, Stevens, and Young returned to the drawing

board and by July 1958 had completed a preliminary exhibit

plan, containing label copy and illustrated by 45 sketches

and colored pictures. Their handiwork went on public display on the third floor of Federal Hall during the summer

and fall. Pitkin wrote to dozens of professional historians inviting them to come and offer their criticisms and

suggestions. The majority of those who visited the Federal

Hall show and then wrote evaluations, praised what they saw.

John Hope Franklin, a specialist in Afro-American history

and then chairman of the History Department of Brooklyn

College, thought the display was, on the whole, "a splendid

job." Rowland T. Berthoff, professor of social history at

Princeton, found it a "generally well-balanced treatment."

Some staff members of the NPS were critical of the

presentation rather than the content. Regional Director

Daniel J. Tobin informed Pitkin that "the consensus of

opinion in our Interpretive Division is that the plan

could use more dramatic impact...fewer words, more objects,

more use of color and highlighting techniques." Floyd A.

La Fayette of the Museum Branch said much the same thing

and added a comment on the content that gave a hint of

the criticism to come in the 1960s and 1970s: "...the

good old Anglo-Saxons," he said, "are still portrayed as

the predominating force in America."

During July, Pitkin and Stevens took a field trip

to obtain further advice on the exhibit plan. They epoke

to Blegen in Minneapolis and Wittke in Detroit. They

visited and talked to curators at the Milwaukee Public

Museum, the Detroit Historical Museum, the Polish Museum

in Chicago, and others.

On the basis of the suggestions and criticisms, Pitkin,

Stevens, and Young spent the fall revising the preliminary

plan. The planning team completed its work on schedule in

December 1958. It submitted the plan, containing 48 drawings of proposed exhibit units, to the NPS's regional and

Washington offices, as well as to the AMI, Inc. Young's

contract was over; Stevens left the employ of the Service

to pursue other career opportunities; and Pitkin devoted

his attention to research on the General Grant National

Memoria1.25

During 1959 and 1960, further museum planning came

to a standstill due to the failure of the fund-raising

60

67
campaign, and a rethinking about the size and type of

building the AMI could possibly finance took place.

Efforts resumed with an exhibit planning meeting held !.n

October 1961 among Pitkin; Alan Kent, curator of the

Eastern Museum Laboratory; and EODC architect Don Benson.

It was, by this time, clear that the 1958 plan would have

to be modified. Stevens had estimated that the 48 units

of that proposal would require between 25,000 and 32,000

square feet of floor space. However, the scaled-down

architectural plan approved (out of economic necessity)

in 1961 by the Park Service and the AMI provided only

about 9,000 square feet of space.

For the next two years, Pitkin and Kent were joined

by Floyd A. La Fayette, assistant chief of the Western

Museum Laboratory, in the job of pruning, condensing, and

revising the 1958 plan. They also had to write a prospectus and outline exhibits for the Statue of Liberty Story

Room, which, though talked about earlier, had not been

included in the 1958 plan. The Branch of Museums assigned

La Fayette to lay out the exhibits for both the immigration museum and the Statue Story Room because he had the

reputation of being one of the "best designers" in the

Service.

In the summer of 1963, the new exhibit plan was ready

for review by Chief of the Museum Branch Lewis, STLI NM

Superintendent Foster, Regional Director Lee, and finally

the Director's office. By the end of the year, it had

gained approval from all of the above, though there continued to be some grumbling in the regional and Washington

offices, and among some in the Interpretive Division, that

the approach of the plan was still "too academic."26

Meanwhile, another very important phase of developing the museum was underway: searching for and obtaining

the photographs, prints, paintings, and immigrant artifacts called for in the exhibit plan. In June 1962,

George J. Svejda, a NPS historian who was fluent in seven

languages, took on that task. He began by writing to

leaders of ethnic organizations and thousands of their

local chapters, explaining that the American Museum of

Immigration would "depict the main causes of migration

to this country, trace the course of migration, display

items which the immigrants brought with them, and finally

illustrate some of the accomplishments which they achieved

here." Then, he appealed to them to donate or ask others

of their group to donate such cultural artifacts as family

Bibles, books, clothing, jewelry, coins, musical instruments, embroidery or other items brought by immigrants

from the Old Country. He also requested pictures and/or

photographs depicting important events in the history or

culture of that nationality group.

61 6 3
Next, Svejda contacted hundreds of ethnic journals,

including the The National Tribune in Detroit, the Chinese

Times in San Francisco, the Armenian Mirror-Spectator in

Boston, and Byelorussian Youth in Brooklyn. He asked the

editors of these papers to publish an appeal to their

readers for cultural artifacts. Svejda, additionally,

offered to write articles, in the native language of the

readers, about the planned museum. Many journals printed

his appeal and several published the stories he wrote for

them.

Svejda also took field trips to t'e midwest and

along the eastern seaboard to seek the help and advice

of curators of ethnic museums and leaders of ethnic communities. At the same time, he publicized the museum and

its search for cultural objects by arranging for radio,

TV, and newspaper interviews.

Svejda's efforts soon began to pay off, as the Park

Service acquired such items as a Croatian prayer book

printed circa 1895, an 80-year-old Armenian wedding dress,

a 300-year-old Czech Bible, and seven Japanese coins

ranging in dates from 1706 to 1936. As these artifacts

came in, it was Svejda's task to catalogue and .store them

until the museum was finally ready.27

As Svejda gathered objects for the exhibits, construction of the building to house those artifacts also proceeded.

Both the architects from the EODC and Regional Director Lee

found the interior of the new concrete shell, with the now

exposed base of the statue, stark and dramatic. This led

them to question whether the 1963 exhibit plan for the AM1

made the best use of the site. On May 14, 1964, Lee wrote

to the national director's office, "The new potentials

now apparent in the exhibit hall of the AM1 prompts us

to suggest a restudy of the exhibit plan--not in content,

but rather in dimensions and arrangement." For that

purpose Lee suggested that they call a meeting at the

:-:*..atue in July to be attended by representatives from

Washington office; EODC, the region; the Statue of

;I:lherty National Monument; and Floyd La Fayette, the

designer of the 1963 plan.

A series of gatherings followed thE' ' ! held in

July, and out of them came the decision redesign the

layout in such a way as to utilize more el:Lective, dramatic, and modern display techniques. Lee and the other

conferees also concluded that they needed the help of commercial design firms. Thus, in the summer of 1966, the

NPS signed the contract, discussed earlier, with Gart

Urban, for redesign of the Statue of Liberty Story Room.

62

60
In July 1966, NPS also awarded a $21,300 contract to the

industrial design firm of Walter Dorwin Teague Associates

of New York, for redesign of the immigration museum.

Teague Associates had provided exhibits for five pavilions

at the 1964 World's Fair and designed a museum for the

United States Military Academy at West Point. Robert

Blood of Teague Associates took responsibility for the

job. In the course of the work, Blood formed his own

industrial design company, known as Quorum 5, and completed the contract under that name.

Blood made few changes in the content of the exhibits,

except to cut the amount of written text. He also tried to

highlight the colorful and unusual event or custom, without

too much concern for preserving overall balance in the presentation. As Blood put it, he wanted to create something

new and exciting, "not the old, stodgy museum idea." By

January 1967, Blood and Alfred Stern, a writer for Teague

Associates, had produced a preliminary script. In April,

the NPS called a press conference at the Theodore Roosevelt

Birthplace National Historic Site at which Blood revealed

the new plan to newspaper and television reporters, and

other invited guests.28

Spokesmen for black-, Polish-, and Italian-Americans,

members of Congress, and professional historians, some of

them the same ones who had praised the 1958 Federal Hall

exhibit and Pitkin's Prospectus, now denounced the Teague

plan. What had happened? The content of the exhibits had

not changed very much, but the climate of opinion in the

country had. The civil rights movement had gathered

increasing momentum. The demands of aroused blacks for

equality and respect touched off heightened cultural

consciousness in many other racial and ethnic minorities.

Young blacks, Italians, Irish, Jews, Poles, and many others

became intensely interested in discovering and celebrating

their cultural roots, not simply as flavorings that had

blended into a national melting pot (a concept never fully

accepted by many ethnic Americans), but as a valuable

and continuing heritage that had every right to survive

indefinitely.

These changes in climate and opinion had also begun to

inEluence the historical profession. The new history being

ecten by the mid-1960s showed greater awareness of and

,!,itivity to the roles played by blacks, ethnic minorities,

and even women in American history. By this point, most

historians had abandond the melting pot theory. As Robert

nst, an expert on !,mmigration history, summed it up, "The

United States became more a salad bowl than a melting pot.

Melting pot obscures the concept of cultural pluralism which

many feel to be worth maintaining and ehefending."29

63

70
Actually, protest against the AMI exhibit plans began even before the unveiling of the Teague script. In August

1965, five temporary exhibits designed by the NPS's Eastern

Museum Laboratory were installed inside the unfinished base

of the statue. About the same time, Svejda wrote a letter

describing the AMI exhibit sequence which was made public.

He indicated that blacks would be presented in an exhibit

on involuntary immigrants, with their story dramatized by

a scale model of a slave ship. An indignant congressman,

Adam Clayton Powell (Democrat-New York), charged that such

treatment ignored the "fantastic cultural contributions of

Negroes in this country." Powell called for the resignation

of Svejda, whose employment would be an "insult.to America's

20,000,000 Negroes." Constance Baker Motley, the fir_st

black woman to serve as Manhattan borough president, also

expressed concern, requesting a meeting with NYC NPS Group

Superintendent Townsley which took place in October 1965.30

These initial criticisms were mild, however, compared

to the barrage fired after the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace

press conference. Early in June 1967, Dr. Eugene Kusielewicz,

an expert on Polish-American history and vice president of

the New York-based Kosciuszko Foundation, wrote a harsh

evaluation of the Robert Blood plan, which he sent to the

NYC NPS Group headquarters and also made public. "The

primary philosophy governing the preparation of the SCRIPT,"

he charged, seemed to be the "presentation of that which is

colorful or eye appealing, rather than that which would

present an accurate and balanced picture of American immigration." He further declared that there was so little

coverage of Italians and Poles that "...a visitor would

leave the proposed museum with the impression that the two

largest immigrant groups, presently in the United States,

...virtually do not exist." The Polish-American and

Polish-American Journal carried front-page articles on Dr.

Kusielewicz's criticisms and urged readers to make their

complaints about the slighting of Polish-Americans to

Secretary of the Interior Stewart Ud,.11.

Polish groups and individuals were soon doing just

that. The Polish-American Guardian Society of Chicago

wrote to Udall complaing that, "the Polish people have

been largely ignored." The Polish-American Council on

Cultural Affairs of Buffalo made the same charge and

urged Udall "to correct this omission." Other irate

Polish-Americans wrote to their congressmen, which led,

in turn, to letters and phone calls to Udall and the

Department of the Interior from Senators Robert F. Kennedy

(Democrat-New York), Harrison Williams (Democrat-New

Jersey), Birch Bayh (Democrat-Indiana), and Frank Lausche

(Democrat-Ohio) and Congressmen T. J. Dulski (Democrat-New

64

71
York), and Henry Helstoski (Democrat-New Jersey), among

others. All stressed that Polish-Americans and their

contributions to the United States must be adequately

presented in the museum.

Meanwhile, two Italian-American congressmen, Frank

Annunzio (Democrat-Illinois) and Peter Rodino (DemocratNew Jersey) , took up the cudgels for their ethnic group.

Rodino informed the Department of the Interior of his

"deep concern" over the minor amount of material on

Italian-Americans in the Robert Blood script. Annunzio

wrote directly to the White House, as well as to the

NPS, c;y1rging that not only were the Italian-Americans

practically ignored, but what the Teague plan did highlight was ill-chosen. "There is more to the Italian

contribution," he wrote, "than Italians who work in the

vineyards of California and a fisherman enjoying an

Italian dinner." Indeed, Annunzio added, "I would appreciate your deleting tbe entire text about spaghetti,

eggplant, peppers, chianti, pizza, etc....I want to be

associated with an exhibit that doesn't touch the stomach

of people, but touches their hearts!"31

The NPS attempted to defuse the criticism in several

ways. Assistant Director of Interpretation William Everhart

wrote to the senators and congressmen who had registered

their dissatisfaction, explaining that the Blood script was

merely a preliminary exhibit study suggesting a display

approach to be taken. During the summer and fall of 1967,

Robert Blood's Quorum 5 firm would prepare a more detailed

exhibit plan, based on solid research that would do justice

to the contributions of all ethnic groups. Secretary Udall

promised Congressman Dulski and others who had written

on behalf of Polish-Americans that when Quorum.5 revised

the plan, it would consult with Dr. Kusielewicz. The NPS

assured Congressmen Annunzio and Rodino that the final

exhibit scheme would deal with a wider range of Italian

contributions, and the Service would present them with

copies of the revised plan. This commitment was fulfilled

on June 6, 1968, when Everhart met with Rodino and Annunzio

to discuss the reworked Blood plan.

Alan E. Kent, now in the NPS' Washington office, stated

that the section of the AMI dealing with black contributions

would be reviewed by a leading black historian. The NPS

asked John Hope Franklin to take on this assignment. He

declined, but suggested in his place Dr. Elsie M. Lewis of

Howard University. The Service consulted her and the AMI

invited her to become a member of its Historians Committee.

65

7 2
As Robert Blood revised the script during the fall and

winter of 1967-68, Everhart wrote,to General Grant asking

for his help in convening the AMI Historians Committde to . evaluate the completed work. He also requested a contribution of $25,000 for an interim exhibition to be mounted

in the unfinished interior of the statue's base in the

spring of 1968. The AMI responded favorably to both

requests.32

The interim exhibits were ready and installed before

Quorum 5 had completed its final product. On May 17, 1968,

Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson arrived on Liberty Island to officiate at the opening. After remarks by NPS Director

George B. Hartzog and Mrs. Johnson, the First Lady,

using two pairs of scissors brought to the United States

by immigrant tailors from Italy and Austria-Hungary, cut

the ribbons strung across the entryway. Inside, the

visitors saw pictures and displays that would become a

part of the permanent AMI exhibits, as well as sketches

illustrating how the museum would eventually look.

By June 1968, Blood had a revised plan ready to show

the AMI historians. On the 21st, the committee met at the

library of the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site. Dr. Pitkin, who had py then retired from the

NPS, but was now a member of the AMI, Inc., chaired the

gathering. Several other original members of the committee also attended, including Dr. John Krout, Francis S.

Ronalds, Herbert E. Kahler, and William Baldwin. Among

the newer recruits on the committee were Dr. Elsie Lewis

and non-historians Alfred Horowitz and Viola Thomas,

representing the AMI, Inc.; Dr. Alan Kent and Harold

Peterson, NPS, Washington office; Frank Barnes, NPS,

Northeast Regional Office; Jerry Wagers, NYC NPS Group;

and Statue of Liberty Superintendent McClanahan.

Blood offered commentary on the revised script and

showed slides of the proposed exhibits. When he left,

Pitkin led a lively discussion and finally asked the members to further study the plan at home and send in written

evaluations. He and Horowitz would summarize the proceedings and their written statements in a committee

report.

Horowitz submitted that report to the NP$ on

March 27, 1969. It stated, "The exhibit plan for the

American Museum of Immigration, prepared by Quorum 5 and

presented to the Historians Committee of the AMI, cannot

be approved without revision." The unit on Afro-Americans

came in for the most criticism. The consensus seemed to

be that "the contributions of this group prior to the

66
present time have been neglected." The report called for

more material on free blacks in the pre-Civil War period.

The midwest exhibit still slighted the roles of Italians,

Poles, Jews, and other ethnic groups. The industrial

expansion section should have included mention of additional immigrant groups. Immigrants from the Near East

had been ignored. The report stated, "All identifiable

immigrant groups should receive at least minimum treatment." Finally, some of the members questioned the whole

melting pot approach and some disliked the amount of

attention given to the role of immigrants in America's

wars. The latter complaint may well have reflected the

growing public unhappiness with the Vietnam war in which

the country found itself embroiled at the time.33

Kent, Wagers, Barnes, Don Benson, and several others

met on June 4, 1969, to discuss what should be done about

the AMI historians' report. They agreed that the unit on

Afro-Americans had to be expanded along the lines suggested

and that the exhibits on the midwest and industrial expansion should have greater coverage of Italians, Poles, Jews,

and all other appropriate immigrant groups. However, most

of them felt the exhibit plan "still needed the 'Melting Pot'

idea," although "there was some disagreement about this."

They disagreed with the contention that there was too much

emphasis on war, and voted to keep the six exhibits devoted

to the subject.

Following this and several more meetings, Kent headed

an Interpretative Planning Group, headquartered at Harpers

Ferry, which undertook revision of the script within the

framework of the Quorum 5 exhibit layout. He, along with

NPS Curator David Wallace and NPS Designer James Mulcahy,

worked closely with Dr. Lewis on making the necessary additions and corrections to the exhibit on black Americans.

The planning group increased coverage of the Poles by

introducing Casimir Pulaski, Tadeusz Koscuiszko, and Haym

Salomon in the American Revolution exhibit; including

General Wladimir Krzyzanowski and the Polish Brigade in

the Civil War display; and mentioning the achievements

of Wanda Landowska and Arthur Szyk, among others. They

found room for more photographs and artifacts pertaining

to Italians and Jews as wel1.34

The planning group completed its revisions by 1971,

and on August 25 the AMI Historians Committee convened

in New York. nany of the persons attending had also been

present at the 1968 meeting. They were now joined by two

well-known experts on immigration history: Professor

Oscar Handlin of Harvard and Professor John Higham of

Johns Hopkins. Superintendent Jim Batman and Edward

67 7 4
Kallop, who has been appointed curator of the museum the

month before, represented the STLI NM. Also present to

answer questions about their text and receive suggestions

were Kent, Wallace, and Mulcahy.

Jerry Wagers attempted to forestall serious criticism

of the plan with an opening statement suggesting that "the

time factor [target date for museum completion was March

1972] necessitates a factual review not a major revision."

This introduction may explain why the committee gave its

approval to the plan, though some of those present still

felt unhappy about various parts of it. Dr. Lewis again

objected to what she saw as an overemphasis on war,

especially relating to black contributions. Horowitz and

Pitkin observed that all of the artifacts in the Jewish

section were of a religious nature. Several participants

pointed to an almost complete neglect of Mexican, FrenchCanadian, and other inter-American immigrants, as well as

skimpy coverage of Asian-Americans. John Higham voiced

his frustrations with the proceedings, declaring, "I have

basic reservations about the concept of immigration in the

museum, but there is no point in discussing it." Following

the committee's acquiescence, Northeast Regional Director

Chester L. Brooks approved the final text, and the museum

laboratory at Harpers Ferry went into full production of

displays and 1 5els.35

If the NPS thought it had weathered the storms of

criticism and now all would be smooth sailing, it soon

learned otherwise. One member of the Historians Committee

who had received the text, but had not been present at the

August 25 meeting, felt very strongly about what he read.

On September 7, 1971, Professor Rudolph J. Vecoli, director

of the Center for Immigration Studies at the University of

Minnesota, sent a long critical analysis of the plan to

Dave Wallace and other members of the committee. Vecoli's

letter reflected the many changes in emphasis and interpretation that the historical profession had adopted between

the 1950s, when the museum exhibits were first conceived,

and the early 1970s. He blasted the melting pot approach,

the theme of "immigrant contributions," and the extensive

treatment given to the "Old Immigration " (pre-189U) at the

expense of the "New" (post-1890).

In the ferment of the 1960s, political radicals often

accused historians of writing primarily about the doings

of those on top, while ignoring the daily lives of avenage

men and women. By the late sixties, many historians,

sensitive about these charges, were attempting to write

about the past "from the bottom up." Reflecting this new

mode, Vecoli stated, "The meaning of American immigration

68

75
...is that it was a folk movement of unprecedented dimensions, that it involved millions of ordinary people....

This central truth is obscured by the Museum's emphasis

on the elite...of the few who won fame and fortune...."

He felt the museum should show the immigrants at work, at

school, in their churches, and should tell the story of the

labor unions they built. He further contended that the

treatment of Italian immigration was still "totally inadequate" and the role of women in immigration was ignored.

In the growing anti-war spirit of the early 1970s, Vecoli

expressed astonishment that six of thirty exhibits were

devoted to wars. Merge them into one, he advised, and

"free much needed ace to depict the many facets of the

immigrant experience which are presently omitted."

When Wallace replied to the letter by saying it

was now too late for a "total refocusing' of the exhibit

plan, Vecoli began to mobilize ethnic community leaders.

He contacted heads of Polish, Italian, Jewish, and other

organizations and directed two meetings, one in New York

on October 25 and the other in Chicago on November 21,

to discuss flaws in the proposed museum. It was decided

at the New York meeting to seek an appointment with Secretary of the Interior Rogers C. B. Morton. On October 27,

Casimir I. Lenard, executive director of the Polish American Congress, wrote to Morton demanding such a meeting.

He told Morton that, if this request were denied, these

ethnic representatives would be "compelled...to direct a

nationwide campaign against the Museum concept." Lenard

warned, "this matter could well become a political issue

in an election year."36

J. E. N. "Joe" Jensen, associate director of Professional Services for the NPS, contacted Lenard at once,

indicating:that before he and his delegation met with

Morton, the NPS wanted to arrange a conference between

them and NPS historians and interpretative personnel in

New York.: The NPS people could then present a detailed

account of the displays and layouts, and conduct them on

a tour of the museum premises. Lenard accepted the invitation, and the briefing took place on November 8.

On,that morning, delegates from the Polish-American

CongresS, the Koscuiszko Foundation, the Polish Daily News,

the American Italian Historical Association, and the

Americari Jewish Committee showed up at Federal Hall and

listened to Wagers, Wallace, and Pitkin present a history

and defense of nearly twenty years of exhibit planning.

Lenard's group was not impressed. One after another they

rep?ated Vecoli's criticisms. Wallace, Wagers, and Pitkin

claimed that it was too late to make extensive changes for

69

7 6
the exhibits were already in production and the March 1972

opening was rapidly approaching. The ethnic representatives told them to delay the opening until the changes

were made.

Mobilized by Vecoli, these groups then asked Congressman Annunzio to help them arrange a further discussion

at the Department of the Interior. On December 13, the

delegation, now personally headed by Vecoli, met with

Richard C. Curry, special assistant in the Department.

They agreed that Vecoli would present his objections to

the AMI Historians Committee, which would consider the

requested changes. Panels composed of ethnic representatives and academics would then review the final plan and

have a private showing of the exhibits that were being

installed at Liberty Island. Curry also told Horowitz, in

a follo-up letter, that the museum would not be dedicated

until the review had occurred and some accord was reached."37

On March 16, 1972, with the exhibits almost all in

place and the museum looking quite ready to open, the

critical review took place. Vecoli was joined by a

distinguished group of scholars, including Oscar Handlin

and Moses Rischin of Harvard; Victor Greene, University

of Wisconsin; David Rothman of Columbia; Robert Ernst of

Adelphi; and John Appel of Michigan State.38 The representatives of various ethnic groups were also present:

Kusielewicz of the Kosciuszko Foundation; the Reverend S.

Tomasi of the American Italian Historical Association;

Irving Levine of the American Jewish Congress; and others

Led by Wagers and John Bond, chief of interpretation at

STLI NM, all review groups toured the museum. Afterwards

they assembled at Federal Hall, where Vecoli led a discussion about what they had seen.

The main points made at that gathering, plus written comments that the participants submitted later, were

compiled in a report, which the AMI, Inc., forwarded to

the NPS on March 30. The report repeated that criticisms

made earlier by Vecoli, adding that the "concluding exhibit

is weak and lacking in inspiration." The document went on

to list many proposee changes, such as increased coverage

of post-World War II immigration, the development of exhibits on French-Canadian, Mexican, Caribbean, and Filipino

immigration; written identification labels for all photographs in the museum, especially those in the Heartland

Festivals exhibit, and more emphatic treatment of the

landmark 1965 Immigration Act. Realizing that the NPS

could not make all of the revisions immediately, the

historians specified that certain of the more important

ones should be made before dedication of the museum.

The remainder of the flaws should be corrected as soon as

possible.

70

77
The report placrd the following on its immediate

change list: 1) Remcve the World War I "Lost Battalion"

exhibit and replace it with displays on immigrant religions

other than Jewish, which was already covered in a separate

unit. 2) Change the title of the "From the Old Empires"

exhibit to something more acceptable and make clear distinctions among the ethnic groups from Russia and Austria,

such as Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, etc. Also,

add more Polish artifacts. 3) Eliminate all references

to the melting pot and give more adequate recognition

to Italian and Greek immigration. 4) Redo the "Refuge

from Tyranny" exhibit, eliminating the Norden bombsight,

and the pictures of a bombed city and of Nazi bookburning.

"The emphasis should be on the immigrants not the Nazis."

5) Revise and modify the "summation" in the final exhibit.

6) Check all labels, picture captions, and audio tapes

for accuracy.

During April and May 1972, Jerry Wagers; Northeast

Regional Director Brooks; Russel Hendrickson, chief of

the Division of Museums; and others reviewed and commented

on the historians' report. On May 15 they reached a final

decision on how to proceed and notified Horowitz, the members of the historians' panel, the ethnic group representatives, and concerned senators and congressmen of their

intentions.

They would remove the "Lost Battalion" exhibit, and

in its place display "general immigrant objects relating

to the period 1900 to 1920." They would choose items that

particularly strengthened Italian and Greek representation.

