Evening Star Newspaper, February 22, 1931, Page 76

e [ 8 THE SUNDAY STAR, WASHINGTON, D. C., FEBRUARY 22, 1931 Building [ BY JOHN CLAGETT PROCTOR. OW fortunate we are in the District of Columbia to have so many re- minders of the First President of the United States in various parts of the city—-monuments, statuary, paintings, and even old buildings he has visited here when the city was a forest and almost in the condition it had been left by the Indian upon the approach of the white man. And not far away, his home at Mount Vernon; Wakefield, where he was born: his mother’s home at Fredericksburg, and the old Ferry farm just to the north of the Rappahannock, where he spent his childhood days, all reached within a few hours’ ride of Washington. Associations and surroundings have much to do with shaping the lives of a people, and the contact with this patriotic atmosphere of the Father of His Country undoubtedly has had its jnfluence upon the people of the District, who are noted for going over the top wherever their assistance is requested in a worthy cause, and they do so fervently and enthusiastically, as Washington himself would have them do. If you were to ask the ordinarily informed person who built the Washington Monument he would no doubt quickly answer, the Gov- ernment; just the same as he would answer if he were asked who supports the National Zoological Park, and the chances are that in both cazes his answer would be wrong. *T"HE conception of forming the Washington : National Monument Society for the purpose of building the Washington Monument, as we see the structure today, was the thought of George Watterston, son of David Watterston, a mnative of Jedburg, Scotland, who came to this country in 1783, and to the city of Wash- ington in 1791, the year the corner stone of the District of Columbia was laid. He was a stone mason, and evidently went to work on the Cap- itol Building when that structure was begun two years later, and continued to be so engaged until the Summer of 1799, when he opened a marble yard near the Capitol, together with Robert Speiden, who advertised themselves as stonecutters from Edinburgh. However, this firm was dissolved one year later. Rather a strange coincidence, David Watter- ston died in the City of Washington on Wash- ington's birthday, February 22, 1823, in the seventieth year of his age, and, according to the Intelligencer, he was one of the oldest in- habitants of Washington. George Watterston, the son, was born in New York Harbor, on October 23, 1783, and naturally was brought to this city with his father, and here he witnessed the laying of the corner stone of the Capitol September 18, 1793, when he was nearly 10 years of age. Though not a native of the District, yet in all other respects he was a typical Washing- tonian—coming here as a child, growing into manhood here, and living here until his death in the early part of February, 1854. His education was obtained at Charlotte Hall, a picturesque institution we see on our motor trips on the road leading from Washington into lower Maryland and between Waldorf and Lecnardtown, in historic St. Marys County. Later he studied law, and first opened an of- fice in Hagerstown, Md. But the death of a rich uncle in Jamaica, we are told by William Dawson Johnston, “led him to give up his of- fice in this place and make a trip to the West Indies.” He was disappointed in the lot his uncle had provided for him there, and, return- ing to this country, took up the practice of law in Washington in partnership with Thomas Law. In October, 1811, he was married in this city to Miss Maria Shanley, the ceremony being performed by the Rev. Mr. Breckinridge, and in Drawing from Frank Leslie’s Weeklis Placing the apex of the capstone of the Monument, December 6, 1884. of Monument Was Dedication of ithe Shaft Took Place in 1885. Corner Stone Laid Under Auspices of the Washington National Monument Socicty. Part Played by George Watterston. The Washington Monument as designed by Robert Mills. this connection we are told that his bride brought from her Maryland home upon her marriage a large number of slaves, which proved a great annoyance to Mr. Watterston, “who discharged them one after the other, giv- ing quarters to some to live by themselves, and wholly emancipated the others.” R. WATTERSTON took an active interest in the political life of Washington, edited several newspapers, wrote a few novels, and kept his pen busily employed in other ways. As a citizen he seems to have been popular, and was even spoken of in complimentary terms by Ann Royall, who rarely if ever paid undue praise. Mr. Johnston tells of an amusing inci- dent that took place at the trial of this noted woman, when Mr. Watterston’'s name was brought in. “In the course of the trial,” it seems, “Mr. Tims, doorkeeper of the Senate, being called, was asked whether he knew of Mrs. Royall slandering any one. He promptly replied, ‘Yes; she has slandered me; she called me an exemplary man — now that's slander?’ This was considered very funny; the court roared; bench, bar and jury all lost their balance. Tims himself was the only man left unmoved. He looked around grave as an owl; just opposite to him stood Mr. Watterston laughing immoderately. Tims catching sight of him again opened his oracular jaws. ‘Yes, sir,’ said he, ‘I know of other persons whom she has slandered. She says in her book that Wat- terston and Gales are two of the handsomest men in Washington. Now I leave it to all the world if that is not a slander on all the other men in the city.” Though Mr. Watterston may not have ren- dered any conspicuous service at the Battle of Bladensburg, yet he at least did about as well as the rest of those who joined that debacle, and since there is no record as to the individual who reached Washington first after the troops were attacked by the British, he may have had the consolation at least of knowing that it was not he. One worthy thing about Mr. Watterston was that he was always doing something worth while. For instance, when a Scotchman named Whitelaw came to Washington in 1816 and gave some botanical lectures that proved of much in- terest, Mr. Watterstion was not willing to let pass into the discard the little bit of scientific knowledge thus gained, but suggested the for- mation of the Washington Botanical Society, which took place in the Spring of 1817. He was also a supporter of the Columbian Institute, which was formed about this time, and in 1821 became a member of the Nine- teenth City Council, serving