Face p. 43
]
This entire report is in Thomson’s handwriting and is endorsed by him:
“Device for a Great Seal for the United States in Congress Assembled.
Passed June 20, 1782.” In the journals of Congress the “Remarks and
explanation” are left out, but they constitute an essential part of the
fundamental law as Congress adopted it.
The different features of the seal had all been in common use in
America. In the North Carolina paper currency of 1775 appears a bundle
of thirteen arrows; in the Maryland currency of the same year a hand
grasping an olive branch with thirteen leaves; on a fifty-dollar bill
issued in 1778 is an unfinished pyramid, with the motto “Perennis;” in
the Massachusetts copper penny of 1776 are thirteen stars, surrounding
an _eagle_; the flag had the thirteen stripes, and so had the seal of
the Board of Admiralty, adopted May 4, 1780.
Soon after the seal was adopted the obverse was cut in brass; but the
identity of the engraver is unknown. It was intended to be impressed in
wax over a paper wafer, and is found on a commission dated September 16,
1782, granting full power and authority to General Washington to arrange
with the British for exchange of prisoners of war. The commission is
signed by John Hanson, President of Congress, and countersigned by
Charles Thomson, Secretary, the seal being affixed in the upper
left-hand corner, instead of the lower left-hand corner as is now the
custom. This, the first great seal to be made, continued in use for
fifty-nine years, and having been cut almost as soon as the design was
adopted may fairly be assumed to represent correctly the intentions of
the makers of the seal.
The second or Lovell committee recommended a “less seal of the United
States” of the same design as the great seal but of smaller diameter,
but no other committee took cognizance of the custom which still
prevails in many countries of having two principal seals of state. The
idea had not, however, wholly disappeared when the Constitution was
adopted, for in the first Congress John Vining of Delaware proposed
(June, 1789) that a Home Department be provided for and that the
Secretary be required to “keep the great seal, and affix the same to all
public papers, when it is necessary; to keep the lesser seal, and affix
it to commissions &c.”
In the debate which preceded the defeat of the bill, Alexander White of
Virginia said the great seal might be kept by the Secretary of Foreign
Affairs, and the lesser seal also.[29] No direct proposition was made,
however, to create a lesser seal.
When the Congress under the Articles of Confederation ceased to exist
and the new Government went into operation Charles Thomson continued in
charge of the great seal and of the records of the old Government, until
provision for their custody should be made. On July 24, 1789, Washington
as President wrote to him:
You will be pleased, Sir, to deliver the Books, Records and Papers of
the late Congress—the Great Seal of the federal Union—and the Seal of
the Admiralty, to Mr. Roger Alden, the late Deputy Secretary of
Congress, who is requested to take charge of them until further
directions shall be given.
Thus terminated Thomson’s connection with the seal which he had done so
much to design and have adopted. Alden afterwards described his own
appointment as that of keeper of the seals and papers of the old
Congress.
On June 27 the bill creating the Department of Foreign Affairs became a
law, this being the first executive department provided for under the
Constitution, but the Secretary was not made the keeper of the seal and
it remained in Alden’s hands until the Department of State was created.
The act creating this Department was entitled, “An act to provide for
the safe keeping of the acts, records, and seal of the United States and
for other purposes.” It enlarged the Department of Foreign Affairs into
the Department of State, and named as the principal officer the
Secretary of State. The third section of the act read:
_And be it further enacted_, That the seal heretofore used by the
United States in Congress assembled, shall be, and hereby is declared
to be, the Seal of the United States.
The fourth section read:
That the said secretary shall keep the said seal, and shall make out
and record, and shall affix the said seal to all civil commissions to
officers of the United States to be appointed by the president, by and
with the advice and consent of the senate, or by the president alone.
Provided, That the said seal shall not be affixed to any commission,
before the same shall have been signed by the president of the United
States, nor to any other instrument or act, without the special
warrant of the president therefor.