They declined to deal with immigrant religions, fearing

that to do so would create still more controversy. They

pointed out that the terms "From the Old Empires" and the

"Melting Pot" were used only for identification on the

exhibit plan, but never appeared in the museum. Therefore,

they were already removed. At least one more Polish

artifact would be added. They agreed to remove the

photograph of the bombed city, but the Norden bombsight

would remain. The Nazi bookburning photo mural would

also be retained with small photographs superimposed on

the surface to illustrate refugees fleeing Nazi and

Fascist terror. More emphasis would be given to the

displaced persons program following World War II and to

the 1965 Immigration Act. All labels would be rechecked

for accuracy.

The NPS group realized the shortcomings of the summary exhibit, but claimed they had neither the time nor

the money to redesign the room before dedicating the museum.

71

7 3
That would have to be accomplished after th.e opening.

Many of the other suggestions in the report also were to

be handled once the facility was in operation.39

The NPS response left Vecoli bitterly disappointed.

In a letter to Wagers, dated June 7, copies of which he

mailed to ethnic leaders and various zongressmen and

senators, the Minnesota professor complained that the

promised changes "would only partially correct some of

the more blatant" flaws. He noted that the NPS gave no

clear indication of what further revisions it would make

after opening, nor did it offer any timetable for implementing these. "I must conclude," he wrote, "that our

efforts to bring about a redesign of the Museum by weight

of scholarly opinion have failed."

Wagers sent a reply to Vecoli and those who had received copies of his letter. The tone was conciliatory,

but Wagers said the NPS would stick to the decisions

announced on May 15. Wagers' answer did not silence the

complaints. Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale (Democrat)

wrote to the Department of the Interior that summer. Just

days before the museum's dedication, Casimir Lenard of the

Polish-American Congress was still petitioning the White

House to intercede with the NPS for further changes, and

SaTgent Shriver, the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in that election year, telegraphed a protest tb Secretary of the Interior Morton, repeating all of Vecoli'-;

complaints.

Despite the continuing controversy, the NPS pushed

ahead with its plans. Curator Ed Kallop, STLI NM Chief

of Interpretation John Bond, and designer Jim Mulcahy

searched for the photographs and artifacts necessary for

the revisions and wrote the additional label copy. On

June 7, the NPS signed a $3,500 contract with Walker/Grad,

a New York firm, for designing and installing the new

displays. The AMI, Inc., donated the money to cover the

costs. By mid-August all was finished, and the NPS and

AMT, Inc., waited eagerly to hear from the White House

about when President Richard M. Nixon would be available

to come to Liberty Island to dedicate the facility. 40

72
NOTES

1This committee had been established in 1956 as the

main body through which the NPS and officials of the AMI,

Inc., would consult on matters concerning the museum. See

Chapter 2, p. 31.

2In the 1950s, architectural plans and building

projects of NPS in the eastern part of the United States

were handled through this office. It later divided into

the Washington and Philadelphia Planning and Service

Centers. These two subsequently reconsolidated under the

name Eastern Service Center. Eventually, all building

projects were handled by merged Eastern and Western

Service Centers, then referred to as the Denver Service

Center.

3AMI News, June 1955; "Operation Unity: Statue

of Liberty, U.S.A.," Duplicates File, Artifact Room; N.

H. Foster, Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report,

August 1956; Report of Meeting of NPS and AMI, April 3,

1957, A-42, AMI National Committee 1954-56 File, Drawer

3, Artifact Room.

4N. H. Foster, Superintendent's Monthly Narrative

Report, November 1957; N. H. Foster to Supervising

Architect, EODC, January 13, 1958; John B. Cabot to N.

H. Foster, January 28, 1958, AMI--1958 File, Drawer 6,

Artifact Room; Minutes of the Meeting of the Joint Development Committee, AMI, January 9, 1958, AMI Estimated

Cost of Construction, The Proposed American Museum of

Immigration, STLI NM, A-42, AMI National Committee 1954-56

File, Drawer 3.

5Minutes of the Meeting of the AMI Executive Committee, October 1, 1958, A-42, AMI National Committee 1954-56

File, Drawer 3; Minutes of the Joint Development Committee

Meeting, October 1, 1958, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities (AMI) 1958 File, Storage Area; Minutes of the Joint

Development Committee Meeting, December 3, 1958, AMI

1958-July-December Museum Exhibit Activities, Drawer 6.

6Edward S. Zimmer to Director C. Wirth, February 5,

1959, D6215, Duplicates File; C. Wirth to A. Hamilton,

March 27, 1959, AMI 1959, 60, 61 Museum Exhibit Activities

File, Drawer 6; Minutes of the AMI Executive Committee

Meeting, October 10, 1961, Duplicates File; A. Hamilton

to Ronald F. Lee, January 27, 1961, AMI 1959, 60, 61

Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; Robert E. Smith,

73

'' 0
Chief Architect, Division of Design and Construction, to

Regional Director, May 24, 1961, D62, Museum and Exhibit

Activities 1959-63 (AMI) File, Storage Area.

7Eventually, change orders brought the total contract

figure to $1,055,750.

8Contract No. 14-10-0529-1122; N. H. Foster, Supt's.

Monthly Narrative Report, November 1961 and December 1961;

Chief Architect R. E. Smith to Superintendent., STLI NM,

April 20, 1962, AMI-STLI NM 1962 File, Drawer 6, Foster,

Supt's. Monthly Narrative Report, May 1962; New York

Times, June 20, 1962; New York World-Telegram and Sun,

June 20, 1962; Pre-advertisement of Invitation for Bids,

March 26, 1962, AMI 1962 (General) Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; U.S. Dept. of Interior News Release,

June 23, 1962, AMI 1962 (General) Mus. Exhib. Act.;

Contract No. 14-100529-1124; Foster, Superintendent's

Monthly Narrative Report, June 1962 and July 1962.

9New York Times, October 29, 1962; New York Herald

Tribune, October 29, 1962; New York Journal-American,

October 28, 29, 1962; New York World Telegram, October 27,

1962; Press Release of NYC National Shrines Advisory Board

and the AMI, Mr. A. Hamilton File, Drawer 3.

10Foster, Supterintendent's Monthly Narrative Report,

December 1962; David O. Smith, project supervisor to Supt.,

STLI NM, December 31, 1962, Appeal of Peter Reiss Construction Company, Inc. File, Drawer 2, Artifact Room; Minutes

of the AMI Board of Trustees Meeting, November 7, 1963, AMI

(Association) File, Drawer 2; Eileen Wirt, "Unique Honor for

Auxiliary," The National Bulletin, December 1964, pp. 6-7,

16.

11Contract No. 14-10-0529 1141, J. H. Townsely, Supt.

NYC-NPS Group, Monthly Narrative Report, July 1965; NPS

Press Release, April 10, 1964, RE: 1964 Annual Meeting File,

Drawer 31, Artifact Room; Lester F. McClanahan, Supt.,

Monthly Narrative Report, April 1965; Minutes of the AMI

Board of Trustees Meeting, November 12, 1964, RE: 1964

Annual Meeting File, Drawer 31.

12The sum was later increased to $1,099,889.

13Among the subcontractors were the following firms:

graAite and limestone work--S. Pizzuliello and Co., Inc.,

aluminum-Utility Brass and Bronze, plastering-S. & B.

Plastering Contractors, Inc., laying carpet--Circle Floor

Co., entrance--Charles Brandin, Inc., ceramic tile-J. & J.
Tile Co., plumbing--Zachary Plumbing and Heating, Inc.,

heating--C.D.E. Air Conditioning Co., electrical--Mainpower

& Electric Wiring Corporation.

14William C. Everhart, Assistant Director, Interpretation to U. S. Grant, November 30, 1967, American Museum

of Immigration File, Drawer 2, Artifact Room; L. F.

McClanahan, assistant superintendent, to Harriet L. Holt,

April 3, 1968, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activir, MI 1968

File, Storage Area; Chief of Design and Construction, Phil.

Planning and Service Center to Superintendent., Fire Island

and NYC NPS Group, September 26, 1967 and InvitaJlion for

Bids, D52, American Museum of Immigration IFB#D & C-15-A68

File; Drawer 1, Artifact Room; Chief Design and Construction

to Chief Eastern Museum Laboratory, November 29, 1967, AMI

IFB #D & C-15-A68 File; George A. Palmer, acting regional

director, to Chief Design and Construction, December 18,

1967, AMI IFB # D & C-15-A68 File; The Kansas City Star,

July 30, 1969; Superintendent, Fire Island and NYC NPS

Group to Regional Director, Northeast Region, February 10,

1969, American Museum of Immigration File, Drawer 2;

Notice of Beginning Date, January 23, 1968, Statue of

Liberty File, Drawer 5, Artifact Room; Contract No.

14-10-7-981-41, December 15, 1967, Statue of Liberty

File, Drawer 5.

15Memorandum from Alan E. Kent, acting chief, Eastern

Museum Laboratory, to Superintendent, NYC NPS Grp., May 4,

1966, and George J. Svejda, historian, to Gart Urban, May 9,

1966, AMI 1966: January-June Museum Exhibit Activities

File, Drawer 6, Artifact Room; "The American Museum of

Immigration - When?," History of the AMI File, Drawer 2,

Artifact Room; U.S. Department of Interior, NPS Press

Release, February 20, 1970.

"This estimate was probably based too heavily on

costs in phase IV and did not adequately take into account

inflation.

17L. McClanahan, assistant superintendent, to Superintendent NYC NPS Group, January 22, 1969, American Museum

of Immigration File, Drawer 2; Le Roy R. Brown, director,

ESC, to Associate Director, Professional Services, January

29, 1971, D62, Museum Activities AMI 1971 File, Storage

Area; L. R. Brown to Director NPS, July 1, 1971 and attached

supporting documents, AMI STLI NM File, Drawer 5.

18The companies with which the NPS signed contracts

included: preparation of floor surfaces--M. Goodwin Concrete

Corporation, New York City, $9,559; mechanical work--Designed

Weather, Inc., Island Park, New York, $60,344; museum wall

75

82
systems, cases--Presentations South, Inc., Orlando, Florida,

revised completion date resu1t,2d in adjustment in contract

price to $336,024; electrical--Mansfield CDntracting Corporation, Flushing, New York $14,830; acoustical tile

ceilings--Robert J. Harder, Inc., Rockville Centre, New

York, $25,038; general construction--M.T.F. Industries,

Little Neck, New York, $54,600. See Jerry D. Wagers, AMI

Progress Reports Nos. 1 through 3, AM-STII NM File, Drawer

5.

19L. R. Brown to Dire(:tor NPS, July 1, 1971, AMI-STLI

NM File, Drawer 5; Wager.,, AMI Progress Reports Nos. 1

through 8, July 1971 to WIrch i6, 1972, AMI-ETLI NM File;

J.E.N. Jensen to Spyros P. Skovras, August 3, 1971, AMISTLI NM File; Grant A. Cadwallader, Jr., Weekly Field

Reports, AMI-STLI NM File: New York Daily News, October 3,

1971.

20The name AMI Historians Committee is somewhat

misleading since, from the start, many of its members

were not profeFsionally trained historians. The committee was created by the AMI, Inc., in 1955, to advise the

Joint Development Committee on 11e, themes and content of

museum exhibits. Its me)Mbers were chooen by AMI, Inc.,

either on its own or on the advice of NPS officials. During its nearly-20-year existence, the Historians Committee

saw many changes in membership. Originally, it included

such well-known scholars as John A. Krout, Oscar Handlin,

Allan Nevins, and Carl Wit'!ATJ. It also included members

of the NPS who were trained as historians, such as Dr.

Francis S. Ronalds, Ronald F. Lee, and, later, Dr. Thomas

M. Pitkin, as well as one NPS official who was not, Newell

Foster. At all stages4. the Historians Committee contained

members from the AMI, Inc., who were not historians:

William H. Baldwin, Alexander Hamilton, Alfred Horowitz,

and Viola Thomas, to name a few. Meanwhile, professional

historians having specialties in black, ethnic, and

immigration history came and went over the 20-year period.

Examples include Elsie Lewis (black history), John Higham

(immigration history), and Rudolph J. Vecoli (immigration

studies).

21Minutes of the Meetiag of the AMI Museum Committee,

June 9, 1954, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activity (AMI) 1954

File, Storage Area.

22Minutes of the Meeting of the AMI Historians'

Committee, Farch 22, 1956, Duplicates File, Artifact Room.

23Pitkin, Prospectus for the American Museum of Immigration, pp. 2, 4, 5, 6, Duplicates File.

76

83
24Resolution passee y the AMI Executive Committee at

its Meeting, October 9, 1956, Duplicates File; Conrad Wirth

to Alexander Hamilton, November 11, 1956, AMI 1956 File,

Drawer 6, Artifact Room; AMI Newsletter and Draft of AMI

News Release--Alden Stevens, AMI 1957 Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; N. FostPe, Superintendent's Monthly

Narrative Reports, February, J...e, July 1957; Report of

Meeting of NPS and AMI, April 3, 1957, A-42, AMI National

Committee 1954-56 File, Drawer 3, Artifact Room. Pitkin,

Notes on the AMI Exhibit Planning Meeting, November 12,

1957, AMI 1957 Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6.

25Foster, Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Reports,

January, May, July, September, October, December 1958 and

January 1959; T. Pitkin to John H. Franklin, July 7, 1958,

AMI 1958, July-Dec., Museum Exhibit File, Drawer 6; John

A. Krout to Pitkin, July 23, 1958, Duplicates File;

Comments of A. M. Schlesinger, August 24, 1958,Robert

Ernst, September 16, 1958 and others, AMI 1958, JulyDecember, Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; J. H.

Franklin, October 20, 1958, Rowland T. Berthoff, October 1,

1958, Daniel J. Tobin, September 24, 1958, Floyd A. La

Fayette, July 22, 1958, Critical Comments and Suggestions

File, Drawer 3; Pitkin to Ron Lee, July 28, 1958 and

Pitkin and Stevens to N. Foster, July 28, 1958, AMI 1958,

July-December, Drawer 6; Pitkin to Charles G. Beetem,

October 27, 1959, AMI 1959, 60, 61 Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6.

26Foster, Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report,

October 1961; Memo, A. Stevens to Director, History Branch,

October 7, 1958, AMI 1958, July-December File, Drawer 6;

Memo, Acting Regional Director G. A. Palmer to Chief, EODC,

October 4, 1962, AMI 1962 (General) Museum Exhibit .7",ctivities File, Drawer 6; Ralph Lewis to Regional Dirctor,

Region 5, June 15, 1962, AMI 1962 (General) Fil Pitkin to

Regional Director, May 28, 1962, AMI 1962 (General) File;

Master Plan STLI NM, April 1962, STLI NM Master Plan File,

Drawer 1, Artifact Room; Floyd La Fayette to V. S. Thomas,

August 6, 1963, AMI 1963; July-December File, Drawer 6;

Foster, Superintendent's Monthly Reports, January, May,

July 1962; AMI, Chronology of Exhibit Plan Review, Correspondence (AMI) Beginning 3/72 File, Drawer 2.

27Foster, Superintendent's MonIhly Narrative Reports,

May, August 1962, April 1963; Svejda to Holland Society of

New York, Svejda to Huguenot Society of America, 1963, and

many others; Planning, Preparation, Main and I're-Museum

Exhibits File, Drawer 6; Request for Cultural Objects of

Polish Immigrants for the AMI and many other requests,

Planning, Preparation, Main and Pre-Museum Exhibits File;

77

84
Svejda to National Greek Tribune, Chinese Times, Armenian

Mirror-Spectator, Byelorussian Youth, and many other newspapers, Planning, Preparation...File; Appeal and article

by Svejda in Hairenik Weekly, July 8, 1965; Other letters

and appeals, AMI-STLI NM, 1962 File, Drawer 6; Svejda,

Notes on My Trip to Chicago, April 23, 1965, AMI 1965;

January-June Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6;

Svejda, List of Artifacts Acquired, Planning, Preparation.

File; Svejda, Notes On my Activities, May 28, 1965, AMI 1965:

January-June, Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; STejda

to Acting Supervisory Historian, New York City Area, June

1-30, 1966, Duplicates File; New York Times, June 2, 1966.

28Memo from Acting Regional Director Palmer to Chief,

EODC, April 17, 1964; R. Lee to NPS Director, May 14, 1964;

Acting Assistant Director, Operations, William Everhart to

Northeast Regional Director, Chief EODC, and buperintendent

NYC NPS Group, December 3, 1964; Lee to Director, December

9, 1964; Townsely to Lee, December 11, 1964, AMI-STLI NM

1963 File, Drawer 6; United States Department of Interior,

NPS, News Release, Ju.Ly 4, 1966, AMI 1966; July-December

Museum Exhibit Activities File, Drawer 6; Alfred Stern

and Robert J. Blood Preliminary Script AMI, NPS, Department of the Interior, January 27, 1967, American Museum of

Immigration File, Drawer 3; Newark Evening News, April 20,

1967; Superintendent NYC NPS Group Henry G. Schmidt,

Invitation to Press Conference; Visitors Present at AMI

Presentation, April 19, 1967, AMI Preliminary Plan Presentation 4/19/67 File, Drawer 2; The Jersey Journal, April

20, 1967, Newark Star-Ledger, April 20, 1967.

28Robert Ernst to William Everhart, Assistant Director

Interpretation, June 26, 1968, Museum and Exhibit Activities

Planning Cooperative Agreement AMI 1968 File, Drawer 6.

30L. F. McClanahan, Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report, August 1965; Townsley, Superintendent's

Monthly Narrative Report, October 1965; Washington Post,

September 26, 1965.

31E. Kusielewicz, Observations on the Proposal for

the Museum of Immigration, Duplicates File; Polish-American,

June 17, 1967; Polish-American Journal, July 8, 1967; L.

Jarzab, president, Polish-American Guardian Society, to

S. Udall, June 19, 1967; W. M. Drzewieuiecki, president,

Polish-American Council on Cultural Affairs, to S. Udall,

July 7, 1967, 1967 Criticisms and Replies File, Drawer 2;

AMI, Chronology of Exhibit Plan Review, Correspondence

(AMI) Beginning 3/72 File, Drawer 2; W. C. Everhart to

Peter Rodino, Peter Rodino to Robert C. Mc Connell, Assistant to the Secretary for Congressional Liaison, Department

78

85
of Interior, July 12, 1967; Frank Annunzio to C- P.

Montgomery, Assistant Director, NPS, July 11, 1967, Joseph

A. Califano, Jr., Special Assistant to the Pr=?.sident, to

Frank Annunzio, July 17, 1967 and Califano to Secretary

Udall, July 17, 1967, Duplicates File.

32Everhart to Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr.,

August 2, 1967, Duplicates File; Alan E. Kent, Report on

American Museum of Immigration Design Scheme Complaints,

August 1, 1967, 1967 Criticisms and Repl as File, Drawer

2; Kent, Decisions on AMI, September 13, 1967, Duplicates

File; Everhart to Frank Annunzio, May 3, 1968, Everhart

to Peter Rodino, Jr., June 13, 1968, Museum and Exhibit

Activities Planning Cooperative Agreement AMI 1968 File,

Drawer 6; Everhart to U.S. Grant, November 30, 1967,

Henry G. Schmidt, Superintendent Fire Island and NYC NPS

Group, to Director NERO, December 11, 190, American

Museum of Immigration File, Drawer 2.

33The American Museum of immigration, Opening of the

Interim Exhibits, May 17, 1968, Duplicates File: New York

Times, May 18, 1968; Minutes of the Historians Committee

of the AMI, June 21, 1968k Duplicates File; A. Horowitz

to W. C. Everhart, May 27, 1969 and Report of the AMI

Historians Committos, on the Exhibit Plan for the American

Museum of Immigration, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities

(AMI) 1968 File, StLrage Area; Robert Ernst to Everhart,

June 26, 1968, Museum and Exhibit Activities Planning

Cooperative Agreement AMI 196P File, Drawer 6.

34Memo, Alan E. Kent to Assistant Director, Interpretation, June 9, 1969, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities (AMI) 1963 File, Storage Area; Kent to Elsie Lewis,

November 24, 1969, American Museum of Immigration File,

Drawer 2; Dceakdown prepared -7:or Jerry Wagers, December 9,

1971, Duplicates File.

35Minutes of th,:t Meeting of the Historians Committee,

American Museum of Immigration, August 25, 1971, Duplicates

File; American Museum of Immigration, Chronology of Exhibit

Plan Review, Correspondence (AMI) Beginning 3/72 File,

Drawer 2.

36Rudolph J. Vecoli to David H. Wallace, September 7,

1971 and Wallace to Vecoli, September 27, 1971, Duplicates

File; Andrew T. Kopan, "Museum of Immigration Opening Held

Setback,' Boston Hellenic Chronicle, December 16, 1971;

Casimir 1. Lenard to Rogers C. B. Morton, October 27, 1971,

American Museum of Immigration Exhibit Plan File, Drawer 2.

79

86
37J.E.N. Jensen tc Life, Office of the Secretary,

Noveatber 4, 1971, AMI-S.2 M File, Drawer 5; Minutes of

the Meeting Between NPS r Delegation Headed by Casimir

I. Lenard, November 8 1, , Federal Hall, Duplicates

File; Fra Noi, Januar, ' Richard C. Curry to Director

Hartzog, December 17- AMI Special Groups Inactive

File, AMI Curator's Files; Curry to A. Horowitz, February

7, 1972, Duplicates File.

38Professors Green and Appel were members of tha

Immigration History Group, a society of some 400 scholars

engaged in research and teaching in migration and ethnic

studies. In January 1972, that croup had sent to Secretary

Morton a resolution condemning the exhibit plans for the

museum and calling for review by recognized scholars in

the field of American Immigration.

38AMI, Status Report, March 23, 1972, AMI Exhibit

Plan and Inquiries from Historians File, Drawer 2; AMI

Trustees to NPS, March 30, 1972, Recommendations of the

American Museum of Immigration Historians Committee-March

16, 1972, Duplicates File; Meeting Historians Committee,

Federal Hall-March 16, 1972, A Review and Critique of

the American Museum of Immigration at the Statue of

Liberty National Monument, American Museum of Immigration

(Association) File, Drawer 2; AMI Historians Review Committee Report and NPS Response, Duplicates File; Wagers

to A. Horowitz, May 16, 1972, Duplicates File; Wagers to

Museum Branch, HFC, April 14, 1972, American Museum of

Immigration Exhibit Plan and Inquiries from Historians

File, Drawer 2; Wagers to Hendrickson, Chief, Division of

Museums, HFC, April 28, 1972, Duplicates File; Wagers to

Vecoll and other revie4 committee members, May 16, 1972,

and Wagers to Senator Jacob Javits and other Senators,

Wagers tu Annunzio and other congressmen, May 16, 1972,

AMI Exhibit Plan and Inquiries from Historians File,

Drawer 2,

"R. Vecoli to J. Wagers, June 7, 1972, and Wagers

to Vecoli, June 21, 1972, AMI Special Groups-Inactive File,

AMI Curator's Files; Acting DirectIr of New York District

to Walter F. Mondale, August 2, 1972, D6215, Museum and

Exhibit Activities 1972 File," Storage Area, C. I. Lentard

to Michael Balzano, White House, September 23, 1972, AMI

(Associations) File, Drawer 2; telegram, Sargent Shriver

to Secretary R.C.B. Morton, September 23, 1972, AMI Exhibit

Plan and Inquiries from Historians File, Drawer 2; Su.perintendent James F. Batman to Director, New York Distric

Progress Report on AMI Revisions, June 2, 1972, AMI

Exhibit Plan and Historians Inquiries File, Drawer 2;

Wagers to A. Horowitz, June 14, 1972, Correspondence (AMI)

80

87
Beginning 3/72 File, Drawer 2; Contract Walker/Grad and

Department of Interior, NPS, June 7, 1972, Correspond3nce

(AMI) Beginning 3/72 File; Wagers to Director NERO, October

27, 1972, AMI (Associations) File; Wagers to Director NERO,

June 15, 1972, AMI Revisions Prior to Opening (1972) File,

AMI Curator's Files.
CHAPTER 4

THE FIRST DECADE OF THE AMERICAN MUSEUM OF IMMIGRATION,

1972 - 1982

After twenty years of planning, fund-raising, controversies and agreements, both the NPS and the AMI, Inc.,

wanted to open the museum of immigration with fanfare and

gala ceremonies. In June 1972, Jerry Wagers, director of

the New York District, wrote to AlfrcA Horowitz, chairman

of the Executive Committee of the AMI, Inc., suggesting

that they sit down together t work out details concerning

the dedication: speakers, act .vities, guest lists, press

releases.

They would soon have a third partner, however, iu

the staging of t'le event. President Richard M. Nixcn, who

had been vice president when the museum project was lirst

proposed and who had long supported it, agreed to be the

guest of honor and the principal speaker. The Republicans

undoubtedly saw the political advantage in participating in

such an event just weeks before the 1972 election. From

Washington came word that the White House wanted to set

September 26 as the dari for the dedication. This coincided with the first 2 of the President's coast-to-coast

campaign trip.

Nixon, according to the New York Daily News, had

been making "a strong pitch...for the ethnic vote which

usually goes to the Democrats." With that strategy in

mind, the Republicans turned the cremonies into what

the News described as "an ethnic f,-stival." The audience

of roughly 3,000 on Liberty Island that day was composed

of first- and second-generation Amerioans some in the

costumes of their former homelands. The Republican

National Committee and the New York Committee to Reelect

the President issued invitations to thousands of Roman

Catholic parochial school and Jewish yeshiva children,

their parents, and teachers. When President Nixon and

his party (Mrs. Nixon, Secretary of Interior Morton,

Governors Nelson Rockefeller of New Yoi-k and William T.

