The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-06-01

THE MORTON STATUE.
Son of the War Governor Indignant
at Its Removal.

Oliver T. Morton, who is clerk of the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Seventh district, son of Indana's war Gov
ernor, is in the city from Chicago, and as
certained for the first that the monument
commissioners had moved the statue of his
father from the commanding position fac
ing Meridian street to a less conspicuous
place. He said yesterday: when l arrived
in the city this morning I was surprised
and deeply panied to observe that the stat
ue of my father had been removed from its
site in front of the Soldiers monument.
This action by the Board of Regents is a
gross violation of good faith with my
mother, and will not, think, be viewed
with favor by the countless people who
contributed to the erection of the statue
or by the Indiana soldiers generally. Its
former site was representative. The place
to which it has been removed is in COM
parison, inconspicuous and characterless.
Briefly the history of the matter is this:
Originally the statue stood in the center of
the circle When the soldiers monument
was projected, the president of the COM
mission, together with several other MEM
bers and the architect, Bruno Schmitz,
called upon my mother at Woodruff Place
and asked her acquiescence in the removal
OF the statue. InlS she was very reluctant
to give and she predicted clearly what
would happen. She said that if the statue
was removed once for one reason ii would
be removed again for some other reason,
and she was distressed by the idea that
the site of the statue should be subject to
continuous whim or caprice.
The commissioners replied that the at
titude of the statue was one of public adj
dress, that the war Governor had welcomed
every returning regiment and hidden god
speed to every departing regiment and
that its location directly in front of me-
mortal to the soldiers of Indiana would be
eminently appropriate. They also earnestly
State, in so far as 1t was in their power
to do, that the site suggested by them
would be permanent. This new site was
afterwards legally approved in this way.
The Legislature made an appropriation for
a new pedestal, to which in conference a
proviso was added directing the removal
of the statue to the Capitol grounds The
commission, mindful of the agreement with
my mother, refused to accept the appro-
priation and the money was turned BACK
preparation was made leaving out the pro-
Viso Last year Bruno SchmitZ suggested
that the three subsidiary statues and that
| protested against the removal of the stat
ue of my father, and General knefier,
president of the Board of Regents. solemn
iy promised me that he would notify me
and nv mother before any action was
taken This he failed to do. 1t is question,
able whether the commission have the legal
authority to make the removal matter
that may be formally tested. Mr.. Schmltz
said as am informed, that the removal was
made in the interest of art He took exact 5.
ly the opposite view in the interview with
my mother. 1t is possible that his hrst
opinion is as good as the second, and mas
mucR as there is room for doubt the doubt
should be construed in favor OF good taith:
~ one thing | am certain the effect of
tbe removal of the statue whether in
tended or no) will be TO make room for
another statue on the same site. Monu-
,nant Mace seems to be dedicated TO such
memorials and if four statues stand there
now why not more? In other words, the
removal of the statue of the war Governor
will in the end amount simply to a super
session. My mother feels deeply hurt at
the removal and will petition the commits
sion"