It will be observed that the act described the “Seal of the United
States” and not the “Great Seal of the United States,” although in all
the preliminary reports and in the adopting act the term “Great Seal”
was used. As no lesser seal of state was contemplated there was really
no object in designating the only seal as the “Great Seal,” although for
ordinary purposes it has never ceased to be called the “Great Seal,” and
is so denominated in the decision of the Supreme Court where its uses
are set forth. Before the seal was adopted the commissions of Congress
read simply “By order of Congress,” being signed by the President. The
countersigning was, “Attest Charles Thomson, Secretary.” When the seal
came into use the form was, as it appears on Washington’s commission to
exchange prisoners: “In testimony whereof we have caused these Letters
to be made patent and the Great Seal of the United States of America to
be thereunto affixed. Witness His Excellency John Hanson President of
the United States in Congress assembled the Sixteenth day of September
and in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty two,
and of our Sovereignty & Independence the seventh.” After the adoption
of the Constitution and before any custodian of the seal was provided by
Congress, the wording ran: “In testimony whereof I have caused these
letters to be made patent and the Seal of the United States to be
hereunto affixed. Given under my hand the —— day of —— in the year of
our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine,” this being signed
by the President and not countersigned. This form continued in use after
the Secretary of State became by law the keeper of the seal, and was not
changed till August 3, 1790, when the recital was made to include the
year of independence and was countersigned by Thomas Jefferson as
Secretary of State. Thus, singularly enough, the abandonment of the term
“Great Seal of the United States” began with the Executive some months
before it received legal sanction.
VI
THE ILLEGAL SEAL
In ancient times a seal to authenticate a document was always impressed
upon wax, or metal, or even upon clay; but this gave place to the more
convenient method of impressing the seal directly upon the paper by the
use of two faces of a die. It was, presumably, a desire to introduce
this improvement which prompted the Department of State in 1841 to
discard the seal of 1782 and have a new die cut. The work was ordered
without any specific appropriation being made for the purpose by
Congress, and was entrusted to Edward Stabler, of Sandy Spring, Md.,
where he was postmaster from 1828 to 1883, who cut many government
seals, and had a reputation as a seal engraver. He was doubtless
permitted to design the seal in his own way, and it was accepted without
notice being taken of its palpable deficiencies from an artistic and
heraldic point of view and its failure to satisfy the plain requirements
of the law in the important particular of the number of arrows in the
eagle’s sinister talon.
In reply to a letter from John D. Champlin, jr., in 1877, the Department
of State said of the seal:
This change [from the design of the seal of 1782] does not appear to
have been authorized by law, and the cause of it is unknown.[30]
The inaccuracies of the design of the arms on this seal were the subject
of grave criticism from time to time. In the Galaxy Magazine for May,
1877, Mr. Champlin pointed out the improper arrangement of the pales,
the red being twice as wide as the white, and the fatal disregard of the
law requiring thirteen arrows in the eagle’s sinister talon. “Is it
possible,” he said, “that an arbitrary alteration can be made in the
great seal of the United States by the officials temporarily in charge
of it? And if so, what is to prevent some future Secretary of State,
with notions of his own in regard to heraldic bearings, from discarding
the old seal altogether, in favor of some creation of his own?”
This seal was cut when Daniel Webster was Secretary of State, and a fair
explanation of its deficiencies is that he knew nothing about the
details of the prescribed design, and entrusted the business of securing
a new seal to his subordinates, who were equally ignorant; and they in
turn entrusted it to the engraver. Unquestionably, the Secretary of
State has no authority to change the device of the arms, as it is
prescribed by law, in the slightest degree, nor could the President
himself properly authorize such a change. As the seal was created by
Congress it would require an act of Congress to alter it. In this
respect it is different from the arms of a monarchy. The arms of Great
Britain, for example, being formed from those of different monarchs,
have, in fact, undergone three changes since American independence—in
1801, when the arms of France were excluded and the arms of Hanover
placed “over all on an escutcheon of pretense,” “ensigned with the
electoral bonnet;” in 1816, when the bonnet was changed for the
Hanoverian crown; and upon the death of William IV, when the present
arrangement was made. How far the Secretary of State, as the custodian
of the seal, may deviate from the original design in having a new one
cut, provided he adheres to the terms of the creating law, is another
question, which, as we shall see presently, was finally decided in favor
of the conservative side.