Cahill of New Jersey, and Pierre S. du Pont, 3rd) alighted

from their helicopter in mid-afternoon, four little girls,

82

89
dressed in the costumes of Italy, Germany, Poland, and

the Ukraine, presented the First Lady with a bouguet.1

Nixon and his companions took a brief tour of the

exhibits and then the speeches began. First came du Pont,

who used the opportunity to extol the unique relationship

between private citizens (led by the AMI, Inc.) and the

government, which had made the museum possible. He paid

tribute to three AMI trustees who had not lived to see

this culmination of their dream: Ulysses S. Grant, III,

Hamilton, and Spyros Skouras. Mindful of the heated criticisms of Vecoli and company, du Pont said 0'%:1 museum was

"not completed." Changing exhibits and special events

would be planned to pay Lxibute to every ethnic group.

Next, Secretary Morton spoke briefly and introduced the

President.

As Nixon began to spezlk, tile only discordant note in

the proceedings was struck. A '30zen anti-Vietnam War

demonstrators attempted to interrupt him with shouts of

"Stop the bombing" as they -laved sions reading "Stop the

War." Administration supporters in the crowd chanted

back "Four More Years." Nixon, who frequently accused

the media of raying more attention to the dissident

minority than the "silent majority," called toward the

camera crews, "Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I would

only suggest that on your television screen tonight in

addition to showing the six there [pointing to the protestors], let's show the thousands that are over here."

After the NPS police hustled away the demonstrators,

the President continued in a vein he must have sensed

would please his audience. The immigrants celebrated in

the museum, he declared, "believed in hard work. They

didn't ome here for a handout. They came here for an

opportunity and they built America. I have found," he

added, that "when it comes to patriotism, those whc came

to America from other lLnds are in the forefront."2

When dedication day and its politics were over, the

press and the public finally got their turn to visit the

new museum and evaluate what they saw and heard there.

The reviews in the newspapers were, for the most part,

favorable. A columnist in the Baltimore Sun wrote that

the American r4u ui of Immigration offered a fascinating

treatment of the subject and was "a marvel of ethnic

balance....The Modls of the slave ships with cutaways

of the holds...is a lurid exhibit that will bring shivers

to free men." From the New York Daily News came the comment, "The United f2tates' newest museum in the base of

the Statue of Liberty is simply wow! I was fascinated by

83

90
a blown-up facsimile of an indenture paper which had to

be like the one signed by...my great-great-great-greatgreat grandfather." A Long Island Newsday reporter

singled out the life-sized figures of immigrants dressed

in their native clothing "as vivid and colorful," while

a New York Times journalist found "most dramatic of all

are spectacular photographs of old newspaper pictures

blown up so they stretch from the floor to the ceiling.

The most arresting one is of Mulberry Street on the

Lower East Side."

There were, on the other hand, some bitingly critical

commentaries. Rose De Wolf, in the Philadelphia Evening

Bulletin, asked, "What was the big rush to open this

travesty? The overall impression you get there is that

there are two ways to prove yourself as an American--one

is to become rich and famous and the other--not as good

--is to die in a war. Women and children, needless to

say, are rarely in view. Poor Miss Liberty. What a

dirty trick to hide this under her skirt."J

And what about the more than one million persons who

visited Liberty Island each year? How did they react?

During the first twelve months after the new facility

opened, approximately 650,000 or a little less than half

of those visitors found their way into the museum. The

figures did not change much for the remainder of the

aecade§ ranging between approximately 600,000 and 700,000

viewers per year, about 50 percent of those arriving on

Liberty Island. As one staff member put it, climbing

to the statue's crown was still the tourist's chief goal.

"The museum will probably always be a secondary attraction...."

In April and May 1973, a student intern conducted

an informal survey of visitor use to learn more about

the response of those who did make their way into the

museum. The survey indicated that the average time the

viewer took to go through the exhibits was 17.9 minutes

and estimated that a comprehensive look at the museum

(reading all captions, listening to the audios, seeing

the films) would take sixty to ninety minutes. (However,

few visitors to any museum read all the captions.) Most

of %be comments overheard were favorable, with people

seemingly most impressed by the professional design and

color. Viewers seemed generally to show the greatest

interest in the exhibits pertaining to their own ethnic

group. At least some persons appeared to be emotionally

touched. One wrote in a letter to the Daily News, "A

Visit to the new American Museum of ImmiTTIL .on...rekindled memories of the happiest moments of aly Life when I

arrived from Russia on September 20, l920."4

84

91
Even if most liked what they saw, the NPS could not

forget that a group of scholars in the field of immigration and some ethnic leaders had been extremely critical.

To satisfy their objections to the exhibit plan, Jerry

Wagers, Russ Hendrickson, Chester Brooks, and others,

had drawn up a list of revisions back in May 1972 that

would be made before the dedication, and others that

would be attended to after the opening. The NPS now

returned to that commitment. The first step was to seek

further advice from museum specialists. Dr. Ernest A.

Connally, associate director, Pro2essional Services,

NPS, invited Dr. Paul N. Perrot of the Smithsonian;

George Bowditch, curator of the Margaret Woodbury Strong

Museum; David Scott, consultant, National Gallery of

Art; Dr. Walter J. Heacock, Hagley Museum director; and

Charles Guggenheim, Guggenheim Productions, Inc., to

visit the AMI and make recommendations concerning the

content and presentation of the exhibits.

That group toured the museum on December 14, 1972,

in the company of Wagers, AMI Curator Kallop, and STLI NM

Superintendent Batman, and during the next six weeks

its members forwarded extensive reports to the NPS. At

the end of January 1973, the New York District office

compiled a summary of the observations contained in

those reviews. The team members felt that the design

overwhelmed the theme of the museum. The taped messages

accompanying some of the exhibits were too long. They

called for better transitions from one display to the

next to help the viewer follow the story. All of the

reports complained about the "Reluctant Immigrant" exhibit

on Afro-Americans, but expressed different reations for

their dissatisfaction. Three team members believed that

the religious treatment in the Jewish Exhibit was out of

keeping with the remi_inazat of the museum, and all were

disappo1nted in the summation room. The NPS could improve

comfort in the museum by lowering the general level of

lighting ad adding some seats for visitors. The lighting was subsequently improved and this change probably

constituted the most direct response to the report's

criticisms.5

In April 1973 specialists from Harpers Ferry and

STLI NM staff composed a list of specific revisions to

be made in the museum, based on the study team evaluation

and the earlier promises to the ethnic leaders aild the

group of scholars headed by Dr. Vecoli. They grouped

these changes, additions and/or corrections into first,

second, and third priorities, noting beside each the estimated cost of planning and of actual production. In the

first priority list they placed some of the following:

85

92
include exhibits on immig-ant religions and the immigration experience in the Heartlands Festival area; expand

the coverage of Balkan, Baltic, Central and Eastern

European immigrants; incorporate an exhibit on Near

Eastern immigration; and totally replan and redesign the

exhibit room around the theme of "And Still They Come."

This last project they estimated would require $10,000

for the planning and $80,000 for the oroduction. In the

second and third priority categories went revisions,

along the lines suggested by the scholars and museum

specialists, for the Chin,-se, Japanese, J,'wish, and Uack

exhibits, among others.

This 1973 document, in addition, listed museumrelated projects which would enhance the, AMI's worth as

an educational institution. These proposals, too, were

divided into first, second, and third priorities. In the

first category the planners mentioned operating a special

exhibit program on an estimated annual budget of $3,000

for planning, $15,000 for production, and starting a

publications effort with $5,000 for planning and $5,000

for production. The price tag attached to the total

package of exhibit revisions and related projects came to

more than $350,000.

On April 27, Jerry Wagers wrote to Al Horowitz of

the AMI, Inc., enclosing a copy of these proposals.

Wagers pointed out that there was only $5,600 left in

the AM1's donation account for the museum, and the NPS'

1974 fiscal year budget contained no appropriations for

revisions or other related projects. If the AMI, Inc.,

would contribute more monies for the desired work or any

part of it, the NPS could proceed almost immediately.6

The problems were not to be solved that easily. The

AMI, Inc., apparently had next to no funds on hand, nor

did it have any effective schem for raising new income.

Museum Curator Kallop wrote r _c-,11y in 1973 and 1974

informing Horowitz and the trn-r of the AMI, Inc.,

that he did not have sufficient money to carry on properly

with special programs, let alone undertake revision of

exhibits. Furthermore, funding for museum rehaiilitatinn/

revision came from an overextended Harpers Ferry fund

and not out of the STLT NM's annual operating budget.

As a result, Kallop and the curators who succeeded him,

Paul Weinbaum and Paul Kinney, fought an often losing

battle simply to keep on top of needed repairs and maintenance as exhibits aged and the museum suffered the

wear and tear of r00,000 or more people going through it

per year. There dere also complaints voiced by both NPS

staff and AMI, Inc., executives concerning the poor

3
communications between the two groups. For example, in

a November 30, 1973, letter to Viola Scott Thomas of AMI,

Inc., Curator Kallop wrote, "What I feel is lacking perhaps

comes down to the overworked word communication." Alfred

Horowitz, chairman of the AMI, Inc., Executive Committee

in the 1970s, on the other hand, claimed that in its

dealings with his organization the 'NPS has been often

uncooperative."7

Despite the fact that it did not contribute money,

the AMI, Inc., periodically nudged the NPS to get on with

the proposed revisions and to initiate new prograw, In

October 1974, Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum (Democrat-Ohio),

now a trustee of the AMI, Inc., wrote to NYC Group Superintendent William H. Hendrickson, inquiring about pro ress

made on th se items and reminding him that the 1972 commitment had to be honored. Acting Superintendent Wilbur Ford

replied that many minor changes in the exhibits harl been

made and several of the projects were underway. The major

revisions, particularly redesign of the final room, could

not be managed without private financial assistance. The

stalemate continued through 1975, with the AMI, Inc., prodding the NPS to more activity and the NYC Group officials

requesting at least $4,000 to initiate plannin of the

redesign of the "And Still They Come" exhibit.0

Frustrated with the lack of action, du Pont, Horowitz,

and George Hartzog (a former director of the NPS and now a

trustee of the AMI, Inc.) met in April 1976 with William C.

Everhart, assistant director of the Service. The AMI, Inc.,

officers cum2lained that the museum was simply not living

up to its potential as a major educational and cultural

institution in the New York area. New, expanded outreach

programs must be started and the long-delayed revisions of

the exhibits had to be undertaken. The AMI, Inc., wanted

to offer more financial assistance for these endeavors, but

ii- did not possess the resources.

Everhart, perhaps realizing that the NPS was unlikely

ever to receive substantial, regular donations from the

AMI, Inc., promiaed to make all efforts to obtain funds in

the 1978 fiscal year budget for the planning and production

work on the sum-aatiowl, room. His requests in a period of

tight federal budgetsr however, proved fruitless and nothing

was done.

As la-e as Ole fall of 1980, Harpers Ferry Interpretive

Planner Mia Paskt_wsky and Exhibit Designer David McLean

visited Liberty Island and wrote a report reiterating that

priority must be yiver to redesigning the "And Still They

Come" exhibit, recommended a $250,000 package to

87

9 4
cover the cost of the exhibit; the redesign and restoration

of the Statue of Liberty Story Room, which had suffered bomb

damage; and a limited amount of rehabilitation and revision

in the remainder of the museum. Through 1982, however, the

money had not materialized, and by 'hen suggestions that the

museum might be moved to Ellis Island Jade the NPS reluctant

to expend funds on displays that subsequently be dismantled and relocated.9

In addition to lack of funds, other problems also prevented the immigration museum from becoming a major educational and cultural institution in the New York area. The

1970s saw a strong movement toward the professionalization

of museum staffs in the United States: development of formal

procedures of administration and acquisition, expansion of

on- and off-site educational programs, hirinj of adeluat(2,

professionally trained staff, and accreditation of jnstitutions. Paul Weinbaum, as curator of the AMI, belon ' to

the local New York City museum organization, the ff-,

Council, a loosely organized group of about 50 raw,

tors. As a member of the organization, Weinbauw 6 ,ssed

with the others and was fully aware of these new atards.

He found, however, that his museum peers had orc: stadard

of professional expectations, while the NPS and AH1, Inc.,

had another.

The emerging museum ethic envisioned the ,i,eum as a

place where new and special exhibits and activities could

be presented, building upon an expanding core collection

at the site. The dominant philosophy at NPS was oriented

toward visitor use, not acquisition and development of

collections. This rather static NPS philosophy did not

allow for the additional staff and expenditures necessary

under a more dynamic approach. Thus, after the immigration museum opened, its curators battled constantly with

higher-up NPS staff for funds to enlarge the collection,

support visiting shows and special exhibits, and acquire

a more adequate library. The funds made available for

these purposes never came in the desired amount, and Curator Weinbaum felt the museum's possibilities substantially

diminished as a result. In Weinbaum's view, the executive

board of the AMI, Inc., was no better on these matters.

He thought they had little concept of what constl.tuted a

professional museum staff and seemed wedded to attitudes

about museums inherited from the 1950s and 60s.

Even in the matter of the primary responsibilities of

the curator of the AMI there were conflicting expectations.

The AMI, Inc,, saw the curator as the person concerned

first and forevsost with running the museum, and, as a member

of the Museum:: Council, the curator also played that role.

88
The NPS, however, regarded the curator as a member of the

interpretive staff for the entire Statue of Libertv-Ellis

Island site and expected him to spend much of his time on

visitor and other services not confined to the museum.10

The severe financial constraints, differences in

museum philosphy, and conflicting administrative expectations hampered revision of exhibits, expansion of

collections, and the hiring of needed museum specialists

and professionals in the field. Nevertheless, the American

Museum of Immigration did manage to mount a number of

special exhibits, primarily in the museum lobby, and carry

on several educational and cultural programs. Although

these temporary shows were not ,sually professionally designed and were often mounted on shoestring budgets, they

were reasonably well-4(:le. Moreover, they often dealt

with topics neglect, wholly or in part, by the permanent

exhibits.

The cultural life of the immigrants, slighted in

the museum proper, became the subject of the 1974 "Read

All About It: The Immigrant Press--An American Tradition."

Children, who, one critic remarked, barely existed in

the permanent displays, received the spotlight in "And

They Call Us a Problem? The Immigrant Child 1890-1930."

This was designed as a traveling exhibit, whIch opened

at the museum and was then shipped to other educational

and cultural institutions. In 1982 visitors as far away

as Colorado could see that show at the Fort Collins

Museum.11

Another traveling exhibit was entitled "Yearning to

Breathe Free: Immigrants in Search of the American Dream."

It consisted of 23 mounted photographs depicting the experiences of immigrants being processed through Ellis Island

early in the 20th century. 12 Augustus F. Sherman, the

Immigration Service's official photographer until his

death in 1925, had taken the pictures. All but forgotten,

Sherman's work was rediscovered when the photographer's

heirs donated a collection of 125 original prints to the

museumu1.3

The museum, in cooperation with outside ethnic and

scholarly organizations, mounted two temporary shows that

focused on the family, cultural, and community life of

two immigrant groups that had aot received extensive

coverage in the permanent displays. In 1976 the 'Chinase

in America: Images of a Neglected Past" opened on Liberty

Island. Developed by the AMI and the Basement Workshop

(later named the Asian-American Research Institute), and

funded in part by Museuns ^ollaborative, a New York City

89

96
organization, the exhibit dealt with the actual life of

Chinese-Americans and the stereotypes about them held by

their white countrymen.

"We Italian-Americans: A Pictorial Essay, 1875-1977"

followed in the fall of 1977. The show, financed in part

by a grant from the New York Council for the Humanities,

was a joint undertaking of the museum and the Center for

Migration Studies, a non-profit research institute. This

small exhibit illustrated importaht aspects of ItalianAmerican life with photographs of neighborhood, family,

famous Italian-Americans, and demonstrations of prejudice

against the group. 14

The museum further attempted to enlarge its audience

and reach out to the public by organizing special events.

In September and October 1973 the staff arranged an Ethnic

American Music Festival. The concerts, given out-of-doors

on Liberty Island on three successive Sundays, attracted

audiences of 200 to 400, most of them ordinary tourists.

Between September and December 1975 the museum ran a

festival of documentary and fictional films depicting

the immigrant experience. The movies, shown on Friday

and Sunday afternoons in the statue's base, ranged from

the earliest documentaries made at the start of the century to recent Hollywood and television dramatic productions. Despite careful planning and publicity in the

New York Times and elsewhere, the showings drew minimal

attendance.

Within a year after the museum opened, it began one

of its most ambitious projects, "Immigrants on Tape." In

July 1973 a small article in the New York Times announced

that the institution wanted to interview persons who had

entered the United States through Ellis Island about their

immigration experience and subsequent life in America. So

many people contacted Liberty Island that the NPS hired

Margo Nash, a sociologist experienced in interviewing

techniques, to coordinate the project. With the aid of

other staff members Nash took oral histories not only of

immigrants who had passed through Ellis Island, but also

of persons who had worked there during its heyday as the

main processing depot.

During 1974 the project received considerable publicity when Nash collaborated with Daily News reporter

Eleanor Swertlow on a series of twelve articles that

appeared in the Sunday editions. After Nash conducted

the original interview, Swertlow visited the hooe of the

participant, gathering additional data, taking a photograph, and writing a profile. A radio broadcast on

90
station WNYC, in June 1974, featured Margo Nash and

three of the interviewees discussing the oral history

endeavor.

Though Nash did not remain with the museum permanently, the work continued and by 1982 more than 150

tapes had been recorded. The scope of the project also

broadened to include oral histories of immigrants who

had entered the United States at places other than Ellis

Island. The NPS eventually found the money to pay for

transcribing the tape recordings. The AMI library made

both the tapes and the written transcriptions available

to anyone in the field of immigration studies who paid a

nominal fee.15

These special programs, temporary exhibits, and

minor changes in the permanent displays and labels apparently corrected some of the flaws that had bothered

historians. Professor Victor Greene of the University

of Wisconsin, who had served in 1972 on the committee of

scholars headed by Vecoli, in July 1979 again evaluated

,the museum and wrote a consulting historian's report on

'the updated institution. In it he recalled that the

exhibits in 1972 had tended to emphasize upward social

mobility, the successful immigrant and the military sacrifices and other contributions that the immigrants made

to their adopted country. The report commended the museum

for moving away from these themes and paying more attention

to sources of migrants, the work and social life of the

immigrants, and the rise of ethnic communities. Greene

concluded that in the future the institution should push

further ahead with these shifts."

91

88
NOTES

1Jerry D. Wagers to Alfred Horowitz, June 15, 1972,

AMI (Assoc.) File, Drawer 2, Artifact Rm; New York Daily

News, Sent.. 27, 1972; New York Times, Sept., 27, 1972.

2Remarks by Pierre S. du Pont, Pres., Brd. of Trustees,

AMI, Sept., 26, 1972, AMI Dedication Folder, Drawer 2; The

President"s Remarks at Ceremonies Marking the Dedication

of the Museum on Liberty Island in NY Harbor, Sept. 26,

1972, Duplicates File, Artifact Room, New York Times,

Sept. 27, 1972; New York Daily News, Sept. 27, 1972.

3Horace Sutton, The Baltimore Sun. Oct. 22, 1972;

Charles Mc Harry, "On the Town," New York Daily 7.ews,

Oct. 3, 1972; B. Kaufman, "Miss Liberty's New Attractions,"

Newsday, Nov. 4, 1972; Deirdre Carmody, New York Times,

Sept. 26, 1972; R. De Wolf, The Evening Bulletin, May 21,

1973.

4E. Kallop, Jr., to Trustees of AMI, Inc., Status

Report on the Museum, Nov. 13, 1973, AMI, Monthly Report

on Activities File, Drawer A-C, AMI Curator's Files; Paul

Weinbaum, Museum Program Survey 1979, Publicity 1976-Present

File, Drawer P-R, Curator's Files; AMI Visitors-Use Survey,

April-May 1973, Vertical Cabinet, Bottom Drawer, Curator's

Files; Kallop, AMI Monthly Report, April 1973, Vertical

Cabinet, Bottom Drawer; Philip Slavin, "Letter to Editor,"

Daily News, Oct. 6, 1972.

5Charles Guggenheim to J. Wagers, Jan. 30, 1973;

Paul N. PerrOt to Wagers, Jan. 29, 1973; Walter J. Heacock

to Wagers, Jan. 4, 1973; George Bowditch to Wagers, Jan. 2,

1973; David W. Scott to Wagers, Dec. 18, 1972, Duplicates

File, Artifact Room, AMI Study Group Report, Summary of

RecommeLdations, Jan. 1973, AMI Policy File, Drawer A-C,

Curator's Files; Paul Weinbaum, written comment on author's

narrative, April, 1984.

6American Mus. of Immig./Proposed Revisions, April

26, 1973; Jerry Wagers to A. Horowitz, April 27, 1973,

AMI (Assoc) File, Drawer 2, Artifact Room.

7E. Kallop, Jr., to Viola S. Thomas, Nov. 30, 1973;

E. Kallop, Jr., to A. Horowitz, March 15, 1974, Budget Discretionary A/C File, Drawer A-C, Curator's Files; Paul 0.

Weinbaum, written answers to author's interview questions,

Sept. 15, 1983, Duplicates File, Telephone interview with

Alfred Horowitz conducted by Wm. Zeisel, IRH, Sept. 7, 1983.

92

9 9
8Howard M. Metzenbaum to William H. Hendrickson, Oct,

4, 1974, Am. Mus. of Immig. File, Storage Area; Paul

Weinbaum, draft of a letter to Senator Metzenbaum, Oct.

10, 1974; Weinbaum, draft of a letter to Metzenbaum, Jan.

3, 1975, AMI, Inc. File, Drawer A-C, Curator's Files;

Wilbur Ford to Metzenbaum, Oct. 16, 1974, Am. Mus. of

Imimig. File, Storage Area.

9William C. Everhart to Director of NPS, Memo on AMI,

April 30, 1976, Am. Mus. of Immig. File, Storage Area; E.

Kallop, Jr., Staff Curator, N. Atlantic Region, to Supt.

STLI NM, Memo on Rehab. Proposals, Dec. 17, 1980; Michael

P. Paskowsky to Supt. STLI NM, Memo on Rehab. Proposals,

Nov.6, 1980; M. Paskowsky, Development/Study Package Proposal, April 13, 1981, Rehabilitation-1981/82 File, Drawer

P-R, Curator's Files; E. Kallop, Jr., written answers to

author's interview questions, Sept. 7, 1983, Duplicates

File; Paul Kinney, telephone interview with author, Sept.

27, 1983.

10Telephone interview with Paul Weinbaum, conducted

by Wm. Zeisel, IRH, May 25, 1984.

11Weinbaum, written comments on author's narrative,

April 1984; Luis E. Garcia-Curbelo, Unit Manager, STLI NM

Annual Report, 1974, Drawer 1, Administration Building;

Paul Kinney, AMI Monthly Report, Dec. 1982, Monthly and

Annual Reports File, Drawer A-C, Curator's Files.

12NPS Press Release, "Yearning to Breathe Free,"

July 29, 1977, Press Releases File, Drawer P-R, Curator's

Files.

13The Augustus F. Sherman Collection and other

photographs owned by the museum are kept in its library

and are made available by AMI librarians (the first was

Harvey Dixon) to scholars and local, national and international media with New York City offices.

14Paul Weinbaum, written answers to author's interview questions, Sept. 15, 1983, and written comments to

author, Dec., 1983; Paul Kinney, telephone interview

with author, Sept. 27, 1983; Memorandum of Agreement

Between the Center for Migration Studies and the NPS for

the Purpose of Displaying a Special Exhibit at the Am.

Mus. of Immig., AM1 Policy File, Drawer A-C, Curator's

Files; U.S. Dept. of Interior, NPS, News Release, Oct.

7, 1977.

93

I C
1Kal1op, AMI Monthly Report on Activities, Oct.

1973, Vertical Cabinet, Bottom Drawer, Curator's Files;

L. Garcia-Curbelo, Bi-Weekly Highlights, Unit Manager's

Narrative Report, July 31 to Aug, 21, 1975; "Going Out

Guide," New York Times, Sept. 5, 1975; P. Weinbaum, written answers to author's questions, Sept. 15, 1983.

AMI Monthly Report, July and Sept. 1973; The

News, NPS press release, JulY 25, 1974; Memo to Acting

Unit Manager from Museum Curator, Monthly Highlights,June

and July 1974, Vertical Cabinet, Bottom Drawer, Curator's

Files; Weinbaum, written answers, Sept. 15, 1983; Kinney,

telephone interview, Sept. 27, 1983.

16Victor Greene, Consulting Historian's Report, AMI,

July 1979, AMI, Inc. File, Drawer A-C, Curator's Files.

94

101
CHAPTER 5

WHAT SHALL WE DO WITH ELLIS ISLAND? 1954 - 1965

November 1954 marked the end of an era for Ellis

Island, The Immigration and Naturalization Service in

that month released on parole the detainees it had been

holding there, moved its papers and furnishings to 70

Columbus Avenue, and declared it no longer wanted the

facility in the New York harbor.

The move had been a long time coming. In the first

decade and a half of the 20th century, immigration officials had admitted approximately one million newcomers

a year through the island gateway, but in 1924 Congress

all but closed entry to the United States. It provided

further that prospective immigrants would be inspected at

American consular offices abroad and the lucky few accepted

would receive their visas there. From that point on, Ellis

Island served primarily as a detention center: first, for

illegal entrants who were awaiting deportation; during

World War II, for enemy aliens; and in the 1950s for

foreigners and immigrants suGpected of holding communist

or other subversive views. In the post-World ?lat. II years,

the local administrators complained repeatedly to Washington

that the station "with its great, wide hall and corridors,

high ceilings, unusable spaces and outmoded utilities"

was impossible to run efficiently and economically. And

so, the place which once resounded with the babel of

5,000 entrants a day speaking a dozen or more languages,

now lay quiet and abandoned. It was transferred to the

General Services Administration to find some new use for

it or dispose of it.

