Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1921-07-07
Letters to the Editor
e,,hoo Nicely and "st. eeorse's.on
4he.parkMaY"

rd;,oy OF the Evening Pubic bed0er'
10 Wv w,,,h appreciation Of your cordial
n,,ors and good wishes as expressed ~
.nnr editorial in TUESDAY s',,as aiternoVu 10,
George s-cn-the- ''N'
few comments.
a.. article shows, you did not originate
nroposltion to remove tne NeneIaoIe
". ts.roh edihce to the new PARKWAY hppar
Gnu, ,bsre ia a somewhat mysterious propa-
sanSa in which some one IS oosesseu os Az a..
,snnison 10 move the church someWnere. Az
impu, tive the suggestion Is to one place.
one .no,ber, and another. embracing al
VIZ, VIZ" ~ way to the Park or even 10 some
,'sa,.os-tbe.way place, and the i%nconsiSlen' %
IA contradictory character OF 'ne sussys
anu a show no connected idea except the
s,on uons idea Of moving, which some may
co,ij cini, ia akin to O mania, for there appears
~ ,n n something Of tho mysterious.
" ,S,er while, however, the mystery
NAV be made plain. but AT tne presen'
my,ont may ,hs probability Is that the propa-
nlo, nse oropping UP here and there may dis
s,rh somo and mislead others.
w, this particular. while thanking you
YOUR weil-meant expression Kindly per-
", mo TO call attention to rev points.
~. ths arst place, the aim of the church
,,s frIends. and the instructions given
.'u ,hoir spokesman. was to defend the
sS,rch and to preserve 1t on Its original
~. where It's historic deeds were done.
"a where beside II and In II, rest the
,n,oins Of eminent dead, and their aim is
nsaniy rella.i the same today. They do not
~ Tor hut oppose the removal. and are
sm.zed that any one would iptervene and
suggest such a thing, and, especially as the
hr,dse can be built without touching the
sburch. The Methodist Episcopal Church
not asked that "Old Saint Georges
snsu be removed anywhere, much less be
si.osd on the Parkway It is wanted where
has been from the beginning and where
II is now, a., .t,t. ,Yo,,
.orid any sane person originally Invent the
suggestion that the old church be moved
IA the Parkway?
First, What responsible party has prom
,ssd TO put II there. and what responsible
nsrtv has promised to purchase FOR II
80 a, the most costly sites in the city.
.nd ~ insure the venerable building against
damage The city has not and the Bridge
commissIon has not The Park Commission
Mas not promised anything. Would 1t per
mlt St Georges dead to be reinterred In
and beside the old church on the PARK
way7
xbat kind Of artistic insanity Is 1t that
would place the weather-beaten pre-Revolu-
tonary church structure on the great ave-
nue TO the Park. side by side with the
majestic marble and granite architectural
masterpieces. and that to Its eternal disad-
vantage? II would be cruel contrast that
would bring constant humiliation to the VEN
srable edlfce and to its great denomination.
In all fairness the old church belongs amid
n, old surroundings as does Christ Church.
Third. As matter Of practical propriety
and interchurch equity. the removal of Saint
Georges to the Parkway could not justify
itself as a piece Of sound and sane &C.
elesiastIcal administration. II any minister
would try to locate n church In that way.
bis official superior would check him. per-
haps with a more or less severe reprimand.
To put the ancient edifce on the Park
way would be to put It In competition with
vigorous modern churches. where It could not
make headway while 1t would interfere with
The churches already there and which had
q prior right. At one end of the Parkway
Is the beautiful white marble Arch Street
Church. and virtually at the other end is
the brown stone Spring Garden Church, and
they are only a little more than half a
dozen blocks apart. To put another church
between them would cripple all OF them
and mean ecclesiastical slaughter and sui
oide. It would be bad and crazy policy.
When Independence Hall has been on the