Evening journal., 1901-09-24
TUESDAY. SEPTEMBER "a. 1901
SOME OBJECTIONS

A correspondent in the Every Even
ing. who signs himself a Mckinley
, voter. shows considerable opposition TO
the project Of raising a monument to
the late President Several OF the
points made are worth some analysis.
The writer says:
There Is more In this matter OF
monuments than a mere expression OF
honor to the memory OF the dead. Re
spect 10 the living and due regard to
civic pride are also considerations OF
Importance. There is no question Of
the respect in which the memory OF the
dead President is held by the people OF
Delaware. Their feelings were amply
demonstrated by the splendid demon
strations OF sympathy and sorrow at
the memorial meeting held on Thurs
day last.
That is either an argument against
monuments in general or against the
proposed one in particular. Following
this line of thought we should never
bui,d such memorials. since those
worthy Of remembrance. are cherished
In the hearts of the people, anyway.
II Is certainly an economical view, and
in Its observance every family would
save hundreds Of dollars in the cost OF
tombstones Against this material
view we have no argument TO offer.
The article contains either objections
that we think are no more pertinent;
"The people Of Delaware should pay
due tribute 10 their own i.lustrious
dead before erecting monuments TO
citizens Of other commonwealths, even
though the latter have been Presi-
dents"
We take direct issue with the above,
as an abstract statement. We should
honor name like that Of Washington.
Lincoln or Mckinley before seeking to
perpetuate the fame Of a local char
acter because he is local But with
the writer we admit that there are
great names which we have failed TO
perpetuate in bronze or marble; per-
haps IL is because we have so many
citizens OF mis- own opinion that theii
names are allowed TO live in tn,
hearts Of the people simply.
We believe that the State shoul,
long ago have honored the memory Of
Clayton, the signers OF the Declaration
and Bayard. by erecting for each sons
suitable memorial But what has al
that TO do with the case? Becaus
Clayton's memory is neglected, shal
that OF Mckinley be? Is it in goo,
taste TO rebuke that generous pubn
spirit which voluntarily seeks TO cary
high the name OF our great President
The writer makes another point
that we should not be inflicted with
replica OF the mOnstrosity Of the Gar
field monument. In its cOnnectio
this means only one thing; that mas
much as there has been a blunder 4
building one monument, We shou.
never build another. AS an abstra,
proposition this is likely to max
sculptors tremble. 1t would seei
proper and reasonable, too, that III
faults Of one should be Of value /
showing us what to avoid in the othe
We confess a dislike to the tone
such objections Allow them to hay
full weight and nothing will ever I
accomplished. The people who fro
generous motives have offered the
donations. are rebuked because the
haven't given to another purpose il
stead, and are told TO perpetuate II
name Of the President in their hear
-pocketbcoks might be a better wor
why build fine churches? We cs
worship as wei in a barn" dor
give money TO foreign missions; it
necdsd more at home" That mea
taat the money will stay in the pock
and no effort win be expended.
We repeat that we have not made
our minds whether this monument W
be built, but from the voluntary CO
uibutions so far received. We are c.
tain that an organization Of our ci
zens could push it 10 a successful CO
clusion without a great deal of effort
The radical difference in opinion