In accordance with the provisions of the Federal

Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, the GSA

inquired whether any other federal agencies desired to take

over the area. When none expressed an interast, the GSA,

in March 1955, declared Ellis Island surplus property.

The GSA next invited state and local governmants and

qualified non-profit institutions to submit proposals for

acquiring and using the site. Several serious suggestioila

95

102
were made. New York City wanted to place a she?lter for the

aged and homeless there, wh le Senator Irving Ives of New

York introduced a bill for his state to purchase Ellis

for use as a clinic for alcoholics. James F. Murray,

member of the New Jersey Senate, proposed that his

Etate construct a vehicular causeway to Ellis Island from

Jersey City, develop a recreation a-ea on it, and create an

ethnic museum memorializing the mia.lions of immigrants who

had passed through there. Murray and the New Jersey

Commissioner of Conservation and Economic Development,

Joseph E. McLean, argued against the rival New York bids

on the grounds that the Garden State's plan made a "more

appropriate use of the Island" and that Ellis, only a

thousand feet off the Jersey shore, rightfully belonged to

New Jersey and not New York.1

The GSA ultimately rejected all of these proposals.

Money was the biggest stumbling block. The GSA estimated

that Ellis and its facilities were worth $6,000,000. It

held that a governmental buyer would have to come up with

at least half of that sum, which neither of the two states

nor New York City would or could offer. Secondly, turning

over the property to either New York or New Jersey threatened to revive the long-standing argument between them as

to who rightfully owned Ellis. The plans oi the American

Museum of Immigration, Inc., to build a museum at the base

of the Statue of Liberty presented a further obstacle to

the New Jersey bid. In June 1955, Ten Eyck Lansing, then

managing director of the AMI, wrote to Secretary of the

Interior Douglas McKay, claiming that if the New Jersey

idea were accepted it would duplicate the already approved

AMI project and interfere with that group's fund-raising

efforts. Assistant Secretary of the Interior Orme Lewis

reassured Lansing of his department's commitment to the

AMI and, in August 1955, wrote to the GSA requesting that

"no disposal of Ellis Island be made which will conflict

with or duplicate the efforts and expense already made

by the American Museum of Immigration...."2

After the GSA vetoed all governmental proposals, its

Regional Commissioner, Walter F. Downey, in September 1956,

announced that Ellis Island would be offered for sale to

private buyers for commercial development. On September 18,

the GSA placed advertisements in the Wall Street Journal

and other newspapers promoting "ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS LANDMARKS IN THE WORLD." The notice stated that Ellis was a

suitable location for an "oil storage depot, import and

export processing, warehousing, manufacturing,..." and the

like. The purchaser would receive 27.5 acres of land and

35 buildings, containing office and storage space, greenhouse, library, dining and baggage rooms, dormitories, and

96

103
a school. Even the ferry boat "Ellis Island" would be

thrown into the package. Interested parties were to submit sealed bius to the GSA's New York office prior to

November 19. The agency sent similar circulars to some

1,500 companies and various real estate brokers.

The government's announced intention to award Ellis

to the highest commercial bidder provoked an uproar of

protest. Numerous letters from those who had entered the

United States through Ellis poured in to President Dwight

D. Eisenhower. A typical one began, "Back in 1914, as an

immigrant child from Greece, I first sensed the grandeur

of this great country...when I landed on the Island."

The writer went on to plead with the President to preserve Ellis as a memorial to all of the immigrants who

had passed through there. Others wrote to GSA Regional

Commissioner Downey. One letter to him from an attorney,

whose family traced its entry to Ellis, not the "Mayflower,"

stated: "To millions and millions of Americans Ellis

Island was the 19th and 20th century counterpart of

Plymouth Rock. [T]his little piece of land has associations of deep affection. To see it sold for commercial

purposes will be to see it lose its identity and its

historic memory." Senator Jacob Javits (Republican-New

York) and New York City Mayor Robert Wagner sent telegrams

to the Eisenhower Administration expressing their disapproval, and an irate congressman, T. James Tumulty, who

had introduced a bill in the House of RepresentF,,tives to

make Ellis a national shrine, wrote to Secretiv.y of the

Interior Fred Seaton, "If you can auction off Ellis

Island, perhaps you will be auctioning off the Statue of

Liberty next."3

The public outcry induced Eisenhower, on September 24,

1956, to suspend the planned sale to provide time for

further study of what to do with the historic site.

While the President's action gratified many, it did not

please one group. The promoters of the American Museum of

Immigration had been running into difficulty raising the

seed money for their upcoming public fund-raising campaign.

They regarded the development of Ellis Island into an

immigrant shrine as a grave threat to their efforts and

ultimate success.

The AMI officials put into high gear their efforts to

thwart any such plan for Ellis Island. The co-chairmen of

the AMI's public drive for contributions, labor leader

David J. McDonald and industrialist Pierre S. du Pont, 3rd,

issued a joint statement to the press: "It is inconceivable

to us that [Ellis Island] should be considered as appropriate

for a national tribute to immigration...." The experiences

97

104
of the immigrants being examined there were often "painfu]

and bewildering....No immigrant was ever attracted to America

by Ellis Island..-.The lodestar for all of them was the

Statue of Liberty....Liberty Island is a happy place of continuing inspiration, not a depository of bad memories."

William H. Baldwin, originator of the museum of immigration

idea, wrote to the New York Times, "Let us retire 'the still

shadowy Ellis Island project' into real obscurity and concentrate on the American Museum of Immigration under the

full light of the Statue of Liberty."4

Behind the scenes, AMI executives Alexander Hamilton

and Ulysses S. Grant, III, spoke to Vice President Richard

M. Nixon, Under Secretary of the Interior Hatfield Chilson,

and NPS Director Conrad Wirth about helping them head off

the feared competit:ion at Ellis Island. All agreed to

use their influence on behalf of the AMI. Nixon wrote a

letter restating his support for their endeavor and

offering to become honorary chairman of the Southern

California Citizens Committee for the AMI. Chilson

informed the GSA that the creation of a national immigration museum at Ellis Island "would be in direct conflict

with a program endorsed by President Eisenhower and the

Department of the Interior in 1954, to establish the

American Museum of Lnmigration in the base of the Statue

of Liberty National Monument, on Liberty Island." In

reply, GSA Administrator Franklin G. Floete assured the

secretary that "we will not recommend the use of this

property as a museum or historical monument without first

consulting your Department." Wirth and NPS Regional

Director Ronald Lee promised the AMI that they would continue working with the GSA "to the end that_a recommendation

of abandonment of the Ellis Island project is forwarded to

the President."

Not surprisingly, then, the GSA ruled that proposals

to use the site for an immigrant shrine were not feasible,

and the agency continued to canvass city, state and federal

governments for alternative suggestions. When nothing

acceptable materialized, the GSA, early in 1958, again put

the facility up for sale to commercial buyers. In February

1958, the GSA received 21 sealed offers, but the highest,

from a builder named Sol G. Atlas who wanted to construct

luxury apartments, a hotel, marina, heliport, and convention

hall there, was for only $201,000. The agency rejected this

as far too low. Two more attempts to find a private customer

produced no satisfactory results. In each round of bidding,

Atlas named the top figure, eventually going up to $1.25

million. The GSA considered the sum still way below the

actual worth of the property.5

98

105
Meanwhile, by 1960, public sentiment in favor of saving

the island for cultural and/or educational purposes was again

building. Even some of the promoters of the American Museum

of Immigration were starting to back the idea. In December

1960, Edward Corsi, former commissioner of immigration, and

Sylvan Gotshal (both trustees of the AMI), and Oscar Handlin

and Allan Nevins (both members of the AMI historians committee) wrote to the New York Times, proposing that Ellis be

named a national monument and maintained by the NPS "as a

park for educational and recreational purposes...." They

reconciled the supposed conflict with the AMI, by suggesting

that displays at Ellis serve as an extension of the principal

museum at Liberty Island or that the whole project be moved

to Ellis, "should it ultimately seem more appropriate and

desirable to locate" it there. Not all of the AMI backers

agreed. William Baldwin wrote, to Alexander Hamilton and

du Pont, expressing his "sense of shock" at the defection.

Nonetheless, this letter to the Times and similar

public statements led the GSA to authorize the Department

of Health, Education and Welfare to review proposals to

make Ellis available to interested parties who wanted to

develop educational or cultural programs there. HEW received a number of applications, including one from Ellis

Island for Higher Education, Inc., which listed among its

members Seymour Harris, chairman of the economics department at Harvard; Clinton Rossiter, pr3fessor of government

at Cornell; Eric Goldman, Princeton University history

professor; and historian Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. They

wished to develop a low-tuition, self-supporting "college

of the future." They intended to solicit $6,000,000 from

the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and from the well-todo children of the immigrants who once passed through the

portals of Ellis, to convert the island into a college

campus, complete with foot bridge from the New Jersey

shore. The various applicants, however, could not raise

the money necessary to undertake their proposals or failed

to meet other requirements to make them eligible for

using the property under the terms of the 1949 Federal

Property and Administrative Services Act.6

By 1962, legislators in Washington were also trying to

answer the question of what to do with Ellis Island. In

the 87th Congress, five bills dealing with the subject were

introduced: S 2596 (Ellis for Higher Education, Inc.),

S 2852 (transfer of the property to the Training School at

Vineland, New JersEy), and S 867, S 1118, and S 1198, which

in different versions provided for health, education, and

housing projects for the elderly. The Senate referred all

of these to its Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations,

99

10
chaired by Senator Edmund Muskie (Democrat Maine). New

York's two Republican senators, Jacob Javits and Kenneth

Keating, also served on that subcommittee.

In September 1962, the Muskie group held public hearings in Washington. At that time George B. Hartzog, Jr.,

associate director of the NPS, read a statement to the

subcommittee indicating the Service had not changed its

earlier position regarding the island:

[It] does not possess the scenic or scientific attributes that would justify Federal operation as a National Park, Monument, or Recreation

Area. The historic significance of Ellis Island

lies chiefly in its former operation as an immigration station....In this connection, over

$400,000 has been donated for the construction of

an American Museum of Immigration [at the Statue

of Liberty] [W]e believe there is represented

in the Statue of Liberty National Monument and the

American Museum of Immigration adequate commemoration of immigration by the United States.

In these circumstances, we believe that

Federal operation or development of the island

for memorialization or national monument purposes

would not be in the public interest.

In December the subcommittee held two more days of

hearings at the United States Mission to the United

Nations in New York, where many persons presented their

views concerning the historic site. Author Pearl Buck

spoke eloquently for its use as a diagnostic center for

mentally retarded children." Congressman Emmanuel Celler

(Democrat - Brooklyn) and Governor Richard J. Hughes of New

Jersey (Democrat) favored establishment of a university on

the grounds. Jersey City officials wanted development of

Ellis as part of the improvement plans for their city's

waterfront. Rabbi Stephen Wise read a statement calling

for a "living museum of immigration." At that point, NPS

historian Pitkin, who had been requested to attend the

hearings by Regional Director Ronald Lee, became alarmed

about the old issue of conflict with the American Museum

of Immigration. Pitkin and Alexander Hamilton, who was

also watching the proceedings, agreed to prepare a package

of material to counteract any museum proposal for Ellis.

Pitkin gathered the documents, and Hamilton subsequently

handed them to a member of the committee staff.7

Throughout the remainder of 1962 and the first threequarters of 1963, the subcommittee reviewed these and

other proposals it continued to receive. No consensus,

100

107
however, was developing around any one of them. Then, on

September 4, 1963, Senator Muskie held an executive meeting

of the subcommittee in Washington to which he invited the

following, among others: Governors Nelson Rockefeller of

New York and Richard Hughes of New Jersey, Mayors Thomas

Gangemi of Jersey City and Robert Wagner of New York,

Senators Jacob Javits and Kenneth Keating of New York

and Clifford Case and Harrison Williams of New Jersey,

various members of the House of Representatives from New

York and New Jersey, Secretary Anthony Celebrezze of

HEW, GSA Administrator Bernard Boutin, Housing and Home

Finance Administrator Robert Weaver, and Secretary of

the Interior Stewart Udall. Muskie summarized for the

participants what the subcommittee had heard up to that

point and asked for their additional thoughts. The representatives from New Jersey spoke further about their plans

for developing Liberty State Park on the run-down waterfront of Jersey City. After their presentation, Senator

Muskie urged the Department of the Interior "to review

the proposal for Ellis Island as a national park, monument, or recreation area in conjunction with the New

Jersey shoreline."

One month later, 28 people, representing the Musi_e

subcommittee, NPS, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, tne

GSA, the Housing and Home Finance Agency, the states of Nuw

York and New Jersey, and New York and Jersey Cities, met at

Federal Hall to deal with the problem. The participants

created an Ellis Island study team, designating NPS Regional

Director Ronald Lee and BOR Northeast Regional Director John

Sullivan to coordinate its efforts. The study team, working

with Lee and Sullivan, visited Ellis Island on several

occasions.8 They also met at various times with the concerned New York and New Jersey officials to review technical

questions and to discuss their findings and draft proposals.

The team finished its work by the spring, forwarding its

report to the Senate subcommittee on June 25, 1964.

The conclusions reached in that report turned around

the earlier official position of the DepArtment of the

Interior and the National Park Service. Echoing those

horrified at the thought of selling the site for commercial purposes, the study proclaimed that, "Ellis Island

has been as important in fact as Plymouth Rock has become

in fancy for the descendants of those who came in the

first colonization wave." Contradicting the 1962 statement of George Hartzog, the report noted, "...the story

of immigration to America is insufficiently commemorated

by the nation in the National Park System...." The team,

therefore, recommended that "?ermanent recognition" of

the island's historical impor,-ance should have first

101

108
place in its future use. That could best be -Achieved by

designating Ellis as a national monument within the

national park system.

The study team stated further that the NPS should

administratively join Ellis to the Statue of Liberty

National Monument. "Any other administration...could

well result in independent and uncoordinated programs

for the neighboring properties." Here the report turned

to the troublesome issue of the relationship between

Ellis as a memorial to immigration and the American Museum

of Immigration being built on Liberty Island. The study

suggested the former site must be developed in a way that

augmented, not duplicated what was done in the AMI. Reassuring the promoters of the AMI that the NPS was "firmly

committed to...carry out the project as planned and in

full," the report continued, "this museum will tell the

broad story of immigration. It cannot, however, provide

the additional vivid experience gained from a personal

visit to Ellis Island and to the landmarks and objects

visible there."

The report said that the buildings on the older

portion of the island should be retained and opeied to

the public for interpretive tours. That area could also

serve as a gathering place for special groups interested

in immigration, ethnic festivals, and other outdoor events.

Library and exhibit facilities could be developed to

explain the history of the immigration station and "its

relationship to the broad story of immigration presented

at the Statue of Liberty."

The study group recommended that plans for Ellis

should also be closely coordinated with New Jersey's

work on Liberty State Park. This might be accomplished

by turning the newer sections of the island into a park

with "promenades, possibly restaurant facilities, picnic

facilities, green open space, and a boat basin." A bridge

or causeway might be built between the New Jersey shore

and Ellis, to make the recreational and historic features

more accessible to residents of the Garden State. The team

concluded that Congress ought to authorize an Advisory

Commission on Ellis Island and direct the NPS to prepare

a master plan to spell out the guidelines mentioned in

this study.

On a tour of Ellis Island in October 1964, Secretary

Udall told reporters that he endorsed the recommendations

of the study team, and the Muskie subcommittee indicated

that it, too, was persuaded and would recommend that

Congress designate the island an historic monument to be

administered by the NPS.10

102
Meanwhile, President Lyndon B. Johnson entered the

picture with a characteristic dramatic flair. On May 11,

1965, he issued Proclamation 3656, adding Ellis Island to

the Statue of Liberty National Monument. Before member,:

of Congress alid the press, assembled in the White House

Rose Garden for the ceremony, Jrshnson said,

Between 1892 and 1920, sixteen million

immigrants entered America through the open

doors of Ellis Island. These men, women and

children from many lands enriched the American

melting pot. They made us not merely a nation,

but a nation of nations.

So I am signing today a proclamation making

Ellis Island a part of Liberty Island National

Monument [sic]. In addition, I am asking Congress

to enact legislation authorizing appropriations to

make Ellis Island a handsome shrine in the broad

harbor of the great port of New York.

The President also announced that he was approving

the establishment of a Jobs Corps Conservation Center on

the New Jersey shore adjacent to the island and that the

young recruits would soon be put to work restoring Ellis

and helping to create Liberty State Park. Johnson ended

his remarks with a plea to Congress to pass his immigration reform bill, aimed at abolishing the discriminatory

national origins quota system adopted in 1924.

Since the President's proclamation stated that the

Department of the Interior was not to expend any funds

given it for the Statue of Liberty on development of

Ellis Island, unless authorized to do so by Congress,

legislation by the House and Senate became imperative.

Shortly thereafter, Congressmen Jonathan Bingham (Democrat - New York), Cornelius E. Gallagher (Democrat - New

Jersey), and several others introduced bills in the House,

while Senator Clifford Case (Republican - New Jersey)

and others sponsored similar measures in the Senate.

Finally, passed by Congress and signed by the President

on August 17, 1965, as Public Law 89-129, the act authorized an appropriation of no more than $6,000,000 to

develop Ellis Island as a part of the Statue of Liberty.

Not more than $3,000,000 of that sum was to be appropriated during the first five years.11

Ellis Island, then, had been saved from losing its

historic associations. It would not, after all, pass into

private hands for commercial development of luxury apartments, warehousing, or an oil storage depot. Its future,

however, was far from settled. Congress had authorized

103

1 0
money, but would it follow this up with actual appropriations? Would the monies, if forthcoming, prove adequate

for the tremendous job of preservation and interpretation

that lay ahead? Besides that, future planners still had

to resolve the whole question of which buildings on the

island to preserve, restore, or demolish.

104
NOTES

lAri Hoogenboom, "An Outline of Ellis Island (1890 - 1954)," June 20, 1974, Ellis Island Data File, Drawer D-N,

AMI Curator's Files; Chronology of Ellis Island From Its

Closing As Immigration Station To Inclusion In The National

Park System (1954-65), "Ellis Island Study," May 1978;

Thomas M. Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate: A History of Ellis

Island (N.Y., 1975), p. 179; James F. Murray, Jr., Propok,a1

for Acquisition and Development of Ellis Island by State

of N.J. As Recreation and Cultural Area, May 23, 1955 , and

Joseph E. McLean to Walter F. Downey, July 15, 1955, Ellis

Island Ready File, Drawer 2, Administration Building, Liberty

Island.

2Chronology of Ellis Island, "Ellis Island Study;"

Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate, pp. 179-180; Ten Eyck Lansing

to Douglas McKay, June 21, 1955, and Orme Lewis to T. E.

Lansing, July 8, 1955, D62, Museum and Exhibit Activities

(AMI) 1955 File, Storage Area, Liberty Island; Orme Lewis

to Edmund F. Mansure, Administrator, GSA, Aug. 12, 1955,

Ellis Island Ready File, Drawer 2, Administration Building.

3Chief, Real Property Disposal Division, Disposal No.:

2Ps-202, Sept. 17, 1956, Unlabeled brown folder of Ellis

Island Documents, Storage Area; Wall Streeet Journal, Sept.

18, 1956; Harlan Unrau, draft of chapter entitled "Administrative History of Ellis Island: 1954-1982"; Harris J.

Booras to President Eisenhower, Sept. 25, 1956 and other

letters, L1427, Surplus Real Property 1956-60 File, Bayonne

Records Center; Alfred M. Klein to William F. Downey, Sept.

14, 1956, Unlabeled brown folder of Ellis Island Documents,

Storage Area; Draft of reply to Jacob K. Javits, Sept. 27,

1956, Unlabeled brown folder; Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate,

p. 180; T. James Tumulty to Frederick Seaton, Sept. 24, 1956,

AMI 1956 File, Drawer 6, Artifact Room.

4New York Times, Sept. 25, 1956; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Sept. 25, 1956; William Baldwin to U.S. Grant,

III, March 6, 1957, and U.S. Grant to Alfred Horowitz,

April 1, 1957, Duplicates File, Artifact Room; the AMI

News, Sept. 28, 1956, Duplicates File; William Baldwin to

the Editor, New York Times Sept. 21, 1956.

5U.S. Grant, III, to D. Kenneth Rose, executive director,

AMI, April 1, 1957, Duplicates File; William Baldwin to U.S.

Grant, III, March 6, 1957, Duplicates File; Acting Director,

NPS, Hillary A. Tolson to L. Kennedy, Asst. to the Secretary,

May 24, 1957, D62 Museum and Exhibit Activities (AMI) 1957

File, Storage Area; Hatfield Chilson to Franklin G. Floete,

105

112
MarEth 28, 1957, and F.G. Floete to Sec. of Interior,

April 9, 1957, Duplicates File; Minutes of the Meeting

of the Joint Development Committee of the AMI, May 9,

1957, Duplicates File; Minutes of the Meeting of the

Joint Development Committee of the AMI, May 9, 1957,

Duplicates File; Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate, p. 182;

GSA News Release, GSA #684, Nov. 15, 1957, Duplicates

File; Wall Street Journal, April 7, 1958; GSA News

Release, GSA #1026, May 8 1959; Unrau, "Administrative

History of Ellis Island: 1954-1982."

6New York Times, Dec. 20, 1960; William Baldwin to

Pierre S. du Pont, 3rd, and Alexander Hamilton, Jan. 5,

1961, Mr. Hamilton File, Drawer 18, AMI Papers, Artifact

Room; Chronology of Ellis Island, "Ellis Island Study";

Newsweek, 56 (Sept. 12, 1960): 94.

7Chronology of Ellis Island, "Ellis Island Study";

Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate, p. 183; Statement of Asscc.

Director, NPS, George B. Hartzog, Jr., Before the Subcom.

on Intergovt. Relations, Comm. on Govt. Operations, U.S.

Senate, Sept. 4, 1963, Hearings of Senate Subcom. on

Intergovt. Relations on Disposition of Ellis Island, pp.

37-38; N.H. Foster, Supt's. Monthly Narrative Report, Dec.

1962; Memo from T. Pitkin, supervisory historian, NYC

area to Regional Director Ronald Lee, Dec. 10, 1962, L58

Proposed Area File, NPS Papers, Bayonne Record Center.

6Among those who worked on the study were Frank

Barnes, NPS regional chief of interpretation and visitor

services; Regional Architect John B. Lukens, and MuSeum

Curator Horace Wilcox.

9Harlan Unrau, "Administrative History of Ellis

Island: 1954-1982"; Chronology of Ellis Island, "Ellis

Island Study"; U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS,

"Ellis Island: A Study Report on Ellis Island" (prepared

for the Subcom. on Intergovernmental Relations, Senate

Committee on Govt. Operations), June 1964, pp. 1-3.

10"Ellis Island: A Study Report" (prepared for the

Subcom. on Intergovt. Relations), June 1964, pp. 7,

16-17, 15, 13-14, 10, 23-24; NY Times, Oct. 22, 1964;

Unrau, "Administrative History of Ellis Island: 1954-1982."

11Presidential Documents, Title 3--The Pres., FR Doc.

65-5141, filed May 12, 1965; Office of the White House

Press Secretary, Remarks of the President at the Signing

of the Proclamation Which Adds Ellis Island to the Liberty

Island National Monument, May 11, 1965; John A. Townsley,

Supt., NYC, NPS Group, Monthly Narrative Report, May

106

113
1965; New York flerald Tribune, May 12, 1965; Long Island

Press, May 12, 1965; Long Island Star-Journal, July 13,

1965; Report No. 585, Providing for the Development of

Ellis Island as Part of the statue of Liberty National

Monument, H.R., July 1, 1965 and Report No. 508, Providing

for the Development of Ellis Island..., Senate, July 22,

1965, 89th Cong.; 1st Sess.; Unrau, "Administrative

History of Ellis Island: 194-1982"; Public Law 89-129,

89th Cong., H.J. Res. 454, AUg. 17, 1965, 79 Stat, 543.

107

114
CHAPTER 6

THE YEARS OF NEGLECT AND DETERIORATION, 1965-1976

Soon after President Johnson ised his proclamation

making Ellis a part of the Statue of Liberty National

Monument, Secretary of the Interior Udall commissioned

noted architect Philip Johnson to create a plan for the

development of the former immigration station. Philip

Johnson, generally regarded as one of the more innovative

men in his field, had earlier destgned the New York

State Theater at Lincoln Center. In July 1965, the

architect met with NYC Group Superintendent Townsley,

Regional Director Lee, and Donald Benson of the EODC on

Ellis to inspect the area. By theu many of the buildings

were showing clear signs of neglect and decay because

the GSA, considering the island no longer its responsibility,

had shut off heat and other utilities. The NPS kept

only a single guard on the premises by day and a watchdog

at night. This was insufficient to prevent intruders,

coming by boat usually from the nearby Jersey shore,

from landing and stealing fixtures, hardware, and any

other movable property of value. These conditions may

have influenced the plan that Philip Johnson devised for

Ellis.

The architect proposed that the principal structures

of the former immigration depot, including the main building, the hospital buildings, the ferry slip, and the old

Ellis Island ferry, not be restored to their original

state, but be stabilized as historic ruins. Wood and

glass would be removed, roof and masonry retained. Around

the buildings the NPS would plant vines, poplars, sycamores, and ailanthus, allowing these to grow unchecked

up and through the structures. A moat dug around the

historic group would isolate it from the rest of the

island. "The effect would be a romantic and nostalgic

grouping through which the visitor would pass along

raised concrete walkways." All other buildings would

be demolished.

