Evening star., 1936-09-15
Cites Guide Book on
Marshall-Story Panel

TO the Editor Of The Star:
Regarding the controversy over the
historical inaccuracy Of some Of the
sculptural panels on the doors of the
new Supreme Court Building, I should
like to bring to your attention certain
facts Of public record which tend to
vindicate Prof. Corwin's criticisms.
Prof. Corwin charged that two Of
the panels. one depicting John Marshall
and Joseph Story and one representing
King John signing the Magma Carta,
contained historical anachronisms. As
regards the King John panel have no
facts to contribute, but as regards the
Marshall panel the facts clearly establish
that it was the intention of the artist to
depict the handing down Of the famous
Marbury VS.. Madison decision, in which
Marshall first asserted the right of the
Supreme Court to annul acts OF Con-
gress which it deems unconstitutional,
and that the artist sinned against his
torical accuracy by including in that
panel Justice Story, who did not come
on the bench until nine years after this
decision.
1t is perfectly true that the panel in
question makes no reference to the Mad
ison VS.. Marbury decision All of the
other seven panels similarly carry only
the names Of the sculptured figures and
make no mention of the theme or
episode in the history of the law which
each panel Is supposed to represent. But
the themes Of all of these panels are
offlclally described or explained in q
mimeographed sheet given out by the
office of the architect of the Capitol,
hn YvSla v,nf INtx
ports OF the artists concerned. These
official explanations may be found
In print in the small Washington
Standard Guide published in 1885. For
the Marshall panel the explanation
reads: Marshall and Story. Chief
Justice Marshall delivers the Marbury
VS.. Madison opinion, setting aside a
legislative act as unconstitutional, there
by indicating the supremacy of the
Supreme Court"
At later date the architects office
appears to have amended the descrip-
ton of this panel, for I have seen a
sheet carrying the same descriptions as
are printed in the Standard Guide save
that the one referring to the Marshall
panel is made to read: John Marshall.
Chief Justice Marshall delivering the
Marbury VS.. Madison opinion" A still
more recent sheet issued by the archi-
tect's office. which I have also seen,
made more drastic amendment of the
description Of the Marshall panel. Imi-
tating the proverbial ostrich. the author
OF that description wrote: John Mar
shall and Joseph Story. Chief Justice
Marshall and Mr.. Justice Story
In your issue of September vol1 opote
CasS Gilbert as declaring that the panel
was not intended to refer to the Mad
1son VS.. Marbury decision. 1T pictures
Marshall and Story together, and they
served together on the Supreme Court
bench. 1t has nothing to do with Mar
bury VS.. Madison" 1t would be inter-
esting to know at what date Cass Gil
bert came to this conclusion.
But suppose we accept Cass Gilbert's
present claim that the panel is de-
signed merely to depict Marshall and
Story. 1nasmuch as all the panels
symbolic some episode in the develop
ment Of the law, it is proper to suppose
that the artists, in selecting Marshall
and Story, wanted to symbolic the epi-
sode in the development Of the Supreme
Court with which these two justices are
peculiarly identified.
In seeking to escape the charge
OF perpetrating an anachronism, the
architects are putting themselves in the
amusing predicament of f1outing the
Supreme Court by Haunting in their
sculptures refutation Of the courts
high orthodox constitutional doctrine!
BENJAMIN GINZBJJRG