New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-08-04
NATURAL ANXIETY.
LEE IN THE CAPITOL
The Attorney Generals Reasoning
Criticised.

To the Editor of The Tribune.
Sir: In this mornings issue of your
paper under the head lines mo Bar to Lee
Statue-President Taft Approves of Its
Remaining in Capitol you publish Mr..
understands opinion with Introductory
comments from a correspondent at BeV-
erly. TO me this seems unfortunate, be-
cause the head lire president Taft APP
proves of Its Remaining in Capitof is not
only unwarranted by anything appearing IN
the article but is shown to be untrue by
the correspondents statement that "Presl-
dent Taft has approved without comment
an opinion by Attorney General Wicker
sham etc, and there is no line or word
furnished by the correspondent that would
indicate any opinion of the President on
the propriety of placing in Statuary Hail
of the national Capitol a statue clothed In
the symbol of rebellion. He has simply
approved an opinion that there is no law
to prevent it.
Again it seems unfortunate, because the
opinion is open to the objection that it Is
only after much special pleading that the
Attorney General arrives at his conclusion.
Therefore, I am of the opinion that no
objection can lawfully be made to the plac-
ing in Statuary Hall of the national Capitol
of a statue of Robert Z. Lee clothed in
the Confederate uniform The letter of
the law klleth; it is the spirit that gives
1t life. Is there any sane citizen of the
Republic who believes that when that law
was passed, the thunder of Lees guns in
his al tempt to capture the Capitol having
scarcely ceased to echo round its walls and
with the irnpassioned appeal of the i'm
NOR 2, ! coin still lingering in the ears
of IL T - IS 10 see to il that govern
meI. of . people, for the people. by the
peop.l ''ould not perish from the earth, =
they dreamed they were preparing a
Pantheon for the country's arch enemy?
The Attorney General says lit is prob
ably true that when this act was passed
Congress did not contemplate that any
state would designate one or more of its
citizens who were then engaged in warlike
rebellion against the government of the
United States as persons illustrious for
their historic renown or for distinguished
civic military services whose statues
should be placed in this hail. If that is
true what difference does it make how
many years have passed since its enact
ment? The placing OF such a statue in
the hall was not within the contemplate ton
of the law. Why did the Attorney General
not stand on that sure and firm interpreta-
ton? What right had he to change the
intent and purpose of the law by assum-
ing that Robert E. Lee has come to be
generally regarded as typifying not only
all that was best In the cause to which
at the beheSt of his native state he gave
his services" and therefore" should re-
Ceive honor for his treason? What in the
opinion of the Attorney General was pest''
in the cause of rebellion?
Again, if | am not misinformed, Congress
has always assumed the right TO pass upon
the acceptabflity of statues which the diff
ferent states may offer under the invita-
ton. 1t is only few years since this right
was exercised in relation to the acceptance
of the statue Of Pierre Marquette by the
State of Wisconsin,
WILLIAM s. COGSWEIL
New York. Aug. 1, 1910