Philip Johnson further suggested that the circular

shape of Fort Clinton at the Battery and Fort Williams

on Governors Island should be continued, with the

108

115
construction on Ellis of a 130-foot high "truncated cone,"

to be called the "Wall of Sixteen Million." Visitors

could walk upon great ramps which would wind around the

inner and outer faces of the cone. There, they would

view photographic reproductions of old ships' manifests,

listing the names of the sixteen million immigrants who

had passed through the place. The Johnson Plan, in

addition, called for creating an off-shore restaurant, a

picnic grove, a viewing pyramid for looking at the skyline of lower Manhattani, and a ceremonial field for

band concerts, observances of ethnic holidays, and other

fest vals.

At a press conference at Federal Hall on February

24, 1966, the architect officially presented his scheme

for development of Ellis Island to Secretary Udall. The

latter stated that he endorsed the proposals, as did New

York Senator Jacob Javits, who also attended the affair.1

The press generally reacted to the Johnson plan

quite differently from Udall and Javits. A columnist in

the Herald Tribune wrote, "I think I have never read of

a project more outrageous.' The proposed wall of names

was "ugly," resembling a "monstrous gas tank." Besides,

she wrote, what could be more absurd than "phspneying up

with vines a group of commonplace late nineteenth century

and early twentieth century utilitarian buildings?" A

World Telegram and Sun article, entitled "The Cult of

Instant Ugliness," declared that making ruins out of

the buildings on Ellis was "romanticism run riot." A

New York Times editorial argued, "Of all the symbols to

use in the projected national shrine at Ellis Island, a

wall would seem to be the least appropriate. Walls are

built to exclude....Ellis was America's gateway for s:x

decades...." Ada Louise Huxtable, architecture critic

for the Times, was one of the few with a good word for

the Johnson plan. "It is light years ahead," she wrote,

"of the routine reconstructions and predictably pedestrian memorials usually tendered by government agencies."

Whether it liked this 1966 proposal or not, the NPS

soon realized there was no way it could implement the

Johnson scheme, because to do so would require far more

money than the $6,000,000 that Congress had authorized

for the development of Ellis. Indeed, as the Vietnam War

consumed an ever larger share of tax revenues, Congress

failed to appropriate even the $6,000,000 it had authorized. The Johnson plan, therefore, was placed on the

shelf.2

109

116
On a much more modest scale, the NPS proceeded to

arrange for the establishment of a Job Corps Conservation

Center and recruit the workers for the island that President Johnson had promised at the time he incorporated

Ellis in the Statue of Liberty National Monument. On

December 15, 1965, Superintendent Townsley travelled

to Trenton to meet with the New Jersey Governor's staff

and finalize the leasing of land on the Jersey shore by

the NPS for constructing the camp. Northeast Regional

Director Lemuel Garrison presided over groundbreaking

ceremonies at the site in February of 1966. By the following January, the Liberty Park Job Corps Conservation

Center (as it was named), administered jointly by the

Office of Economic Opportunity and the NPS, was completed.

It consisted of ten buildings with accommodations for

some 200 teen-aged corpsmen. During 1967 these young

people cleared land for development of Liberty State

Park in New Jersey and worked on cleanup and repairs at

Ellis. Before they could accomplish much, however, the

0E0 announced that due to lack of funds it would have to

close sixteen Job Corps Centers by June 30, 1968. The

Jersey camp was one of them.3

During this same period, the Department of the

Interior received an offer of help in developing Ellis

Island which must have seemed quite welcome in light of

the failure of Congress to appropriate funds. The offer

came in a letter to Secretary Udall from Maxwell M. Rabb,

president of the United States Committee for Refugees, a

private group organized in 1958 and interested in refugee

resettlement and immigration. Mr. Rabb a New York attorney, indicated that he and several other members of the

committee, including Edward Corsi and Dr. R. Norris Wilson,

had already met with Northeast Regional Director Lee to

explore ways that they might cooperate with the NPS.4

Udall gave his blessings to the collaboration, and on

August 3, 1965, Lee discussed with Wilson, Corsi, Rabb,

and others the possibility of organizing a National Ellis

Island Association, Inc., to raise money for development

and assist in making plans for interpretation of the

site. The r7ounsel for the U.S. Committee for Refugees

even drafted a certificate of incorporation for this

proposed body. After further talks and incorporation

in New York State as a non-profit fund-raising group, the

National Ellis Island Association, Inc., signed a cooperative agreement with the Secretary of the Interior and

the NPS on July 12, 1966. Accordingto the terms of that

document, the NEIA, Inc., would "assist the National Park

Service, when requested, in its programs of interpretation on Ellis Island..., organize and sponsor appropriate

110
special events" on the island in conjunction with the

NPS, and "receive funds contributed to it by the American

public" for desmlopment of the former immigration station,

and turn these aonies over to the NPS. Unfortunately for

all concerned, che NEIA, Inc., never got its fund-raising

campaign started, and the whole organization proved shortlived, with no signs of activity after 1967.5

As a resuit of Congress' failure to appropriate money,

the removal of the Job Corpsmen, and the stillborn efforts

of the NEIA, Inc., conditions on Ellis grew steadily worse.

Between 1965 and 1973, officials at the STLI NM received

only $676,000 to maintain the former immigration depot, a

pitifully inadequate sum. The NPS, therefore, could not

afford to heat the buildings, pipe water to the island,

or provide of:her utilities. Without heat in winter, the

buildings quickly deteriorated. To make matters worse,

the roofs leaked, whole chunks of plaster fell from the

ceilings, and the seawall surrounding the island was

cracking. Weeds and other vegetation grew wild and unchecked. Intruders continued to trespass on the premises,

committing acts of vandalism and theft. They stole copper,

brass, and other metal fittings and, in one instance, a

whole section of copper sheeting from the roof of a

building.6

A New York Times reporter who visited Ellis early in

1968 described what he beheld:

...the island ferryboat that once took

about one of every ten immigrants to Manhattan

is a crumbling shell. It floats next to a concrete dock that is collapsing in places.

Green copper sheeting has blown off one of

the four cupolas that make Ellis's red-brick main

registration building a harbor landmark. Inside,

old bedframes and mattresses are stacked in disuse.

Tables, benches, and chairs lie about haphazardly.

The floors of side rooms are strewn with broken

ceiling plaster....

In the 1930s, Edward Laning and other artists in

the employ of the Works Progress Administration had

painted murals in the dining hall, library, and recreation room of the main building. These works of art had

suffLed greviously. In 1963, Superintendent Foster had

arranged with the GSA to remove two sections (each seven

by seven feet) of the oil murals from the library and

recreation room to Liberty Island for possible use eventually in the planned museum of immigration. As late as

111

118
1967, they were still stored in the utility building

there, each rolled on a cylinder and hung from rafters by

ropes. When Museum Specialist Walter Nitkiewicz ir.pected

them in December of that year, he found the ropes encircling the suspended drums had dug deeply into the canvas,

causing serious damage to the paintings. The Laning oils

left behind in the dining room had fared even worse.

Nitkiewicz reported:

Four years ago roof leaks were permitting

water to flow over the right side of the

mural. Large losses of paint had already

resulted. Since then leaking and consequent

water damage have continued. A large segment

of the canvas hangs loose from the wall. I judye this extremely damaged section of the

mural to be beyond restoration.7

While the island and its facilities rapidly deteriorated, interest in it continued at a high level. Articles

in the press, such as the New York Times's "Ellis Island

at Low Point in Its History," attempted to tell the public

about the sorry state of the historic site. In July 1965,

a WCBS-TV crew visited Ellis to shoot a documentary about

the former immigration station. It was shown in the fall

on a program called "Eye on New York." WNBC-TV sent a

crew of twelve to take footage on the premises for a feature on immigration, entitled "An Island Called Ellis."

It was first shown on WNBC-TV on January 13, 1967, and is

at the present time regularly played for visitors to the

Statue of Liberty as a part of the NPS' program of interpretation.

The NPS was also still interested in properly developing Ellis and opening it for the public if funds for

the purpose ever became available. For this reason, in

February 1968, the Service appointed a team consisting

of architects, landscape designers, museum specialists

and historians, headed by David Kimball, to draw up a

master plan for its neglected property.

By June 1968, the team had completed its assigned

task. Their "Master Plan for Ellis Island" ignored the

Philip Johnson proposals, harking back instead to some

of the ideas expressed in the 1964 study report prepared

for the Muskie Senate subcommittee. The master plan

called for retention of the main immigration building

"as a memorial to the immigrant and as the key to effective interpretation" (Fig. 5). That structure was to be

handled in the following manner:

112
Its central block will serve as an

exhibit in place, with restoration of its

three front central doorways and the original

stairway from the first floor to the second

floor examination room. Its west wing will

be rehabilitated and adapted for interpretative

(ground floor) and office (second floor) use.

Remaining spaces will be stabilized and given

the minimum heat and maintenance required to

prevent deterioration.

The plan stated that all other structures, except for

the ferry boat "Ellis Island," existing covered walkways,

and three buildings constructed in the 1930s, should be

removed. The ferry house, immigrant building to the rear

of it, and the recreation hall at the head of the fill

between islands two and three (all put up in the 1930s

and still in relatively good condition) should be retained

because they offered large covered spaces that would prove

useful during the period of development work on Ellis.

Afterwards, they too should be demolished.8

The master plan went on to divide the site into

three physical segments: the north unit, containing the

main immigration building, would communicate the park

story; the south unit, cleared of its original buildings,

would serve as an activity area and a center for ethnic

observances; the fill joining these two parts would act

as a transition between them. On the south unit, the

plan provided for facilities necessary to support ethnic

events and a concession food service. Space might also

be reserved for a restaurant and for seating at recreational programs if either of those proved desirable in

the future.

Access to Ellis would be by boat from Liberty

Island, until Liberty State Park in Jersey City was

finished. Then, shuttles could operate from there as

well.

Since all of this repair and demolition would take

time, even after or if the money to implement the plan

became available, the team recommended interim use of

Ellis. A limited number of visitors should be permitted

to take guided tours. They would be brought by boat from

Liberty Island, landed at the ferry slip in front of the

main building, conducted into it through the southwest

tower and up to the examination room on the second floor.

There they would hear a talk on "the historic use of the

room and its significance, and view photo murals of the

room" as it appeared early in the century. To do these

1 1 3

_I_ 9,cr 0
things, however, the NPS would first have to rehabilitate

the ferry slip seawall, commission a thorough inspection

of the main building to make sure it was structurally

safe for the public to enter, clean up and repair the

portions of the main building to be included in the

tours, negotiate a concession contract for boat service,

and provide temporary restrooms.

Team members disagreed among themselves about the

recommendation to demolish so many of the existing structures on the island. A minority of the group, and many

of the NPS officials who afterwards reviewed the master

plan, felt strongly that the hospital buildings along

the ferry slip and the kitchen-restaurant structure

adjacent to the main building should be kept, to preserve

the "architectural composition as a whole" and allow the

visitor to see "substantially the same picture the immigrants saw when they arrived at the island."9

With this question still not fully settled, the

director of the NPS approved the master plan in November

1968 and asked the Eastern Service Center to estimate the

cost of its implementation. In April 1970 the center

provided the requested information.10 Its report stated

that to accomplish the minimum construction necessary

for producing a "permanent type workable facility"

required $3,950,600. With this amount, the NPS, during

phase I of the work, could repair the seawall; dredge

the ferry basin and channel and remove the wreck of the

"Ellis Island" (which in 1968, after the master plan was

written, had sunk during a storm); install water and

sewage systems and electrical service; and initiate archltectural, plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning work

in the main building and landscape the grounds immediately around it. During a second phase, the demolition

on islands two and three could commence; covered walks

would be modified and new connecting ones built; islands

two and three would be landscaped; and dock shelters

erected. These phase II activities would cost approximately $609,400. In the third phase, the NPS would

repair the balance of the seawall, requiring $284,700.

The estimators pointed out that interpretative

facilities would also be needed for the site, which they

thought might be provided for $50,000. They noted

too that $184,000 had already been spent for reroofing

the main building and other miscellaneous items.11

Judging from cost studies made only a few years

later, one must conclude that the figures presented in

this report were unrealistically low. Perhaps the reason

114
for this underestimating was the concern of the Eastern

Service Center team with staying within the $6,000,000

limit earlier imposed by Congress. In addition, the figures covered construction work only, ignoring the costs

of planning, supervision, operation and maintenance, and

personnel services.

Congress did not appropriate even this minimal

amount. Thus, the master plan which had received official approval, like the Johnson one which was never

formally accepted, lay on the shelf gathering dust. The

NPS even lacked the money to follow the interim proposal

of opening the facility to limited visitation. At this

point, however, some parts of the public attempted to

impose their own ideas concerning utilization of Ellis

Island.

At 5:30 a.m., on March 16, 1970, an eighteen-foot

boat pushed off from the New Jersey shore heading for

the former hmmigration station. It carried eight NativeAmericans and assorted supplies for setting up camp on

the island. A faulty gas line, however, aborted the

plan and left the intrlders adrift until the Coast Guard

rescued them. When they vowed to attempt another landing,

the Coast Guard stat ,ned two patrol boats near Ellis,

proclaimed a "zone - security" around it, and pointed

out that under the 'isions of the Espionage Act of

1917, unauthorized s -c .ters could receive jail terms of

up to ten years.

Shoshone Indian John White Fox, who had participated

in the occupation of Alcatraz in San Francisco Bay the

previous November, read a statement to the press explaining what the Native-Americans wanted to do with Ellis.

"There .s no place for Indians to assemble and carry on

tribal life in this white man's city." The island, he

proclaimed, should become a living center of Indian culture and house a museum with exhibits illustrating what

whites have contributed to red men: "disease, alcohol,

poverty and cultural desecration."12

Four months later, a second, more successful occupation of Ellis occurred, this time by 63 black men, women,

and children belonging to a group called the National

Economic Growth and Reconstruction Organization (NEGRO).

Dr. Thomas W. Matthew, a 46-year-old, black neurosurgeon,

had founded NEGRO in 1965. He was philosophically against

welfare and proposed instead to rehabilitate drug addicts,

alcoholics, ex-convicts, and the chronically dependent by

offering them job-training and employment in labor-intensive black-owned businesses,

115

I 22
For thirteen days (July 20 to August 1) the little

band of illegal squatters held Ellis, while Matthew

announced he intended to lease and perhaps eventually

purchase the island from the NPS in order to develop it

as a rehabilitation center for 2,500 drug addicts, alcoholics, ex-convicts and their families. He planned to

set up light manufacturing projects (such as producing

shoes, packaging chemicals, and assembling electronic

equipment) tnat would train and employ these people. In

addition, his self-help community would refurbish the

great hall as a monument to immigrants: NEGRO would use

it to hold ethnic festivals and celebrate special holidays,

inviting the appropriate immigrant group to attend. The

Irish, for example, would be welcomed on St. Patrick's

Day to participate in dancing Irish jigs and singing Irish

songs. To finance these undertakings, Matthew intended to

sell $6 million worth of interest-bearing bonds to foundations, businessmen, civic leaders, and other interested

parties.

During the thirteen-day occupation, Matthew and representatives of the NPS worked out an agreement. His

followers ended their illegal stay on the property, and

the NPS granted a special use permit to NEGRO, commencing

September 1, 1970, and good for five years.13 That document allowed the organization to occupy the buildings and

grounds on the south portion of Ellis for residence and

light industrial projects. _hey were not, however, to

use or in any way alter the great hall or other rooms on

the north side of the island, without approval in advance

from the superintendent of the STLI NM. NPS officials,

further, retained the right to visit and inspect the area

to check compliance with local and federal laws concerning

public health and sanitation and with the terms of the

permit.14

In the months that followed, Dr. Matthew apparently

had little success in raising the amount of capital

needed to finance his schemes, nor did he attract many

settlers. Only four NEGRO members lived full-time on

Ellis during the winter of 1970-71. Twice, the superintendent from Liberty Island accompanied sanitary engineers from the United States Public Health Service on

inspection tours of the site. STLI NM Superintendent

Arthur Sullivan and a public health engineer dropped in

on September 14, 1970, only to be ordered off the premises

by NEGRO members, who said the officials could ndt visit

unless accompanied by Matthew. The officials returned

with the doctor on September 21 and succeeded in making

their inspection. The public health engineer's subsequent

report stated that there were numerous safety and health

116

123
hazards, such as collapsed sections of the seawall which

undermined portions of sidewe,iks, questionable structural

stability of the hospital buildings, and lack of a potable

water supply, adequate plumbing, or heating. These conditions could lead to an outbreak of communicable diseases,

or a major fire might start as inhabitants attempted to

keep warm by burning the wood and debris scattered about

the site. In addition, NEGRO members had ignored the

prohibition on use of the buildings on the north side of

the property. The report, therefore, recommended that

NEGRO find a different location for its projects and

"return Ellis Island to the original NPS plan for historical renovation."

Six months later, a second irr'pection group that

included NYC Group Superintendent Wagers and STLI NM

Assistant Superintendent Batman found essentially the

same conditions. Although Dr. Matthew's followers had

engaged in clean-up work on the grounds and interiors of

the buildings, the hazards, in fact, had grown worse.

The safety engineer's report stated:

On Ellis Island, NPS is allowing

continuation of a permit for limited use

of a deteriorated, delapidated, unsanitary

facility which is likely to result in

disease, injury or death to one or more of

the permittees.

The only sensible recommendation from

the health and safety point of view is the

immediate revocation of the permit to NEGRO.

Though the NPS did not act on this recommendation

for two years, NEGRO itself abandoned its project. During

the summer months, the number of NEGRO-affiliated workers

on the island rarely exceeded five; in September 1971,

the last three residents left. Jerry Wagers officially

ended the Matthew episode when, in April 1973, he sent

the doctor a registered letter announcing termination of

the permit.15

Ellis once again lay deserted and neglected, when it

attracted the attention of President Nixon. On his way

to the dedication of the American Museum of Immigration

on Liberty Island, in September 1972, the President

noticed the neighboring site, with its imposing main

building, and expressed interest in rehabilitating the

landmark in time for the nation's bicentennial celebration in July 1976.

117
The President's newly aroused enthusiasm led the

Department of the Interior to explore further options

for handling Ellis and their potential costs. The under

secretary requested that the Northeast Regional Office

of the NPS conduct a study of the possible alternatives

and submit its findings. Regional Director Chester Brooks

fulfilled that assignment in April 1973, when he forwarded

to the head of the NPS an option paper prepared under the

supervision of Jerry Wagers, New York District chief.

This document pointed out that Congress had thus

far appropriated only $752,130 of the $6,000,000 authorized for development of the island. That money had been

spent to reroof the main building and make a few emergency

repairs. Such minimal work, however, had done little

to arrest the progressive deterioration of the property.

Indeed, advancing dilapidation, vandalism, and theft,

coupled with inflation, had made the 1968-70 cost estimates "grossly inadequate."

The study went on to summarize five oi-ions. 1)

Rehabilitate the entire main building and hospital,

rebuild the ferry dock and seawall, dredge the ferry

basin, provide utilities, demolish all other structures,

landscape north and south sides of the island, and provide concessioner, interpretive, and protective facilities, including seven residences. Development cost--

$46,751,000. 2) Rehabilitate a little over half of the

main building, while stabilizing the rest for structural

safety. Only the rehabilitated portion would be open to

the public. Demolish all other structures on the north

side of the island. Rebuild the ferry dock and north

side of the seawall and dredge the ferry basin. Leave

the south side of the island as it was and closed to the

public. Development cost--$20,935,000. 3) The federal

government would attempt to interest private groups and

businesses in developing a convention center, a hotel, or

housing projects on parts of Ellis. The NPS would rehabilitate only the main building as a museum. Development

cost (private)--$50,000,000, (federal)--$21,000,000.

4) Similar to option three, except that the NPS would

retain only a portion of the main building for visitor

services and interpretation. Development cost (private)--

$60,000,000, (federal)--$16,000,000. 5) "Turn the island

back to GSA for disposal as surplus property."

Options one through four were well above the

$6,000,000 limit imposed by Congress and would, therefore, require authorization of additional funds. The

fifth alternative would need legislation disestablishing

the former immigration station as a national monument.110

1 1 8
The Northeast Regional Office recommended that

option two be followed because "it would provide the

essential visitor experience in the main building while

retaining all other options for future consideration."

Ronald H. Walker, NPS director, and Nathaniel P. Reed,

assistant secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, concurred, but apparently Rogers C. B. Morton, secretary

of the interior, did not. At a meeting on May 15, 1973,

at the Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace House, Morton

remarked that he did not want any part of Ellis Island.

It would be too expensive to rehabilitate. He intended,

therefore, to speak to the President about returning it

to the GSA for disposal.

Secretary Morton's statement shocked many of the

members of the Interior Department and the NPS, including Superintendent Batman and the curator of the AMI,

both of whom wrote memoranda arguing against such a

course. As Museum Curator Kallop put it, "disposal of

Ellis Island by the Park Service" would be seen by the

"vast public of Americans newly conscious of their ethnic

heritage as a denial by the government of a commitment

made to the public to rescue and rehabilitate the Island."

It would be denounced by the press and by critics of the

AMI, who see the development of Ellis as "an opportunity

to rectify what they consider the mistakes of the Museum."

In short, getting rid of the historic site could be "truly

explosive."17

It was this "truly explosive" potential, perhaps,

that prevented Secretary Morton from having his way on

the dispositon of Ellis. Congress, on the other hand,

showed no inclination to approve or approriate the sums

required for the other four alternatives. In the face

of this situation, NPS Director Walker wrote a memorandum

in June 1974, outlining the possibilities of raising funds

for rehabilitation work on the island from labor unions,

ethnic groups, and other private-sector sources. To further Walker's proposals, Under Secretary of the Interior

John C. Walker gave his approval to a plan to bring a

group of ethnic leaders to Ellis and explore with them

the formation of an organization to raise money for

development of the historic site.

Before this visit occurred, in November 1974, however, one concerned private citizen was already taking

action. Dr. Peter Sammartino, founder and president of

Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey, was the

child of Italian immigrants who had once passed through

Ellis. While taking a helicopter trip over New York

harbor in January 1974, Sammartino hit upon the idea of

119

1 4.
launching an effort to restore the area. He presented

his thoughts to the InternationEl Committee of the New

Jersey Bicentennial Celebration Commission, which he

chaired. In July, the committee unanimously voted "to

further the establishment of a museum and recreational

park on Ellis Island."

That summer, Sammartino made an inspection of the

island in the company of Ed Kallop and mentioned to the

NMI curator that as a first step he and the other Bicentennial Commission members would try to "pry loose" the

$6,000,000 earlier authorized by Congress. Sammartino

believed that he and his colleagues, acting as a pressure

group, might have better success in achieving this than

the Park Service people. He proceeded to write to

President Nixon, Secretary Morton, Senator Harrison

Williams, Jr. (Democrat-New Jersey), and other senators.

He also publicized his ideas through letters to the press,

including the one that appeared in the Newark Star-Ledger

in October 1974.

In all of these communications, Sammartino argued

that Ellis Island had to be restored. To allow it to

deteriorate further was a national disgrace. A complete

job of rehabilitation would cost $20,000,000 or more, an

unthinkable sum to expend in a time of "inflationary

crisis." The work, therefore, should be done "piecemeal."

Through joint Congressional action and voluntary help,

enough money could be raised to restore the large reception hall in the main immigration building and the passages

leading to it, and open these to the public in time for

the bicentennia1.18

In November 1974, the NPS held its planned tour of

Ellis for a group of ethnic leaders, and naturally invited

Sammartino to participate. Others who came included

Rudolph Vecoli of the University of Minnesota's Center

for Immigration Studies (who had been severely critical

of the AMI); Edward J. Piazek, Polish community leader;

Myron B. Kuropas, Ukrainian Congress; and Michael Sotirhos,

United Greek Charities. The guests were appalled at the

deteriorated state of the facility and said Congress must

demonstrate its interest and concern by appropriating

funds to correct the situation. The group decided further

that, while pressing the legislators to provide money to

open the island to limited visitation, it should seek supplementary help from the private sector. To further these

ends the group designated Sammartino temporary chairman of

an ad hoc committee to restore Ellis Island.

120

127
Sammartino came away from that gathering more determined than ever to achieve their goals quickly. In April

1975 the Restore Ellis Island Committee incorporated as a

non-profit organization in the State of New Jersey, with

Sammartino as its national chairman. The committee

requested that Congress add to the fiscal 1976 budget a

supplemental appropriation of $1.5 million to be used for

restoring the landing pier, the walk and the stairway to

the reception hall, plastering and painting the hall

itself, and providing water and outdoor toilets, so that

this limited portion of the main immigration building on

Ellis Island might be opened to the public by the bicentennial year. To reassure law makers that they would not

be taking on huge expenditures in the future for upkeep

and further wide-ranging development, the committee suggested that 90 percent of the structures on the island

should be torn down, leavinc.: just enough brickwork to

give an idea of the former buildings 'and to form picnic

alcoves for visitors.

In the spring of 1975, Sammartino and his wife

travelled to Washington to lobby for their proposals.