The centennial anniversary of the adoption of the seal was marked by a
revival in interest concerning it, and C. A. L. Totten, then a first
lieutenant in the Army, called the attention of the Treasury Department
to the fact that the reverse had never been cut, suggesting that the
time was appropriate for placing it upon a medal or coin. This met with
the approval of the Department, so far as a medal was concerned, and
under the supervision of Hon. A. Louden Snowden, then Director of the
Mint at Philadelphia, a medal was struck in commemoration of the
centennial anniversary of the adoption of the seal. The obverse closely
resembled the first important illustration of the seal made after its
adoption. This appeared in the Columbian Magazine for September, 1786,
and was a spirited engraving. It differed from the official
interpretation in the distribution of the stars, which were put about
the eagle’s neck and head, instead of in a circle above the head. The
olive branch had sixteen leaves and no fruits, and the rays of the sun
extended through the clouds. The reverse of the medal contained the
dates 1782 and 1882, to indicate its purpose, beside the mottoes.[31]
Notice has already been taken of Mr. Champlin’s article in which he
criticised the seal of 1841, which the Department had been using for so
many years, notwithstanding its glaring errors. His criticism, Mr.
Totten’s agitation of the question of cutting the reverse, and the
striking of the great seal medal were the moving causes of the important
action of the Secretary of State, Theodore F. Frelinghuysen, in 1883.
The first committee on the seal recommended a reverse, and so did
succeeding committees, and a reverse was provided for in the creating
act. From this it would appear certain that the original idea was to use
a pendant seal of wax with an impression on either side of it. Pendant
seals were then common and are still used in many cases. In affixing
such a seal to a treaty it is so large that the wax would inevitably
break if it were unprotected, so it is enclosed in a metal box, usually
of gold or silver, highly ornamented. After the United States secured a
great seal it affixed the same one to all its acts, and did not have a
separate pendant treaty seal until about 1856, when one was made at the
State Department’s instance, or upon an understanding with the
Department, by Samuel Lewis, a jeweler in Washington. It was cut in
iron, weighing about 20 pounds, and was 6 to 8 inches in diameter. The
design followed the law accurately, but the treatment was realistic
rather than heraldic. This seal was kept by Mr. Lewis, being, as it
appears, his property, and whenever a seal for a treaty was required he
furnished an imprint in wax with the silver or gold box in which it was
to be placed, the box having upon the cover the arms stamped in relief.
The cords or ribbons passing through the treaty were adjusted through
the wax at the Department of State. The seal as thus attached to the
treaties made by this Government with foreign powers for thirteen years
compared favorably with the treaty seals used by other governments. In
1869 the use of the separate seal for treaties was abandoned, and the
practice of fixing the regular seal to the paper itself was reverted to,
and now maintains.
[Illustration: [Seal]]
VII
THE THIRD SEAL
January 10, 1883, the Secretary of State, Theodore F. Frelinghuysen,
addressed the Chairman of the Committee on Appropriations of the House
of Representatives, Samuel J. Randall, asking for an appropriation of
$1,000 to pay for having a new seal of the United States made. “Since
the year 1782,” his letter said, “when the device was adopted, there
have been, it is believed, but two dies of the obverse of the seal, the
only side which has been employed up to this time for sealing documents.
The reverse of the seal has never been engraved by the Government. The
original die of the obverse, after being in use for about sixty years,
was replaced by the present die, which has become very much worn and no
longer gives clear impressions. It is also to be observed with respect
to the latter that it does not strictly conform to the device
established by law. It seems to me, therefore, to be eminently important
that a new and correct die be made without delay.” He also advised that
the reverse be cut as a compliance with the law and “a proper respect to
pay to the founders of this Government, at this time, to carry out the
purpose so clearly expressed by them in Congress, June 20, 1782.”
