Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-01-31
Against Memorial Plans.
Two Objections Raised to Pro-
posed Marine Monument.

To the Editor OF The Star:
few days ago-I think Ii was In
your issue of the 22d-you published
an article about the proposed marine
memorial for which subscriptions have
for many months past been solicited
by a committee to which q number of
eminent names are attached. Your
article was occasioned by certain OBJ
jections to the form Of the monument
which were raised by Representative
A. Piatt Andrew of Massachusetts. q
member OF the congressional commit
tee on naval affairs
L not only associate myself with the
views on this subject so we'll express.
ed by Mr.. Andrew in his letter to the
titular chairman of the committee,
which was published In your columns,
but | beg leave to add some observa-
lions OF my own, which I hope NAV
he useful in drawing further attention
to the character of this important
project, admirable in it's purpose but
faulty in some of it's essential details.
The letter / received from the com
mittee soliciting contribution toward
the cost of the memorial inclosed
printed circulars fully describing the
monument as at present proposed.
The object appealed TO me, and | was
animation 1 found two serious objec-
tons which l then set forth in a let
ter | sent at once in reply.
The first objection was that the de-
sign, however picturesque it may be,
IL not suitable for piece of monu.
mental sculpture that is to be ex-
posed to the wea ther. The ba sic prin.
ciple underlying all such work re-
quires that 1t shall be enduring, and
flock of large sea gulls in bronze
lowering high over the crest of a
wave and sustained In the air only
by their attachment to each other at
their wing tips will not long resist the
action of the elements. Even If such
a great weight so lightly supported
could Withstand a high wind pressure,
the first severe ice storm would break
1t down.
My second and more serious OBJ iec-
ton was TO the proposal to display on
the monument the names of some of
the contributors toward the cost of
its erection-those who should sub
scribe 500 or more. This, it seems
to me, would be to turn the memorial |,
from one commemorative those who
had given up their lives, to an adver-
tisement of the donors. If such a
scheme We're carried out. public
oPAiiiOil NOulu CERTAINTY take OHen90
at it, and yet the committee has been
Ill advised enough to offer 1t as an
inducement to subscribers In language
that is, to put it very mildly indeed.
unworthy of the memorials high pur-
pose.
Furthermore, the committees letter
states without reservation that 1.-The
Fine Arts Commission has approved
the design of the memorial" This ap.
prevail was made necessary by the
congressional resolution of February
l6. 1924, which made the movement
possible. Now, the tenth report OF
the National Commission of Fine Arts.
published In 1928, states on page 100
that first design was submitted
without receiving approval, and that
on December 10. 1925, a modified de-
sign was submitted, which the com.
mission reported on adversely .Janu.
airy Z, 1926, and referred back again
to the memorial committee. Since
that time the Fine Arts Commission
has not, / believe, had occasion to
take further action.
IRWIN LAUGHLIN.