Congressman Edward Patten of New Jersey agreed to draft

the required bill. The Sammartinos managed to line up

the entire New Jersey congressional delegation and part

of New York's behind th° legislation. They went to see

Congressman Sidney Ya'_es (Democrat-Illinois), chairman

of the House Appropriations Committee, and persuaded him

and several other members of that key committee to visit

Ellis in May 1975 to see for themselves the crying need

for repairs. Sammartino wrote to President Gerald Ford,

asking for his support as wel1.19

Meanwhile, NPS officials and the Restore Ellis

Island Committee did what they could to obtain media

backing for the appropriations bill. Luis Garcia-Curbelo,

unit manager of the STLI NM, told reporters he had so far

received virtually no money to maintain the immigrant

memorial. "I feel like crying" he said. "It's shameful.

Ellis Island represents so much to America. We have to

take action to preserve it." Alistair Cooke included

Ellis Island in his "America" series on public television

and Dan Rather of CBS did a short piece about the site

for network news. Locally, WCBS-TV endorsed the restoration in a broadcast editorial.

In April 1975, Sammartino drafted a letter to the

Secretary of Labor, which was sent over the signature

of Garcia-Curbelo, requesting laborers under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). In September

the CETA crew set to work, cleaning the first floor and

1 21 128
the great hall on the second floor of the main immigration building, gathering together some of the building's

original benches, and clearing the ground around the

structure. On November 5, 1975, the NPS held a flagraising ceremony on the island to honor the Restore

Ellis Island Committee and the CETA workers. Sammartino

and Jerry Wagers, now director of the North Atlantic

Region, spoke of their hopes for the national monument

before some 125 guests and members of the press.

All of these efforts paid off when Congress passed

the appropriations bill and President Ford signed it

into law on January 1, 1976. It provided $1,000,000 for

limited rehabilitation and authorized the NPS to use

$500,000 of its budget annually for operating expenses.

With some money finally assured, the NPS put into action

its plans for opening Ellis to the public by the spring .20

Responsibility for readying Ellis went to the North

Atlantic Regional Office, headed by Jerry Wagers. On

January 6 and 7, meetings took place to outline what had

to be done. There were follow-up gatherings in Boston

in February and New York in April. The participants,

including Denis Galvin, associate regional director,

Park Service Management; Dick Volpe, regional chief of

maintenance; William Hendrickson, superintendent, NYC

Group; Ross Holland, associate regional director, Planning

and Resource Preservation; STLI NM Unit Manager Luis

Garcia-Curbelo; and others, decided that the $1,000,000

appropriation would be used "primarily to establish

visitor use on the island and secondarily to preserve

the resource there."

They commissioned URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., of New

York to survey the structural soundness of the main building and assess potential safety hazards to visitors along

a proposed tour route. The company found water intrusion

had dangerously loosened plaster on walls and ceilings.

Structural steel, where visible, was badly rusted, and

ice had penetrated masonry, causing ever-widening cracks.

These hazards would have to be corrected along the tour

route. The survey made it very clear that visitors must

not be allowed to stray into other areas.21

Laborers were hired to try to make the main immigration building waterproof by repairing the roof, replacing

broken windows, opening surface drains, fixing downspouts,

and rehabilitating skylights. Work crews also removed

loose plaster, cleared away piles of debris in the passageways leading to the historically important areas in the

main building, and chopped down overgrown vegetation

1 22
surrounding it. Contracts were let out for supplying the

island with water, sewer, and toilet facilities, as well

as a lighting system. A radio hook-up between Liberty

Island and Ellis was installed. To safeguard these

improvements the NPS, in May 1976, instituted 24-hour

security protection for the former immigration station,

bringing to an end the theft and vandalism of the past.

Since complete repair of the seawall was estimated

at a cost of more than $4,000,000, the team responsible

for readying Ellis decided to limit repairs to the section around the ferry basin. This consisted mainly of

putting stones back in place and repointing them.

The Army Corps of Engineers undertook the dredging

of the ferry basin. When it became obvious that this

operation could not be completed prior to May 1976, the

target date for opening, the NPS also arranged for a

temporary dock to be installed on the north end of the

island, where the water was sufficiently deep to land

a 100-passenger boat. William Henrickson asked Francis

Barry, president of the Circle Line-Statue of Liberty

Ferry, Inc., to obtain a vessel suitable for transporting

100 to 125 visitors at a time from Liberty to Ellis

Island. By March, the company had located and chartered

such a boat.

Meanwhile, the regional office assigned a task force

to develop an interpretive plan. By February, Ed Kallop,

now regional curator and a member of that task force,

had done so. The guiding principle behind his interim

interpretation plan was to help visitors experience how

it might have felt to be an immigrant arriving at Ellis

in the first two decades of this century. With some

modifications suggested by Paul Weinbaum, who succeeded

Kallop as AMI curator, the interpretive plan became the

one followed by tour guides, starting in May 1976. Those

tours were designed to take one hour. Owing to the deteriorated condition of the facility, the tour could show

the public only limited parts of the main immigration

building, including the great registry room.

With all work proceeding as scheduled, Jerry Wagers

could inform an anxious Congressman Yates that Ellis

would indeed be ready for regular visitor use by late

May. Wagers could also arrange with Dr. Sammartino for

the development of approPriately festive opening ceremonies.22

123 130
NOTES

IJ. A. Townsely, Supt., NYC NPS Group, Monthly

Narrative Report, July 1965; Thomas M. Pitkin, Keepers

of the Gate: A History of Ellis Island (New York, 1975).

pp. 185-187; The Philip Johnson Plan for the Development

of Ellis Island, Blue Folder of Ellis Island Documents,

Storage Area, Liberty Island; Townsley, Monthly Narrative

Report, February 1966.

2Emily Genauer, "The Hazards of Patronage: Venice

and Ellis Island," New York Herald Tribune, March 13,

1966; Inez Robb, "The Cult of Instant Ugliness," New York

World Telegram and Sun, March 7, 1966; "The Wall' at

Ellis Island," New York Times, February 26, 1966; Ada

Louise Huxtable, "The Uses of the Past," New York Times,

February 25, 1966; Chronology of Ellis Island Under NPS

Management, "Ellis Island Study," 1978.

3The camp buildings were taken over by the New Jersey

Regional Drug Abuse Agency. Jersey Journal, March 24, 1969.

4Townsley, Monthly Narrative Report, December 1965

and February 1966; Laurence J. Zollar, Acting Superintendent,

NYC NPS Group, Monthly Narrative Report, January 1967;

Jersey Journal, March 24, 1969; Newark Evening News, January

31, 1968; Maxwell M. Rabb to Stewart L. Udall, March 12,

1965, Ellis Island-National Ellis Island Association, Inc.

File, Drawer 2, Administration Building, Liberty Island.

5Memo from Northeast Regional Director Ronald F. Lee

to Assistant Solicitor Bernard Meyer, August 6, 1965, D22,

Ellis Island-National Ellis Island Association Inc. File,

Drawer 2, Administration Building; Townsley, Monthly

Narrative Report, February 1966; Cooperative Agreement

Between the Secretary of the Interior and the National

Ellis Island Association, Inc., July 12, 1966, National

Ellis Island Association File, Drawer 2, Administration

Building; Memo from William H. Hendrickson, Superintendent

NYC NPS Group, to Regional Director, North Atlantic Region,

June 13, 1975, National Ellis Island Association File,

Drawer 2, Administration Building; Chronology of Ellis

Island Under NPS Management, "Ellis Island Study," 1978.

6The NPS tried a number of things to stop the theft

and vandalism. It asked ttle Jersey City Police Department

to help patrol the shore facing Ellis and keep a eye on

the island; a guard was stationed on the premises for eight

hours a day and night boat patrols were instituted; doors

through which intruders had gained access to buildings

124

13.1
were replaced, barred and chained; and New York City

Harbor Police were asked to make a check of Ellis each

night and notify NPS officials of any suspicious activities. When intruders were caught, the NPS indicated its

willingness to prosecute them. But, nothing short of

installing an electrical alarm system and posting roundthe-clock guards could totally secure the facility, and

these measures would cost more than the NPS could afford.

Harlan Unrau, "Administrative History of Ellis Island:

1954-1982," and Superinendent's Monthly Narrative Reports,

June-September 1966, January 1967, March 1967.

7United States Department of Interior, STLI NM,

New York (includes Ellis Island), March 2, 1973, AMI,

Ellis Island Data File, Drawer D-N, AMI Curator's Files,

Liberty Island; Unrau, "Administrative History of Ellis

Island"; "Ellis Island.at Low Point in Its History," New

York Times, March 5, 1968; Milton C. Markowitz, Regional

Director, GSA, to Superintendent Newell H. Foster, STLI

NM, July 3, 1963; Waltey J. Nitkiewicz, Museum Specialist

(Art), Inspection of Mdrals-Ellis Island; Memo from

Ralph H. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Museum Operations, to

Regional Director, NERO, December 20, 1967, D62, Museum

and Exhibit Activites (AMI) 1968 File, Storage Area,

Liberty Island.

In 1970 the GSA undertook a program to locate and

salvage many of the art works created by members of the

WPA Art Projects in the 1930s. As a part of this effort

GSA representatives visited Ellis Island and found about

80 feet of the Laning mural salvageable. In 1971, over

an eight-day period, the mural was removed from the dining

room walls and taken to a New York studio for restoration.

The GSA hung the restored mural in the Brooklyn Federal

Court House.

8New York Times, March 5, 1968; Townsley, Monthly

Narrative Report, July 1965, December 1965; Acting Superintendent Zollar, Monthly Narrative Report, January, 1967;

Chronology of Ellis Island Under NPS Management, "Ellis

Island Study," 1978; Memo from Acting Assistant Director,

Coop. Activities, to Regional Director, NERO, November 5,

1968, D18, Master Plan-Ellis Island GMP-Ellis Island File,

Drawer 1, Administration Building; United States Department

of Interior, NPS, "A Master Plan for Ellis Island," June

1968, pp. 4, 15, 16, 20.

9"A Master Plan for Ellis Island," June 1968, pp. 4,

17-18, 16; Ernest Allen Connally, chief, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, to Director, NPS, January

10, 1969, Statue of Liberty File, Drawer 5, Artifact Room.

125

3 2
Among those who felt the hospital and kitchen buildings should be retained were Ronald F. Lee, chairman,

Special Committee on Historic Preservation; Henry Judd,

chief, Branch of Restoration; and Joseph Watterson, chief,

Division of Historic Architecture. See Lee to Director,

NPS, July 17, 1969 and Joseph Watterson to Chief, Office

of Archeology and Historic Preservation, July 29, 1968,

STLI NM (brown) File, Drawer 5, Artifact Room; E. A.

Connally to Director, January 10, 1969, Statue of Liberty

File, Drawer 5.

10The team that wrote the report included C. Gordon

Cummings, engineer; Judson Ball, architect; and David

Schmidt, landscape designer.

11Chronology of Ellis Island Under NPS Management,

"Ellis Island Study," 1978; Estimate for Master Plan

Implementation, April 10, 1970, "A Master Plan for Ellis

Island."

12New York Times, March 17, 1970.

13There is evidence that the President favored this

course of action since Nixon had shortly before granted

special clemency to Matthew, releasing him early from a

six-month jail sentence for tax evasion, so that the

doctor could pursue his self-help projects for blacks.

See New York Times, January 9, 1970.

14"NEGRO: Creating Our Own GNP," Newsweek, September 28, 1970; New York Times, August 20, 1970, August

21, 1970; Staten Island Advance, August 2, 1970; NEGRO,

"The New Immigrant, America Still the Best Hope," no

date; Memo from Ari Hoogenboom to Unit Manager via Museum

Curator, June 19, 1974, Ellis Island Data File, Drawer

D-N, AMI Curator's Files; Special Use Permit, Ellis Island/

STLI NM and NEGRO, August 19, 1970, Ellis Island-NEGRO

(Dr. Matthew occupation of) File, Drawer 2, Administration

Building.

15United States Public Health Service, Environmental

Health Service, Leroy G. Marin, Ellis Island Environmental

Inspection Tour, September 23, 1970, Ellis Island-NEGRO

(Dr. Matthew occupation of) File, Drawer 2, Administration

Building; United States Public Health Service, Follow-up

Inspection--Ellis Island, April 1, 1971, L30, Land Use

Ellis Island, 1971-1974 File, Drawer 1, Administration

Building; Jerry D. Wagers, director, New York District,

to Dr. Thomas W. Matthew, April 2, 1973, Blue Folder of

Ellis Island Documents, Storage Area.

126

133
18Chronology of Ellis Island Under NPS Management,

"Ellis Island Study," 1978; Memo from J. Wagers, director,

New York District to Director, WASO, through Director,

NERO, December 14, 1972, Blue Folder of Ellis Island

Documents, Storage Area; Memo from C. L. Brooks, director,

NERO, to Director, NPS, April 25, 1973, L-30, Land UseEllis Island, 1971-74 File, Drawer 1, Administration

Building; "Ellis Island--Options," April 1973, pp. 1, 2-6.

17"Ellis Island--Options," April 1973, p. 6; Memo

from Ernest A. Connally, associate directdr, Prof. Services, to Director of Office of Archeology and Historic

Preservation, August 17, 1973, D18, Blue Ellis Island

Briefing File, Drawer 2, Administration Building; Memo

from Ed Kallop, museum curator, to Superintendent Batman,

August 13, 1973, Ellis Island Miscellaneous Notes File,

Drawer D-N, AMI Curator's Files.

18Memo from Richard McKiernan, through Assistant

Director for Public Affairs, to Director, NPS, November

14, 1974, D18, Blue Ellis Island Briefing Folder, Drawer

2, Administration Building; "Brief History of the Restore

Ellis Island Committee," EI-Restore Ellis Island CommitteeDr. Sammartino File, Drawer 2, Administration Building;

Peter Sammartino to Harrison A. Williams, Jr., July 19,

1974, Blue EI Briefing Folder, Drawer 2, Administration

Building; Memo from E. Kallop, museum curator, to Unit

Manager STLI NM, June 27, 1974, EI Miscellaneous Notes

File, Drawer D-N, AMI Curator's files; Sammartino to Secretary of Interior Morton, July 8, 1974 and August 19,

1974, Blue EI Briefing Folder; Ellis Island Information

Sheet sent to Secretary Morton, members of Congress, etc.,

March 27, 1975, EI-Restore EI Committee-Dr. Sammartino

File, Drawer 2, Administration Building; Sammartino,

"Restoration Plea for Ellis Island," The Star-Ledger,

October 23, 1974.

19Memo from Richard McKiernan, through Assistant

Director for Public Affairs to Director, NPS, November

14, 1974, Blue EI Briefing Folder; "Brief History of

the Restore Ellis Island Committee;" EI Information

Sheet sent to members of Congress, EI-Restore EI Committee-Dr. Sammartino File; Memo from William Hendricksor,

superintendent NYC NPS Group, to Director, NARO, January

14, 1975, Blue EI Briefing Folder; Sammartino to Director,

NPS, Gary E. Everhardt, April 16, 1975, Blue EI Briefing

Folder; Jeannie Mandelker, "The Restoration of Ellis

Island," master's thesis, Columbia University, 1976, pp.

10-11, EI-Feasibility Study File, Drawer 2, Administration Building; STLI NM Unit Manager Luis Garcia-Curbelo,

Monthly Highlights, May 1975; Sammartino to President

127
Gerald Ford, June 26, 1975, and Nathaniel P. Reed, assistant secretary of interior, to Sammartino, July 18, 1975.

Restore EI Committee-Dr. Sammartino File, Drawer 2,

Administration Building.

20Jill Rifkin, "Ellis Island: Sinking Into the

Waters of History," The Downtown Herald, May 16, 1975;

Mandelker, "The Restoration of Ellis Island," p. 21;

Memo from William Hendrikson, superintendent, NY Group,

to Regional Director, April 24, 1975, Restore Ellis

Island Committee-Sammartino File; Sammartino to Luis

Garcia-Curbelo, April 3, 1975, and Garcia-Curbelo to

Secretary of Labor John T. Dunlop, April 3, 1975, EIRestore EI Committee-Dr. Sammartino File; Luis GarciaCurbelo, Bi-Weekly Highlights, September 1-15, 1975;

United States Department of Interior, NPS, News Release,

October 28, 1975; Dedication of EI, November 5, 1975,

A8215, Drawer 1, Administration Building; Chronology

of EI Under NPS Management, "Ellis Island Study," 1978.

21memo from J. Wagers, director, NARO, to Superintendent, NYC NPS Group, January 16, 1976, Ellis IslandReady File, Drawer 2, Administration Building; Memo from

David A. Richie, acting regional director, NARO, to

Superintendent NYC NPS Group, March 1, 1976, Ellis Island

File, Drawer 2, Administration Building; Memo from Ross

Holland, associate regional director, Planning and Resource

Preservation, to Deputy Regional Director, April 13, 1976,

Organization (EI) File, Drawer 1, Administration Building;

United States Department of Interior, NPS, Ellis Island

Condition Survey, by URS/Madigan-Praeger, Inc., May 1976,

pp. 1-3.

22David L. Moffitt, Superintendent's Annual Report

for 1976, STLI NM; J. Wagers to David J. Bardin, commissioner of environmental protection, New Jersey, March 16,

1976, Ellis Island File, Drawer 2, Administration Building;

William Hendrickson, superintendent, NYC NPS Group, to

John Zammit, chief, Operations Division, NY District, Army

Corps of Engineers, March 11, 1976, EI File, Drawer 2; J.

L. Norwood, acting regional director, to Sidney R. Yates,

April 16, 1976, EI File, Drawer 2; F. J. Burry to William

Hendrickson, March 25, 1976, EI File, Drawer 2; Memo from

Denis Galvin, associate regional director, Park System

Management, NARO, to Superintendent, NYC NPS Group, February

13, 1976, and "Interim Interpretation at Ellis Island," EI

File, Drawer 2; Memo from L. Garcia-Curbelo, Unit Manager,

STLI NM, through Superintendent NYC NPS Group to Regional

Director, NARO, EI File, Drawer 2; Review with Interpretive Staff of EI Interpretation by Ed Kallop, October 15,

1976, EI Operation File, Drawer D-N, AMI Curator's Files.

128

135
CHAPTER 7

THE SEARCH FOR CONSENSUS AND FUNDING CONTINUES, 1976-1980

On May 28, 1976, some twenty-two years after the

Immigration Service abandoned its famous property, formal

opening ceremonies took place on Ellis Island. Regional

Director Jerry Wagers welcomed the assembled guests, who

included Senator James Buckley (Republican-New York) and

three members of the state's congressional delegation:

Representatives Elizabeth Holtzman, Bella Abzug and John

Murphy. Associate Director of the NPS Ernest A. Connally

and Peter Sammartino, who had been so instrumental in

bringing about this occasion, each spoke of their satisfaction that in the bicentennial year the public could

at last visit this historic site.

The next day regularly scheduled tours began. A

ferry carried visitors from Liberty Island to Ellis six

times a day, seven days a week through the summer and into

the early fall. During those months more than 45,000

persons took the one-hour tours. NPS guides conducted

a poll among them, finding the majority wanted to see

the facilities fully or at least partly restored.

The Park Service discontinued the tours for the

winter and reopened the immigration station in May 1977.

Ferries left for the island four times daily from Battery

Park in lower Manhattan and three times from Liberty State

Park in New Jersey. A writer for The New Yorker, who took

a tour one Saturday in the 1977 season, recorded these

impressions: the ruins are handsome and probably would

make a good spooky place to wander around in, [but] the

Park Service doesn't allow such freedom." The guide kept

reminding his group, "please, please stay with him, because

he would hate it if one of them should step in a hole or

be hit by a falling piece of plaster." Both dangers

seemed slight to the reporter, "since a good number of

the areas [through which they passed] were protected with

special plywood passageways constructed by the Park Service." The writer pronounced the hour-long guided tour

"pleasant," with perhaps the best moment coming at the

end when the visitor emerged from the main immigration

129

136
building and looked out at Manhattan. It is "a view that

takes in the western shore all the way from the financial

district to the skyscrapers of midtown....[A]nd it still

holds that promise of prosperity which many would-be

Americans must have heard when they set out from Europe."1

While the public could now see limited parts of the

main immigration building, the $1,000,000 appropriated by

Congress in 1976 certainly had not made it possible for

NPS to arrest further deteriuration of the facilities,

nor to proceed with significant restoration. During the

summer of 1977, Gerald Karr, an architect from the Denver

Service Center, conducted a survey at Ellis that underscored this point:

Almost every architectural component

in the Main Building is damaged in some

way... [Pilaster, floors, drains, windows,

paint, wood trim, ornament, toilets, millwork,

stairs...[are] severely deteriorated and

require repair or replacement.

All [other] structures share the sF17ii

problems with the Main Building: no heat,

ruined finishes, defective drains, some

structural damage, and leaking roofs.

Karr estimated that just to halt the deterioration of

structural components and architectural finishes and to

provide minimal safety equipment would cost at least

$2.5 million.

It was also becoming obvious that the entire seawall

surrounding Ellis had to be repaired to prevent the island

from eroding. The engineering firm of URS/Madigan, under

contract with the NPS, made a survey of the necessary work

and estimated its cost. They found total rehabilitation

would require about $5 million.

These reports indicated that even if Congress eventually appropriated all of the $6 million that it had

originally approved for development of the historic

site, the sum would not cover the most essential needs.

Consequently, in November 1977 Congressmen Jonathan

Bingham (Democrat-New York) and Edward Koch (Democrat-New

York) sponsored House Joint Resolution 651 to increase

the ceiling authorization to $50 million. Bingham testified on behalf of the bill before the Interior Subcommittee in 1978, and the New York City Council also called

upon Congress to make additional funds available to

restore Ellis. Late in 1978, Congress finally passed

130

137
and the President signed the National Parks and Recreation Act, which contained a reduced authorization for

the island of $24 million.2

While this measure was working its way through the

legislative process, NPS Director William Whalen, at the

request of the Secretary of the Interior, appointed a

study team to identify additional management and use

options for Ellis Island. The team,3 headed by Ted

McCann, produced a report in May 1978, which found that

since 1965, when the NPS took over the property, it had

spent only $2.5 million on its care. In addition, much

of that funding had been released only due to outside

pressures (Restore Ellis Island Committee) and in the

interest of the bicentennial celebration. Over all, the

report charged, "...little interest and even less money

has relegated tne site into a second-class member of the

National Park System."

The team found that "years of neglect, vandalism and

the natural forces of an island environment" had taken a

heavy toll, and millions of dollars were urgently needed

"to save, much less restore, parts or all of the site's

physical structurcs and its future usefulness as a park..."

At a minimum, the seawall had to be rebuilt; permanent

sewage and water supply systems, with mainland connections,

should be installed; all structures to be retained should

be supplied with modern heating, ventilating and airconditioning facilites; and up-to-date lighting, telephone,

fire-fighting and burglar alarm systems were required.

The 1978 study then outlined five options for developing the property, ranging from the 1968 proposal to

demolish all but the main building to "total restoration"

of the entire immigration station. Depending on which

course was followed, the rough-cost estimates ranged from

a low of $25 million to a high of $100 million. Though

this document provided useful background data for later

NPS planning projects, it never received formal approval

from the NPS Director or the Secretary of.the Interior.4

If the estimates in this study were correct, the

new authorization would not quite cover even the least

costly option; but that was not the most serious problem

those responsible for the care of Ellis Island faced.

Once again Congress did not follow up its authorization

with matching appropriations. All told, between 1978

and 1982, Congress provided about $8 million for development of the facility. This permitted the NPS to carry

out some repairs and stabilization, most of it barely

visible to the public. Further repairs aimed at water131

133
proofing the main building were undertaken. The seawall

within the ferry slip and in other places was rehabilitated, a septic-tank system was installed, and stone and

brick walls were repointed. For a time the NPS was

helped with repair and maintenance work by labor provided

through the Youth Conservation Corps and the CETA program.5

All of this, however, did not prevent further

deterioration; it certainly did not answer the question

of what should be restored, what stabilized, and what

demolished on the island, nor solve the problem of how

to obtain funds to implement any plans ultimately adopted.

In 1979 and 1980, the Department of the Interior and the

NPS tried to address these questions and problems. First,

the Park Service created still another planning team, led

by Michael Adlerstein, architect/planner.6 The group

went to work in 1979 and by December 1980 issued an

Analysis of Alternatives for a general management plan

that "explored a range of possible actions for management

and development" of both the Statue of Liberty and Ellis

Island. The document discussed four alternative courses

of action concerning the former immigration station:

minimal preservation and use at a cost of $32,700,000;

total preservation and use of all thirty-three structures

at $77,800,000; the planning team's preferred alternative

at $54,050,000; and implementation of the 1968 plan, now

estimated to cost $42,950,000.

The team's preferred alternative might be described

as a plan for modest, but more than minimal preservation,

leaving open the possibility of further development at

some future date if substantial private donations came to

supplement public resources. Accordingly, this plan recommended that the main immigration building (including the

railroad ticket office), the baggage and dormitory building, and the kitchen and laundry building should be

preserved with public and private funds. Exteriors of

these three structures should not be altered, but extensive

repairs should be carried on inside them. Most of the

interior of the three would be devoted to interpretation

of two main themes: "the immigrant experience at Ellis

Island and the broader concept of immigration to America."

Some space would also be utilized for administrative and

management purposes and museum support activities, such

as storage for artifacts and offices for museum staff,

thereby alleviating the acute shortage of space on Liberty

Island that had been a problem from the Museum's opening.

The rest of the structures on island one (powerhouse,

greenhouse, bakery and carpentry building) should be

preserved and adapted for various uses by the NPS and/or

non-profit ethnic organizations, which might want to

prepare exhibits and sponsor special events (Fig. 6).