as president of the Lower House throughout this and the fol- Jowing year, In 1824 he became an alderman and served with few interruptions until 1839. THE saying that it is an ill wind, indeed, that does not blow somebody some good, had its application with George Watterston, for it was chiefly due to the burning of the Library of Congress by the British in 1814 that Mr. Wat- terston was appointed the first librarian of Congress by President Madison on March 21, 1815, and shortly after the purchase of the Jef- ferson library by the Government for $23,950. There was no civil service in Andrew Jack- son’s day, and even the smallest position went toward paying some political debt; in other words, to the victor went the spoils, and so, on May 28, 1829, Mr. Watterston was replaced with John S. Meehan and the former again took up the practice of lJaw and also indulged his literary habits To show Mr. Watterston's real work in con- nection with the building of the Washington Monument, it is necessary to go back to the Continental Congress and briefly review the efforts made to erect a monument in honor of Gen. Washington that would in every way be worthy of the patriot and soldier, and so, on August 7, 1783, it was resolved by the Congress “(unanimously, 10 States being present) that an equestrian statue of Gen. Washington be erected at the place where the residence of Congress shall be established.” ©On the report of Mr. A. Lee, Mrs. Ellsworth and Mr. Mifflin, a committee appointed “to pre= pare a plan of an equestrian statue of the Com- mander in Chief,” it was further— “Resolved, that the statue be of bronze, the general to be represented in a Roman dress, holding a truncheon in his right hand and his head encircled with a laurel wreath. The statue to be supported by a marble pedestal, on which are to be represented, in basso relievo, the following principal events of the war, in which Gen. Washington commanded in person, viz.: ‘The evacuation of Boston, the capture of the Hessians at Trenton, the battle of Prince- ton, the action of Monmouth and the surrender of York. On the upper part of the front of the pedestal to be engraved as follows: ong Thask “ “The United States in Congress assembled ordered this statue to be erected in the year of our Lord 1783, in honor of George Wash= ington, the illustrious commander in chief of the Armies of the United States of America during the war which vindicated and secured their liberty, sovereignty and independence.” “Resolved, that a statue conformable to the above plan be executed by the bect artist in Europe, under the superintendence of the Minister of the United States at the court of Versailles, and that money to defray the expense of the same be furnished from the Treasury of the United States. “Resolved, that the secretary of Congress transmit to the Minister of the United States at the court of Versailles the best resemblance of Gen. Washington that can be procured, for the purpose of having the above statue erected, together with the fittest description of the events which are to be the subjects of the basso relievo.” Sometimes resolutions made by Congress are like New Year day resolutions—eacily made and soon forgotten, ard so it was with the fore- going resolutions. The sum total of their result was nothing, and it remained for the cele- brated John Marshall, 16 years later, to resure rect the matter and bring the subject again te the attention of the House of Representatives, in which body he was then serving as a Repre- sentative from Virginia. And so, on December 23, 1799, another resolve was made, this time “that a marble monument be erected by the United States in the Capitol, at the City of Washington and that the family of Gen. Wash= ington be requested to permit his body to be deposited under it; and that the monument be s0 designed as to commemorate the great events of his military and political life.” ASHINGTON had then been dead but nine days and in replying to the resolutions Mrs. Washington said: “Taught by the great example which I have so long had before me never to oppose my private wishes to the public will, I nced not, I cannot, say what a sacrifice l:,f individual feeling I make to a sense of public uty.” ‘The Select Committee, we are told, which was appointed to carry into effect the fore- going resolution, met and offered another reso- lution on May 8, 1800, in which it was urged that a marble monument be erected by the United States in the Capitol in honor of Gen. Washington, and this was amended to provide that a “mausoleum of American granite and marble, in pyramidal form, 100 feet square at the base and of a proportionate height, should be erected instead of it ‘in the City of Wash- ington.” ” On May 9, 1800, Thomas Evans, a Repre- sentative from Virginia, reported a bill for erecting the mausoleum, and even got the House to agree to an appropriation for $200,000, but the Senate did not concur, and there the matter rested until 1816, when the matter was taken up by the General Assembly of Virginia, which instructed the Governor to correspond with Judge Bushrod Washingtcn, then living at Mount Vernon, asking his consent to the re- moval of Washington's remains to Richmond, to be there marked by a fitting mcnument to his memory. This action on the part of the Virginia As- sembly caused the Federal Congress again to take up the matter, and a select joint commite tee was appointed to carry into effect the proe g‘eedings had by Congress at the time of Washe ington’s death, in which both Houses concurred. Among other things, this committee recom- mended that a tomb should be prepared in the foundation of the Capitol for the remains of Washington, and that a monument should be erected to his memory. In this connection, Judge Bushrod Washington would not. agree to the removal of Gen. Washington’s remains on the ground that they had been deposited in the vault at Mount Vernon in conformity with Washington’s expressed wish. “It is his will,” said Judge Washington, writing to the Gove erncr of Virginia, “and that will is to me a law which I dare not disobey.” And then the Congress decided to postpone indefinitely action on the matter, though it does appear that a vault for the reception of the remains was pre= pared beneath the center of the dome and ro=- turda of the Capitol and beneath the floor of the crypt. In 1819, Charles H. Goldsborough, a Senator from Maryland, moved in the Senate to GeorgeW atterston, whose idea led to the forming of the Washington National Monument Society.