132

139
The preferred plan also recommended retaining the

hospital buildings facing the ferry slip and the ferry

building at the head of it. These structures, however,

would be stabilized, not preserved. That is, just enough

would be done to make them weather resistant and structurally sound, but there would be almost no internal

repairs or adaptation, and they would not be heated in

winter. Visitors, consequently, would not be permitted

inside, though they could walk around the outside of the

buildings.

The team suggested, further, that the NPS leave the

remaining buildings on the property as they were--no preservation, no stabilization, but no demolition, either.

Because of possible safety hazards public access to their

vicinity would be barred.

The sunken ferry boat, the team believed, was beyond

repair. Its rotted Ih:Joden superstructure should be

removed, the metal hull left on the bottom of the slip.7

The NPS attempted to obtain wide reaction and

comment on the Analysis of Alternatives and its recommendations. It distributed copies to the congressional

delegations of New York and New Jersey, to state legislators, and to city officials, as well as a number of

special federal and state agencies, such as the Federal

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the New York and New Jersey

State Historic Preservation Offices. Additionally, the

NPS prepared an attractive poster-brochure, which briefly

summarized the four alternatives set forth in the Analysis

of Alternatives and mailed 1,000 of these to interested

individuals. In the Federal Register the Park Service

announced that it would schedule six public meetings to

discuss the document. These were subsequently held during January 1981 in the five boroughs of New York City

and in Newark and Jersey City. Only eighty people

attended these meetings. Another 200 persons participated in briefings on the Analysis at informal meetings

with NPS personnel during January and February. All

told, the NPS received written commentary from twentyseven organizations and fifteen individuals.

During this extensive review process, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation and the New York and New

Jersey state historic preservation officers expressed

concern that the study team's preferred alternative would

allow potentially useful historic buildings on Ellis Island

to deteriorate further. There wE;re individuals within the

Park Service who agreed and had long felt that an effort

133

1 0
should be made to preserve the entire immigration complex.

These sentiments, however, presented the NPS with a dilemma.

With inflation arousing national alarm and budget deficits

soaring, Congress and the in-coming administration of

President Ronald W. Reagan were most unlikely to provide

the needed $54,000,000, let alone support more ambitious

plans.

The Park Service thought it saw some possible ways

out of the dilemma. Congress, at the end of 1980, amended

the National Historic Preservation Act, giving the NPS

authority to lease historic structures to private tenants

and to use the revenue thus obtained for historic preservation work. This opened up the possibility of raising

needed money by renting buildings on Ellis Island that

the NPS did not require for historical interpretation.8

The Park Service, in addition, turned its hopes to procuring large contributions from private sources, reversing a

position it had taken earlier.

As far back as November 1975, Peter Sammartino, chairman of the Restore Ellis Island Committee, had written to

Jerry Wagers, requesting official recognition of his group

as "a fund raising organization for Ellis Island." Early

in 1976, Nathaniel P. Reed, assistant secretary, Fish,

Wildlife and Parks, speaking for the Department, discouraged Sammartino from launching any public drive for

donations:

Our experience...suggest[s] that we

really can only expect a small fraction of

what would be needed for something called

an Ellis Island restoration. Whatever morey

your Committee was able to gather in would

just not allow very much additional effective

work to be completed.

If the general public were to volunteer

their dimes and dollars to "Restore Ellis

Island," they very well will be disappointed

in what they see is done at the Island in

the context of all the disrepair that is

present.

Despite this earlier pessimism about the efficacy of

public fund raising, Secretary of the Interior Cecil D.

Andrus signed a Memorandum of Agreement in December 1980,

with the Ellis Island Restoration Commission, Inc. (as the

Restore Ellis Island Committee was now called) and its

president, Philip Lax, who had succeeded Sammartino when

the latter retired in 1978. The agreement provided that

134

1 4 1
the commission should "engage in fund raising and receive

philanthropic contributions," such funds to be placed in

a "special Ellis Island donation account" used for "the

preservation and rehabilitation of Ellis Island and/or

the conduct of pi-ograms and activities at or in behalf

of Ellis Island." Before the commission began its public

appeal, however, it was engulfed in and became part of a

broader planning and money-raising effort for the Statue

of Liberty and Ellis Island and the celebration of

their respective centennials in 1986 and 1992. Let us

proceed, then, in the concluding chapter, to examine

these activities.9

135

1 r-1 1
NOTES

1Program--Opening Ceremonies for Ellis Island, Friday, May 28, 1976, Duplicates File, Artifact Room; David

L. Moffitt, superintendent, STLI NM, Superintendent's

Annual Report for 1976; United States Department of the

Interior, NPS, News release, May 5, 1977, Press Releases

1976-77, Drawer 1, Administration Building; "Ellis Island,"

The New Yorker, July 11, 1977, pp. 20-21.

2groposal for Treatment, Ellis Island, prepared by

Gerald Karr, architect, DSC, 1977, Appendix, "Ellis Island

Study," May 1978; Moffitt, Superintendent's Annual Report

for 1976; Chronology of Ellis Island Under NPS Management,

"Ellis Island Study," May 1978; New York Times, December

6, 1978; Philadelphia Inquirer, January 7, 1979.

3The team members included Ted McCann, Sylvia Cabrera,

Richard Giamberdine, Gerald Karr, Paul Lederer, David L.

Moffitt, and Nancy Schmitz. They received help from

Joseph Antosca, Richard Bowser, F. Ross Holland, Edward

Kallop, Michael Tennant and Paul Weinbaum.

4"Ellis Island Study," May 1978; Unrau, "Administrative

History of Ellis Island: 1954-1982"; United States Department

of Interior, NPS, Analysis of Alternatives (Environmental

Assessment) for the General Management Plan, STLI NM NY/NJ,

P. 82.

5Author's interview with David L. Moffitt, superintendent STLI NM, December 3, 1983; Gary R. Catron, assistant to

the Secretary and Director of Congressional and Legislative

Affairs, Department of the Interior, to Senator Charles H.

Percy, February 13, 1979, D18, Planning Programs-Ellis

Island File, Drawer 1, Administrative Building; David L.

Moffitt, superintendent STLI NM, to Edward I. Koch, June 6,

1977, D18, Ellis Planning Program, 1977 File,

Drawer 1, Administrative Building; Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of Interior, to Jacob K. Javits, March 18, 1977,

D18, Ellis Planning Program, 1977 File; D. Moffitt, Superintendent's Annual Reports, 1977, 1979, 1980, STLI NM.

60ther members of the planning teams included David L.

Moffitt, superintendent STLI NM; Rolf Diamont, landscape

architect/planner, NARO; Dan Huff, environmental planner,

DSC; Michael Paskowski, interpretive planner, HFC; Jane

Scott, historian/planner, DSC; Les Siroky, historical

architect, DSC; Gail Slemmer, editor, DSC; Michael Tennant,

chief of Visitor Services, STLI NM; Kevin Tremble, transportation planner, DSC; Norma Turner, community planner,

DSC; Harlan Unrau, historian, DSC.

136

143
7United States Department of the Interior, NPS

Analysis of Alternatives, STLI NM, December 1980, pp.

89-90, 35-46.

8United States Department of the Interior, NPS,

General Management Plan Statue of Liberty National Monument, September 1982, pp. 42-43, 1; United States

Department of Interior, NPS, Statue of Liberty, Ellis

Island, "Summary of the Analysis of Alternatives for

Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island."

8Peter Sammartino, chairman, Restore Ellis Island

Committee, to Jerry D. Wagers, director, NARO, November

21, 1975, Restore Ellis Island Committee-Sammartino File,

Drawer 2, Administration Building; Nathaniel P. Reed,

assistant secretary, Fish, Wildlife, Parks, to P. Sammartino,

February 5, 1976, Restore Ellis Island Committee-Sammartino

File; Memo from Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife,

Parks to Sec':etary of Interior, November 25, 1980; Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Interior and

Ellis Island Rc3toration Commission, Inc., December 12,

1980; Philip Lax to Officers and Executive Committee of

Ellis Island Restoration Commission, Inc., January 6, 1981,

A44, Memos of Agreement with Federal, State, Local Agencies

File, Administrative Building; Author's interview with D. L.

Moffitt, superintendent, STLI NM, December 3, 1982.

137

144
CHAPTER 8

PREPARING FOR THE CENTENNIALS OF THE STATUE OF LIBERTY

AND ELLIS ISLAND

Preparations for the 100th anniversaries of the

Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island may be said to have

started as early as 1979, when the National Park Service

created the planning team captained by Michael Adlerstein.

That group explored possible management and development

alternatives not only for Ellis Island, but for the

Statue of Liberty and the American Museum of Immigration

as well. In its December 1980 Analysis of Alternatives,

the team suggested that the summer visitor's long wait to

climb to the statue's crown and the uncomfortable crowding

in the monument's interior might be alleviated by instituting early-warning and numbered-ticket systems. Signs

erected near the boat-ticket booths at the Battery in

Manhattan and Liberty State Park in New Jersey would

advise people about to purchase tickets for the trip of

the current waiting time for the walk to the crown. The

message on the signs could be continually adjusted as conditions changed. Arriving on Liberty Island, the visitor

would obtain a numbered ticket enabling him/her to

estimate the time at which to start up the stairs;

until then the person would be free to explore other

attractions, such as the museum of immigration.1

The team also offered proposals concerning the

museum. In its ability to do justice to the story of

immigration, the AMI had always been handicapped by space

limitations in the third floor exhibit area within the

statue's base. To "increase the visibility of the museum

and create additional opportunities for visitors to learn

about the history of American immigration," the team recommended that operation of the museum at the statue should

continue, but the AMI should'also expand to appropriate

spots on Ellis Island as that facility was rehabilitated.

Room on Ellis could be devoted to AMI administrative

offices, research activities, storage and conservation

of artifacts, program preparation, and mounting of addi138
tional exhibits. The team also considered expansion of

the museum to a mainland site (such as Castle Clinton)

as a second, though less desirable alternative.

As far as access to the Statue of Liberty National

Monument was concerned, the Analysis of Alternatives

recommended that year-round ferry service be provided to

both Liberty and Ellis Islands from terminals in Manhattan

and Jersey City. Additionally, a shuttle boat between

the two islands should operate approximately every thirty

minutes.2

The planning team did not, however, deal with one

topic of importance: the physical condition of the lady

in the harbor. Park officials, from their own observations, were aware that the interior facilities of the

Statue of Liberty needed repair and modernization. Across

the Atlantic, Philippe Vallery-Radot, a French national,

while watching the repair of the statue of Vercingetorix,

was reminded of another metal structure, which had been

standing on Liberty Island for nearly a century. Later,

when he learned that the monument required internal work,

he resolved to make restoration a Franco-American project.

In February 1981, French representatives for Vallery-Radot

presented his ideas to Russell E. Dickenson, director of

the NPS, and in May, a French-American Committee was

formed. The committee defined its goals as follows: to

take necessary actions to restore the statue, to install

in the statue's pedestal a museum dedicated to FrancoAmerican friendship, to help prepare the monument's

centennial celebration, and after the centennial, to

continue furthering Franco-American cultural relations.

The Department of the Interior formally recognized

a working relationship with the French-American Committee

for the Restoration of the Statue of Liberty, on May 26,

1981, when Russell Dickenson, for the NPS, and Philippe

Vallery-Radot, Vera Laure Vallery-Radot, and Jacques De

Broissia, trustees of the committee, signed a memorandum

of agreement. According to its terms, the committee would

not only "assist in the restoration and preservation of

the Statue of Liberty as a historical resource," but

would also "engage in fundraising and receive philanthropic contributions." Any money it donated, the NPS

would place in a special Statue of Liberty account and

would use solely for work on the monument or for the conduct of programs and activities at or on behalf of the

statue. The following month, the French-American Committee incorporated as a non-profit, fund-raising body under

the statutes of the State of New York.3
At the time the NPS and the French-American Committee signed their memorandum of agreement, representatives

of the committee proposed hiring a team of architects

and engineers to prepare a preliminary technical report

on the condition of the statue and what work needed to

be done on it. The committee engaged a group of four

architects and engineers (Philippe Granjean, Jean Levron,

Pierre Tissier, and Jacques Moutard), who visited Liberty

Island in May 1981 and again in June, October, and December,

as well as in March 1982. They worked closely with NPS

Regional Historical Architect Blaine Cliver, and by

December 1981 had turned out a study entitled French

Technical Report on Restoring the Statue of Liberty:

Preliminary Findings. The team presented its conclusions

and proposals to the NPS at a meeting in Washington on

December 17, 1981, and these were further reviewed in

joint discussions between the French-American Committee

and the Park Service on March 5, 1982, also in the

capital.4

The technical report began with an assessment of the

condition of the monument. It stated that the "backbone"

of the statue's skeleton, the central pylon, consisting

of four I-shaped girders, braced with cross-beams and

cross-braces, seemed to be in excellent shape. The frame,

made up of flat bars running from the pylon girders to

the arma -3,nd the rest platforms attached to them,

presented c;, favorable appearance. While most of

these flat bars exhibited little evidence of corrosion,

they had been "affected by warping and buckling." If that

condition were not corrected, the team predicted, it could

eventually lead to sagging and deformation of the statue.

Corrosion had set in at two locations on the frame: the

rest platform at the head level and the torch-bearing

right arm. (These conditions were clearly visible and

had already been noticed by staff at the Park.) The connection of this arm's frame with the central pylon showed

definite signs of strain, requiring repair. Because of

the torch's design and its poor condition, rain had been

infiltrating the extended arm, producing "severe corrosion"

in the frame there, especially where the hand holds the

torch. The French investigators also found some corroded

girders among the cross-network or lattice of these

between the top of the pedestal and the bottom of the

central pylon.

Working from the core of the monument outward, the

engineers next encountered the armature, 750 horizontal

and 600 vertical flat iron ribs or bands. These come

between the frame and the copper sheets of the skin or

envelope, to which they are attached by 1,500 saddles.

140

147
The technical investigators discovered that the insulation originally installed to prevent the iron ribs from

touching the copper sheets had disappeared and the contact between the two metals had produced rusting and

decomposition. They warned that the corroded iron bands

had to be replaced with new ribs made of a metal that

does not react with copper, such as stainless steel and/or

copper.

Continuing on to the monument's outside surface, the

team observed that the copper skin or envelope appeared

to be in good condition, although they recommended further studies to confirm or contradict their judgment.

They did, however, note one critical exception. The ccpper sheathing in the statue's torch had grown dangerously

thin after decades of exposure to rain and pollution.

Indeed, the torch was in such a bad state that they

doubted it could be stabilized. "It may have to be taken

down and replaced in order to avoid any possible accident,"

the French engineers counseled.

The stairway within the monument the team declared

unacceptable as well. It was too narrow and steep to

meet present standards for public safety and comfort.

Surrounded by wire mesh, overcrowded and too hot much of

the time, it also did not give the climber much chance

"to appreciate from the inside the work of Bartholdi and

Eiffel."

After these preliminary observations, recommendations were made. Priority should be given to restoring

the armature, replacing the torch, and repairing the connection between the frame of the right arm and the pylon.

Next, the Park Service should partially repair the frame

and the platforms. Laboratory tests on the copper skin

(outside and in) should be conducted to determine if any

treatment was required, and missing rivets and/or deteriorated copper sheets should be replaced. The team also

advised cleaning the paint off the central pylon to make

sure no hidden cracks existed underneath.

When it came to modernizing the stairway, the report

offered alternative proposals "A" and "B." The "A" plan

called for constructing a straight, double-flight staircase outside the central pylon, thus providing the visitor

with a "panoramic view of the statue's interior." Two

transparent, hydraulic elevators would be installed inside

the pylon for security purposes and to give access to

handicapped persons. Four intermediate platforms would

give climbers a chance to rest or switch from up to down

staircase, and serve as elevator stops. This scheme

1414,3
would necessitate remodeling much of the existing frame.

The "B" proposal was more modest. A new, widened circular

stairway inside the central pylon would replace the old,

unsafe and uncomfortable one.

The French engineers agreed with the NPS that

something had to be done about overcrowding inside the

monument. Rather than a system of warning signs and numbered tickets, their report recommended that an electronic,

rotating turnstile be used to regulate admissions. An

electronic meter would automatically lock a gate when the

capacity number had entered. This same device would start

up a ventilation system inside the statue. The team also

advised installing metal detectors to enhance security

of the monument.

Impressed with the preliminary technical report, in

March 1982 NPS Director Dickenson requested that the

French-American Committee have the same team of French

engineers and architects undertake a detailed feasibility

study of the restoration and modernization work. The committee and the team agreed.5

Even before the group had proceeded very far with

its assignment, the Park Service realized that the repairs

would cost at least $20 million.6 It was unlikely that

the French-American Committee could raise such a sum by

itself. The 1980 Analysis of Alternatives had endorsed,

in addition, a rehabilitation plan for Ellis Island that

would require $54,000,000. The prospect that the Ellis

Island Restoration Commission, Inc., could provide that

money was also doubtful. Where, then, could the NPS find

the funds for fixing up both sites in time for their

respective centennials in 1986 and 1992?

Given the political climate in Washington, large

congressional appropriations appeared out of the question.

By 1982, the administration of President Ronald Reagan

was attempting a wholesale cutback on domestic spending

generally and actively pushing the idea that reductions

in federal financing would be compensated for by increased

private sector contributions to the arts, science, culture and welfare. In line with this new direction, the

President and Secretary of the Interior James G. Watt

announced in May 1982 the formation of a 21-member Statue

of Liberty/Ellis Island Centennial Commission. It would

be chaired by Lee Iacocca, head of the Chrysler Corporation,

whose parents had entered the United States through Ellis,

and whose contacts with the business world were looked

upon as a valuable asset. The commission was to serve

as "an umbrella group coordinating private activities on

142

143
behalf of both installations"; the French-American

Committee and the Ellis Island Restoration Commission,

Inc., became two of its constituent parts.7 The new

umbrella group would seek "to raise as much as $100

million from private sources" for restoration of both

sites in time for their centennials. Further, members of

the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Commission would

"advise the Secretary on preservation needs, the projected use of facilities and the programs associated with

the upcoming centennials." The commission members would

serve two-year terms, and the organization was expected

to live on through 1992.8

Optimistic about the fund-raising capabilities of

the commission, the NPS prepared a General Management Plan

for the Statue of Liberty National Monument that outlined

what it intended to do on each island. Michael Adlerstein,

who had led the group which drew up the earlier Analysis

of Alternatives for the General Mangement Plan, headed

the planning team that wrote the 1982 document as well.9

The existence of the Iacocca Commission and of the

National Historic Preservation Act of 1980 led the planners to adopt a scheme for Ellis Island that was rather

different from the preferred alternative of the 1980

Analysis. The General Management Plan endorsed preserving the entire Ellis complex and returning its thirtythree buildings "to active life by devoting major historic

structures to public use and interpretation and by making

the contributing structures available for adaptive use."

The document also envisioned preserving thousands of

artifacts "that are extant on Ellis Island and those that

have been donated by families of immigrants to develop a

collection that will record and convey the Ellis Island

story." These ambitious plans would cost anywhere between

$88,000,000 and $121,800,000.

The document went on to spell out the details. With

funds raised by the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Centennial Commission the NPS would preserve and interpret

"all of the spaces that are most closely associated with

the immigrants' experiences":

the baggage room, the registry room, and the

original dormitories (on the first, second, and

third floors in the core of the main building),

one of the rooms used by the social service

agencies (on the first floor of the west wing),

one of the legal inquiry rooms (on the second

floor of the west wing), the later dormitory/

detention rooms (on the second floor of the

143

150
kitchen,and laundry building), and the railroad

ticket office (adjoining the first floor of the

main building).

These spaces would, of course, be open to the public.

The rest of the main building would be adapted by the NPS

for visitor support services and staff work space.

Also utilizing whatever monies the commission might

provide, the NPS would preserve the exteriors of as many

buildings as possible, while the interiors would be

adapted for use either by the Park Service or private

organizations under a lease agreement or concession contract. Private tenants might also engage in exterior preservation treatment on buildings that were not essential

to historic interpretation. The NPS would rehabilitate

the grounds around the main immigration building, and the

leaseholders around the areas adapted for their use. To

test possible interest among private parties, the NPS

placed press advertisements in December 1981 seeking proposals from potential tenants and concessionaires and

received some responses.

The General Management Plan was approved by Herbert

S. Cables, Jr., director of the North Atlantic Region,

in September 1982, but National Park Service Director

Dickenson withheld his approval. No leascs wit', private

organizations were signed, at the requ-,st oi Lee Iacocca

and other commission members, who wanted more time to

study the question of which spaces should be leased &nd

which interpreted by the NPS.

In June 1982, the NPS did adopt an interpretive

prospectus for Ellis Island which had been prepared by

the Harpers Ferry Center. The prospectus stated the

purpose of interpretation was "to capture the essence of

the immigrant processing experience...," as well as

objectively presenting "Ellis Island as a benevolent

institution with the best interest of the immigrants at

heart, despite some instances of corruption and abuse."

Additional issues to be treated included what "promoted

massive immigration to the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries" and "the changes

of American immigration policy and administration, and

their impact on Ellis Island." Eventually NPS guides

would also discuss the physical development of the site

from military facility to immigration station, and its

later use as a World War II detention center and then

Coast Guard installation.10

1 44

151
When it dealt with the Statue of Liberty, the 1982

General Management Plan followed closely the preferred

alternatives listed in the 1980 Analysis of Alternatives.

The 1982 document again recommended instituting an earlywarning and numbered-ticket arrangement to alleviate

crowding on the monument's stairways. The plan, in addition, recognized and pledged to continue the work already

initiated by the French-American Committee:

A study will be conducted to evaluate the

structural requirements for the internal

system and the skin [of the statue], and

also the connections between the two systems. A. concurrent study will be conducted

to evaluate ways of improving access to the

crown. Improved elevator technology as well

as new configurations for the stairway will

be explored to see if it is possible to

improve access to the crown without significantly impacting the historic fabric of

the statue or incurring undue cost.

The General Management Plan also continued along

the lines of the earlier Analysis of Alternatives in its

discussion of transportation to the two islands but filled

in specific details. It stated that by the spring of 1986

shuttle service between Liberty and Ellis Islands would

begin, with a boat designed for 200 to 400 passengers,

operating between the north dock on Liberty Island and

the cove at Ellis approximately every thirty minutes.

By 1992, with preservation work presumably completed at

Ellis, year-round boat service to both islands from

Manhattan and Liberty State Park in New Jersey, as well

as some combined-loop trips, would be instituted. As

visitation increased, especially to Ellis, the ferry fleet

would be expanded to six vessels, from its current four.

The ultimate objective would be a ferry schedule and an

increased fleet capable of delivering 2,000 passengers

per hour to Liberty Island and 1,200 to Ellis.11

On one issue discussed in the Analysis, future

development of the American Museum of Immigration, the

General Management Plan said nothing. The earlier document had pointed out that the museum's space for exhibits,

collection storage, curatorial activities, research, and

administration was cramped and inadequate. As a preferred

alternative, the 1980 Analysis had suggested expanding AMI

functions to Ellis "as appropriate sections of the island

are rehabilitated" (Fig. 7). The study had also mentioned

possible expansion to a Manhattan site, such as Castle

145

152
Clinton, but pointed out that a mainland facility would

rev-ire costly development, while large available space

in historic buildings on Ellis went unoccupied.

During the period of public review of the Analysis

of Alternatives, the majority of individuals who commented

on the report supported the expansion to Ellis. The

American Museum of Immigration, Inc., apparently still

fearing Ellis as an unwelcome rival to their museum,

favored instead moving additional AMI functions to Castle

Clinton. By 1982-83, some members of the Statue of

Liberty/Ellis Island Commission and a group of historians

that the Park Service consulted at a meeting at the Harpers Ferry Center were suggesting that the entire museum

of immigration be redesigned, expanded, and moved to

Ellis Island.12 Since no consensus yet existed on this

issue (as of 1982), the team which prepared the General

Mana ement Plan chose not to discuss the American Museum

of Immigration. It did indicate on diagrams, however,

space allocations in the main building on Ellis for

museum storage, laboratories, and an oral history and

immigrant library.13

By the end of 1982, then, planning for the centennial of the Statue of Liberty and of Ellis Island was

well underway. How much could be preserved and in what

fashion on Ellis Island and how thoroughly the lady in

the harbor could be structurally repaired and internally

modernized depended, of course, on the success of the

Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Centennial Commission in

its private fund-raising effort. That drive was just

beginning in 1983.

In nearly one hundred years the story of the colossal monument seemed to have come full cycle. Whereas in

the 1880s French and American private citizens had collected donations to build the statue and its pedestal, in

the 1980s American and Frenchmen once again joined hands

to underwrite repair, rehabilitation and development of

the lady with the torch and the former immigration station, so that they could continue into the 21st century

to greet and inspire millions of visitors from all lands.

If these private efforts fell short of the mark, as happened in the building of the AMI, would the government

of the United States recognize the unique historic importance of the Statue of Liberty National Monument and

appropriate adequate public resoorces to finish the worthy

undertaking?

146

153
NOTES

11J.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, Analysis of

Alternatives, STLI NM, pp. 57-58.

2Analysis of Alternatives, pp. 59-60, 61-69.

3French-American Committee for Restoration of the

Statue of Liberty, "Statue of Liberty Chronology"; Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of the Interior

and the French-American Committee for Restoration of the

Statue of Liberty, May 26, 1981, Duplicates File, Artifact

Room, Liberty Island.

4Russell E. Dickenson, director NPS, to Philippe

Vallery-Radot, November 6, 1981 and to Roger D'Amecourt,

executive vice-president, French-American Committee, March

6, 1982; "Statue of Liberty Chronology," Duplicates File.

5French-American Committee for Restoration of the

Statue of Liberty, French Technical Report on Restoring

the Statue of Liberty: Preliminary Findings, by Philippe

Grandjean, Jean Levron, Pierre Tissier, Jacques Moutard,

December 1981, pp. 3-13, 17-23, 26-28, 39; Duplicates

File; "Statue of Liberty Chronology;" R. E. Dickenson,

director, NPS, to R. D'Amercourt, March 6, 1982.

6Bergen Record, November 15, 1982.

70ther commission members included Bob Hope, comedian; Mrs. Delores Hope; Peter G. Peterson, chairman,

Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, and Loeb; Armen G. Avedisian,

chairman and chief executive officer, Avedisian Company;

John Kluge, chairman and president, Metromedia T.V.;

Philip Lax, president, Ellis Island Restoration Commission; Philippe Vallery-Radot, president, French-American

Committee for the Restoration of the Statue of Liberty;

Robert Zochowski, representative of the Governor of New

Jersey; Morris Pesin, representative or the Mayor of

Jersey City.

8U.S. Department of Interior, News Release, May 18,

1982, Press Release File, Drawer P-R, AMI Curator's Files;

Donald Paul Hodel, under secretary of interior, to P.

Vallery-Radot, president, French-American Committee, May 25,

1982 and James G. Watt, secretary of interior, to ValleryRadot, May 25, 1982, Duplicates File.

147

r- A

1
9Besides Adlerstein, the team consisted of David L.

Moffitt, superintendent, STLI NM; Joe Burdulia, landscape

architect/planner, DSC, NY/NJ Support Office; Michael

Paskowski, interpretive planner, HFC; Jane Scott, historian/planner, DSC; Les Siroky, historic architect, DSC;

Gail Slemmer, editor, DSC; Kevin Tremble, transportation

planner, DSC, NY/NJ Support Office; and Harlan Unrau,

historian, DSC.

10General Management Plan, September 1982, pp. 2,

39, 7-11, 43-44; New York Times, December 14, 1981;

Author's interview with David L. Moffitt, superintendent,

STLI NM, December 3, 1982; U. S. Department of Interior,

NPS, Ellis Island, STLI NM, Interpretive Prospectus, June

1982.

11u. S. Department of the Interior, NPS, General

Management Plan STLI NM, September 1982, pp. 35, 36-37.

12Historians who attended the meeting at Harpers

Ferry on May 2 and 3, 1983, included John Higham of

Johns Hopkins University; Rudolph Vecoli, University of

Minnesota; Roger Daniels, University of Cincinnati;

Kathleen Conzen, University of Chicago; Alan Kraut,

American University; Mark Stolarik, Balch Institute; and

Virginia Yans-McLaughlin, Rutgers University. With

members of the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Centennial

Commission and NPS interpretive planners, exhibit designers, and cultural resource managers, they discussed ideas

for developing the interpretive progr:Am at Ellis Island.

13General Management Plan STLI NM, September 1982,

pp. 50-51; Author's interview with David L. Moffitt,

superintendent STLI NM, Spring 1983, General Management

Plan, pp. 15, 19, 20, 27.

148
APPENDIXES

149

156
Appendix A

Supervisors of the Statue of Liberty National Monument, 1952-1982

Name

Newell H. Foster

Lester McClanahan

Arthur Sullivan

0

James Batman

Howard Crane

Luis Garcia-Curbelo

David L. Moffitt

157

Title

superintendent

management assistant

assistant superintendent

assistant superintendent

assistant superintendent

acting assistant superintendent

unit manager

superintendent

Period of service

12/5/47 to 8/29/64

9/14/64 to 1/14/67

1/15/67 to 7/26/69

7/27/69 to 11/29/70

11/30/70(?) to 1973

1973-4/27/74(?)

4/28/74 to 12/05/76

1/16/77 to present
Appendix B

Annual visitation figures for the Statue of Liberty

National Monument

1952 613,010 1971 1,078,084

1953 714,345 1972 1,089,971

1954 797,412 1973 1,125,339

1955 739,364 1974 1,119,201

1956 796,101 1975 1,144,075

1957 850,270 1976 1,473,311

1958 777,330 1977 1,334,289

1959 767,206 1978 1,453,581

1960 768,979 1979 1,605,422

1961 763,499 1980 1,702,562

1962 863,821 1981 1,817,926

1963 847,959 1982 1,724,912

1964 1,026,466

1965 1,064,516

1966 1,036,292

1967 1,071,479

1968 1,105,261

1969 1,140,130

1970 1,104,898

Source: "Statue Annual Visitation Figures," Administration'

Building, Office of Superintendent

151

159
Appendix C

Annual visitation figures of Ellis Island (open May

through October)

1976 45,138

1977 47,538

1978 47,231

1979 59,615

1980 69,271

1981 66,456

1982 59,589

Source: "Ellis Island Visitation Folder," Administration

Building, Office of Superintendent

152

160
NOTE ON SOURCES

I. Documents.

A. Records of the United States Department of the

Interior, National Park Service. Most of the documents used came from the records of the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1952

to 1982. These documents were found primarily at

the Statue of Liberty National Monument on Liberty

Island in four locations: 1) the Artifact Room in

the base of the statue 2) the Library and Workroom

of the American Museum of Immigration (adjacent to

the office of the Curator of AMI) in the base of

the statue, 3) the Administration Building on

Liberty Island, in and adjacent to the office of

the Superintendent of the Statue of Liberty National

Monument, and 4) the Storage Area, located in one

of the residence apartments on the island.

The Artifact Room contains most of the documents pertaining to the statue and to the planning,

development and building of the American Museum of

Immigration up to the time of its opening in 1972.

In addition, the author placed in the Artifact Room

a "Duplicates File," containing all documents used

in this history of which there were two or more

copies. The Library and Workroom contain the files

of the curator of the AMI. Most of the documents

concerning the immigration museum since 1972 are

there, as well as, in many cases, in the "Duplicates

File." The documents found in the Administration

Building deal mostly with Ellis Island in the 1960s,

1970s, and 1980s; while the Storage Area contains

documents pertaining to the statue, the museum and

Ellis Island, some of them duplicates of records in

the three other places on the island.

In addition to these four collections of NPS

records on Liberty Island, this history contains

information drawn from Department of Interior, NPS

documents located in the Bayonne Records Center of

the National Archives. The records found there

date from the 1950s and 1960s.

153

161
B. Records of the American Museum of Immigration,

Inc. The author consulted and used papers of the

AMI, Inc., stored in the Artifact Room at the base

of the statue on Liberty Island. Contained in a

set of Zile drawers along one wall of the room and

marked AMI, Inc., the records pertain to fund-raising,

planning and development for the immigration

museum.

C. Records of the fimerican Scenic and Historic

Preservation Society. Found in Special Collections,

New York Public Library, those provided information,

about the genesis of the museum of immigration.

Reports, Histories, and Press Releases Prepared for

or by the U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS.

This history relies heavily on material contained

in reports, histories, and press releases, all of

which can be obtained on Liberty Island in one or

the other of the four locations described earlier.

A. Reports

1. French-American Committee for Restoration

of the Statue of Liberty, "French Technical

Report on Restoring the Statue of Liberty:

Preliminary Findings," by Philippe Grandjean,

Jean Levron, Pierre Tissier, Jacques Moutard,

December 1981.

2. French-American Committee for Restoration

of the Statue of Liberty, "Report to the

National Park Service," 1982.

These two reportE, clipped together, can

be found in the '-)uplicates File," Artifact

Room.

3. Thomas M. Pitkin, American Museum of

Immigration, STLI NM, Preliminary Draft

Prospectus for the American Museum of

Immigration, U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS, 1955. A copy of this report is

in the "Duplicates File."

4. Superintendents of the Statue of Liberty

National Monument and/or the New York City

NPS Group, monthly and annual reports.

154
These reports, by a variety of names, are

in one or another of the four locations on

Liberty Island. They supply the best

narrative of day-to-day happenings at the

STLI NM. Particularly useful for this

history were:

a. N. H. Foster, Superintendent's Monthly

Narrative Reports, 1960s

b. J. A. Townsley, Monthly Narrative

Reports, 1960s

c. L. McClanahan, Monthly Narrative

Reports, late 1960s

d. H. G. Schmidt, Monthly Narrative

Reports, 1960s

e. L. Garcia-Curbelo, Unit Manager, BiWeekly Highlights and Monthly Highlights, 1970s

f. D. L. Moffitt, Superintendent's Annual

Reports, 1976 to 1982

5. Reports on Ellis Island

A Series of these, dating from 1964, make

it possible to trace the NPS's problems

with, attitudes toward, and plans for this

historic site from the time it became a

part of the STLI NM. The following were

used in this history, and copies of them

can all be found on Liberty Island:

a. U.S. Department of Interior, NPS,

Ellis Island: A Study Re ort on

Ellis Island prepared for the Subcommfitee on Intergovernmental Relations, Senate Committee on Government

Operations), June 1964

b. , A Master

Plan for Ellis Island, June 1968

c. , "Ellis

Island Options," April 1973

d. , "Ellis

Island Condition Survey," by URS/

Madigan-Praeger, Inc., May 1976

155

163
e. , "Ellis

f.

Study," May 1978

, Ellis

Island, STLI NM, "InterpreEive

Prospectus," June 1982

6. Reports on Both the Statue of Liberty and

Ellis Island

Three recent reports on conditions at and

plans for development of these two sites,

provided much of the information contained

in the concluding chapters.

a. U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS,

Analysis of Alternatives (Environmental

Assessment) for the General Management

Plan, December 1980, STLI, NY/NJ

b.

c.

B. Histories

, Statue

of Liberty, Ellis Island, "Summary of

the Analysis of Alternatives for

Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island,"

December 1980

, General

Management Plan, September 1982, STLI

NM, NY/NJ

1. U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS,

Statue of Liberty National Monument: Its

Origin, Development and Administration, by

Walter Hugins, 1958.

This history, relating the story of the

statue from its beginnings to the early

1950s, was particularly useful in writing

the Introduction and Chapter I.

2. (draft

chapter), "Administrative History of Ellis

Island, 1954-1982," by Harlan Unrau, 1982.

C. Press Releases

1. U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS,

Press Releases, 1952 to 1982.

156

164
Copies of these can be found in "Press

Release" Files on Liberty Island in the

Administration Building, Storage Area,

Curator's Files, and in the "Duplicates

File."

III. Newspapers

Clippings of many news articles are contained in

the NPS records on Liberty Islan.t. In cases where

no copy was found in NPS files, the author read the

article in the newspapers collections of the New

York Public Library. Newpapers from which material

for this history was taken include:

Baltimore, Sun; Bergen (N.J.)p Record; Boston,

Hellenic Chronicle; Chicago, Austrate; Galesburg,

Daily Register- Mail; Hoo Sharor (7eViletter,

Armenian General Benevolent Union); Jersey Journal;

Long Island, Newsday; Press; Star-Journal; Newark,

Evening News; Star-Ledger; New York, Daily News;

Herald Tribune; Journal-American; Post; New York

Times; New York, World; World-Telegram; WorldMe ram and EunCPHiradelphia, Inquirer;ri

Evening Bulletin; Polish-AmericiFT-MTih-American

Journal; Seattle, Post-Intelligencer; Staten Island,

Advance; St. Louis, Globe Democrat; The Powntown

Herald; The Kansas City Star; Wall Street Journal.;

Washington, Post.

IV. Other Works

A. Robert A. Caro, The Power Broker (New York,

1974). Caro describes the fight to save Castle

Clinton, which led to the idea of creating a museum

of immigration.

B. Thomas Pitkin, Keepers of the Gate (New York,

1975). This work contains much useful information

about the administration of Ellis Island before and

for a short while after the NPS took possession of

it.

C. Jeannie Kandelker, "The Restc". .ion of Ellis

Island" (Unpublished M.A. thesis, ,:..,iumbia University,

1976). A copy is in "EI--Feasibility Study File,"

Drawer 2, Administration Building, Liberty Island.

157

165
V. Oral and written interviews. All interviews were

conducted by the author or William Zeisel of The

Institute for Research in History. The written

comments were made in answer to the author's questions or as comments and suggestions on earlier

drafts of this history. The oral interviews were

held in person or by telephone, with the person

interviewed responding to the author's questions.

A. NPS

1. Marilyn Keeler, administrative officer,

STLI NM, Spring, 1983.

2. David L. Moffitt, superintendent, STLI NM,

December 3, 1982, Spring, 1983.

3. Paul 0. Weinbaum, former curator, AMI,

STLI NM, September 15, 1983, December

1983, January 20, 1984, April 4, 1984,

May 24, 1984.

4. Edward Kallop, Jr., former curator, AMI,

STLI NM, January 6, 1983, September 7,

1983, April 4, 1984.

5. Paul Kinney, curator, AMI, STLI NM,

September 27, 1983.

B. AMI, Inc.

1. Alfred H. Horowitz, chairman, Executive

Committee, AMI, Inc., September 7, 1983.

158

166
FIGURES

167
Fig. 1 Historic Base Map of Ellis Island, 1968. Source: Ellis

Island Master Plan, 1968, U.S. Department of Interior, NPS.

168
+. - oft&" %am... ,r..... "WV A .Ve .^.A.,"". -

.AW10 . Aw. W ew .^.., .0,. W5W"..... ...,5`,.. row," .rWWW.5.S. w%WWpAr50:5n.5. ....".^".

%A.A.

r .p.13 -.,.

FILL.

1933-.34

."."

%.%111%i %/...%

";.:

W.0%4

50505%

515,A5.5

%W. %W.

0

cettattig

coulooK

1914

OLAND N9 19065

AMMON

NALL.

19$415

NICAEATION

3NELTILIt

ME=

LANDSCAPING

1934-44

mp WM, ay,

gal"

42

t:0A.. a

Ltl" 0203

2111

FILL I 920's I5LANDM,1899

V%*.v5r%N .WW.S*WWWWW %NA.^"..Weew,W%ev..o55^^5.VW....5.NA~~"r VW/5/W.5^%.ArAw`r,oWwNew NEW 5 AvvALLN.,

W.A./~~,5.5NW.AsuWw

IMMIGRANT

DUI Lai N Cr

1914 15'

NEW FfRRY FOSE

19 34 - 35 OUP 04400..T

1010111A0 11, 41010.00,~ .000vwdwor ailitte=

wromoorow iftAmiwwor worvomem" 100Artimstosw

A0WwW1ARAPAI

ROARAAAIMMAO

WWW0AAARMIN 101AMAPARAN

WookAAAAAMA. oli~~041w worAkOMMA0 10~0~0.0 witiVIAMMAr

totw102:2

t=tttgggg

2Ittttggtgt

ANIVIAMAMAI 004h10 A01~AANIA.A1

AMONNAORAAMft 041040~11~1

iRMONVIAANO.A0

110101404040~041

01000 MAAMA04.1~1 00010~~101. AAAAMAIII 044~1~010401

Wk01010WVOIAIRlh NOMAN~RAVU "IrAgggrAW

MAN MOMMA/00004 MAMA/0MM' IMOMMAAAM" WMAMOti= V

!, 19 jAMMAPP/A/

v/Wo 5,5/5. ~5

www

NW'"Wo '41 %, ,","/W"W NE w SEAWALL

FILL

1933-34

NW CORRIDORS

i934 - 35

IlioNtILATOR Gum H0U3E

r113

IAKIRT '4' CARPEFITift SHOP

1914'15 %%STODGE POWER NOUSE C=0

1900-01 0

....

ITHIRO

I STORY

ADM. 1911

1MAIN t;

BUILDING,

lgoCr,

OW*.

xd.

ISLAND ENLARGE

STRUCTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF

ELIIS ISLAND, 1890-1935

( NOT To SCALE)

Ns...r.fte5.15%,...W5r5.,/50W5A.A.,..050.5",%^00595

Nr."..1.0.".4.A100501.050,50.""*WWWW50%"".

IOMANIMA144' 1. NkftMAAA

iiAdAammbihiikA0010AAAAAAA *A/MAMA

14AAAAAMA AAAAA .100AMMAR momAAIIMAAV

.5.05056/5~505.../5".W05weNoww

1.5,5050.e.0.545/5,1"/%/5.5.5.5.05"

DA00A0E AND

DORMITORY

BUILDING. ow- 1908

THIRD STORY

I ADDED

1 1913-14

1110400WD 193435

I ORIGINAL. \ ISLAND

(TO )890)

1.) SW

\elf to

%/Ile rao,./

Wve

II

0

50.50%,

NevA

5 aNe. Rewsw^ 5,..,....

5.1/5.559-50 .~505.^

,~50%~5,505We',WwW50 0.50W5,...WW5W~ftW

MENT 1890 -1934

169 HISTORIC BASE AAmLAP
Fig. 2

Organizational chart of the New York Group, National Park

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, July 9, 1975.

Source: Memorandum, Superintendent New York Group, to

Regional Director, July 9, 1975, Federal Hall (New York

City Group) File, Drawer D-N, AMI Curator's Files.
Superintendent

''.Secretary

Chief of Visitor Services Administrative Officer Staff Engineer

Manhattan Sites,*

Unit Manager

Statue of Liberty,

Unit Manager

Interpretive Chief of Chief of

Specialist Maintenance Visitor Services

Chief of

Maintenance

Sagamore Hill,

Unit Manager

Chief of Chief of

Visitor Services Maintenan(

Interpretation Protection Curator, American

Museum of Immigration

Curator

*Castle Clinton, Federal Hall, Hamilton Grange, General

Grant Memorial, Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace Home

172
Fig. 3

Liberty Island in the late 1970s. Source: Analysis of

Alternatives for the General Management Plan, December

1980, STLI NM, New York, New Jersey.

173
op a 00 If0 PICT

174

EXISTING CONDITIONS

LIBERTY ISLAND

STATUE OF UBERTY NATIONAL MONUMENT

NEW YORK 0 NEW JERSEY

MUD STATES DIPARTIMINT OP THE INTIMON 0 NATIONAL PANE IIIINVICII

isatelital-alfeL
Fig. 4

Proposed Museum Floor Plan. Source: Prospectus for The

American Museum of Immigration, 1955.

17:5
717,77

11111911 41.101%

d'Ab!Irort,,

THE PROPOSED

AMERICAN MUSEUM OF IMMIGRATION

STATUE OF LIBERTY NATIONAL MONUMENT

1°' klurricliff die Id fie

176
Fig. 5

Proposed development plan for Ellis Island, 1968. Source:

Ellis Island Master Plan, U.S. Department of Interior, NPS.
(CONCESSION

LUNCH

FAI.:1LITY

PAVILION

sculptural

group

IEMORIkL PLAZA LI footbridge

terminal //

L,A1NTENANCE AREA

7 maintenance bldg.

incinerator

greenhou,

workboa

RESIDENTIAL AREA

six multiple units

one single

.pscnic

ierrY

entrance

shpIter

_pm

',are

MAIN

shuttle

boot

BUILDING

c,19. a

FgRRY

BASIN

.sL

RESTAURANT

fX/' ELLIS ISLAND

scale in Ieet

{canoveilwam1smumm

too 0 KA 200

178

DEVELOPED AREA PLAN

kolus.5

173
Fig. 6

Ellis Island in 1979-1980. Source: Analysis of Alternatives for the General Management Plan, DeceMbr 1980,

STLI NM, New York, New Jersey,

1 0
01,

NEW

IMMIGRATION BUILUINt,

Li ra-r.

INCINERATOR

RECREATION

HALL LI OU NEW FERRI OULDIA6 EAKERY CARPENTRY PaNG

GRE(NKQUE

- clumw

haba.G, MAIN POWiR

fiECR LOCI SHELTER -ThNARD

IATRIC WATER 101/ ERS AliCHEN

LAUNDRY BUILD NG DIAINS RAILON

UILQI

1 11 11 'I

BAGGAGE DORMITORY ^ BUILDING

MI

ILD

1 TRAT

II PITAL 2 MAIN

BUILDING

R

IICKET OFFICE

ow . le ma ...*.1.-

BO 0 BO 120 F EET EXISTING CONDITIONS

ELLIS ISLAND

STATUE OF LIBERTY NATIONAL MONUMENT

NEW YORK / NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTI,RIOR / NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

181

30 110.017 MARCH 60 r DSC
Fig. 7

Suggested use of buildings on Island One, Ellis Island.

Source: General Management Plan, September 1982, STLI

NM, New York, New Jersey.
ART GALLERY

INTERPRETATION:

RR TICKET OFFICE

INTERPRETATION: DINING

MUSEUM STORAGE, LABSv

ORAL HISTORY, IMMIGRANT LIBRARY°

THEATER, EXHIB:TRY

INTERPRETATION: REGISTRY ROOM, P AGC. NGE ROOM

PARK STAFF OFFICES

FOOD SERVICE, KITCHEN, SALES

VISITOR USE

ADMINISTRATION

ELLIS ISLAND UNIT ONE

STATUE OF LIBERTY NATIONAL MONUMENT

184

PLAN 1

'..!:tVzie.

AXONONEMIC
ILLUSTRATIONS

185
Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton (center), chairman of the New York City National Shrines Advisory Board;

Alexander Hamilton (right) and Secretary of the NYC

National Shrines Advisory Board L. Porter Moore (left).

They gathered at Liberty Island to celebrate the 70th

anniversary of the dedication of the Statue of Liberty

and start of Operation Unity, the public fund-raising

campaign for the American Museum of Immigration, October

28, 1956. Source: Photograph Collection of the American

Museum of Immigration, Liberty Island, U.S. Department of

the Interior, NPS.

1S6
. /

$ "1- .4".

_
'
A high-school group from North Carolina making a donation

to help build the American Museum of Immigration. The

gift was accepted by Dr. Thomas M. Pitkin, supervisory

historian, Statue of Liberty Nat onal Monument (right),

October 1956. Source: Photograph Collection of the

American Museum of Immigration, Liberty Island, U-7.,

Department of the Ing rior, NPS.

.
The Acme rxcavation Corporation removed the landfill

between the walls of Fort Wood and the pedestal of the

Statue of Liberty to prepare for the construction of the

American Museum of Immigratiol, Novcmber-December 1961.

Source: Photograph Collecticn the American Museum of

Immigration, Liberty Island, U.L,. Department of the

Interior, NPS.
-& Kr,r :f 5'15 '-f- ,,,,,t, ";4

4 ,41 At. '1 - i it e -. 4.,, ,1 7-#, r

President Lyndon B. Johnson, accompanied by Lady 7.3ird

Johnson and Vice President Hubert Humphrey and Mrs.

Humohrcy, visited Liberty Island to sign the 1965 Immigration Bill, October 3, 1965. Source: Photograph Collection of the American Museum of Immigration, Liberty

Island, U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS.
7

t SKI

IP

194

. 4 ' "1" WEEIMEM

J. WIP.11W

I
Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson opening the interim exhibits of

the American Museum of Immigration on Liberty Island,

may 17, 1968. New Yor% City NPS Group Superintendent

Henry G. Schmidt (right) assisting her. Source: Photograph Collection of the American Museum of Immigration,

Liberty Island, U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS.,

195
_

6

ej)I -

7

4.`

or. ,

6 ,
Members of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War leaving

the Statue of Liberty, which they had occupied for two

days., The demonstrators emergEd in response to a court

order, December 28, 1971. Source: Photograph CD1lection

of the American Museum of Immigration, Liberty Island,

U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS.

1P)7
A 4 , L ,

' , A

t, LI,
President Richard M. Nixon arrived on Liberty Island

September 26, 1972, to dedicate the American Museum of

Immigration. He was joined by Mrs. Nixon and New York

children invited to the opening ceremonies, in costumes

showing their families' ethnic origins. Source: Photograph Collection of the American Museum of Immigration,

Liberty Island, U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS.
-

".44

attlager _ 07:74

,4.'f.; .

;4:"

I I b 4 0
Richard Di Castro (left), vice president of Luis Electrical Corporation, a contractor for the Crouse-Hinds

Company, and Alfred V. Colabella (right), consultant to

the NPS and project supervisor of the relighting of the

Statue of Liberty, inspecting new lighting fixtures at

the base of the statue, July 1976. The new lighting was

a gift of the Crouse-Hinds Co. in honor of the nation's

bicentennial. Source: Photograph Collection of the

American Museum of Immigration, Liberty Island, U.S.

Department of the Interior., NPS.
t

\
Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall on an inspection tour of Ellis Island in October 1964. Afterward,

Udall publicly endorsed designating Ellis Island as a

national monument and joining it administratively to the

Statue of Liberty National Monument. Source: Photograph

Collection of the American Museum of Immigration, Liberty

Island, U.S. Department of the Interior, NPS.

2 ri 4

Coiridor in the hospital buildings on Ellis Island, showing the deteriorated condition of the former immigration

station, July 18, 1973. Source: Photograph Collection

of the American Museum of Immigration, Liberty Island,

U.S. Department of the Iaterior, NPS.
Archeological Collections Management Project Series

No. 1 Archeological Collections Management at Salem Maritime

National Historic Site.

Alan T. Synenki and Sheila Charles, 1983.

No. 2 Archeological Collections Management at Mt..rrir,town

National Historical Park, New Jersey.

Alan T. Synenki and Sheila Charles, 1983.

S4.00

3.00

No. 3 Archeological Collections Management of the Great Island 3.00

Tavern Site. Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts.

Alan Synenki and Sheila Charles, 1984.

Other Publications

Cultural Resources Inventory, Lowell National Historical NTIS PL21 139169

Park and Preservation District: Report.

Shepley, Bulfinch, Richardson and Abbott, Architects, 1980.

The Archeolooy of Cape Cod Natiosal Sea,hore.

Francis P. McManamon and Christopher L. 3orstel, 1982.

(pamphlet 16 pp.)

209

1.00