Falling in with this recommendation Congress appropriated, July 7, 1884
(23 Stat., 394), $1,000 “to enable the Secretary of State to obtain dies
of the obverse and reverse of the seal of the United States, and
appliances necessary for making impressions of the same.”
Mr. Theodore F. Dwight, Chief of the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the
Department of State, supervised the work of designing the new seal. He
called into consultation the eminent historical scholar, Justin Winsor,
and Prof. Charles Eliot Norton, of Harvard; William H. Whitmore, the
genealogist, author of Elements of Heraldry (New York, 1866), at that
time the only work on heraldry by an American; John Denison Chaplin,
jr., an authority on engraving, associate editor of the American
Cyclopædia and later of Scribner’s art cyclopædias; and James Horton
Whitehouse, chief designer of Messrs. Tiffany & Co., New York. The
subject was thus considered from the three points of view of history,
heraldry, and art. Professor Norton wrote:
A. It is greatly to be regretted that the device adopted by congress
in 1782 is of so elaborate and allegorical a character. The most
skilful treatment of it could hardly make it satisfactory as the
design for the seal of a great nation. * * *
B. But as this is now the established device, the best way, I believe,
to deal with it, would be to treat it as conventionally as
possible,—giving it a strictly heraldic character. * * *
As to the reverse, the device adopted by Congress is practically
incapable of effective treatment; it can hardly (however artistically
treated by the designer) look otherwise than as a dull emblem of a
masonic fraternity. * * *
Mr. Winsor commented upon Professor Norton’s notes. He agreed that the
seal was not a good coat of arms. He thought, however, that it had not
been the purpose of Congress “to show an heraldic bird”—that “the
American eagle displayed proper” could not be an heraldic eagle.
“Whether present authorities,” he continued, “can venture to correct
their [the Congress’] bad taste, may be a question.” Of the reverse, he
declared it was “both unintelligent and commonplace. If it can be kept
in the dark as it seems to have been kept, why not keep it so?” On
January 2, 1884, he wrote to Mr. Dwight:
When you say “It might be best to reproduce the original die,”—you
suggest what is really my opinion. There is a certain naïvely Archaic
look about it which is honest and covers a multitude of artistic sins,
in a way that will not be easy to do by a modernization of it. I like
to preserve such original devices.
Mr. Whitmore did not agree with Mr. Winsor. He wrote December 30, 1884:
I feel assured that the treatment should be heraldic. An eagle
_displayed_ must be an heraldic one. The term American eagle, I infer,
means a bald-headed eagle, not the European type which shows in
heraldry a tuft or crest on his head. This is allowable, just as a
double-headed eagle is.
The best examples give the wings raised to the shoulder and then
dropping, which is more graceful and natural.
As to the reverse he said: “It is a thankless task to arrange it, as
Prof. Norton says; use it as little as possible.” Mr. Whitmore submitted
designs which were intended to be an improvement heraldically on those
under consideration, which he criticised, especially with reference to
the arrows, the form of which had been changed under Mr. Dwight’s
direction so as to represent a distinctively American Indian arrow. Mr.
Dwight conformed to Mr. Whitmore’s suggestion, and “the technical form
of barb” arrow was restored. Of the die of 1782 Mr. Dwight wrote to Mr.
Whitmore January 6, 1885: “Is not that die to be regarded as in some
sense sanctioned by long use, in view of its origin, as entitled to the
same authority as a law?” In regard to the crest Mr. Dwight said: “On
referring to the order of 1782 on this point, it seems that we have no
liberty to depart from that form, as it reads: ‘A glory, or, breaking
through a cloud proper, and surrounding thirteen stars.’ It has been
advised that an appearance of more splendor would be gained by allowing
the rays of the glory to extend beyond the clouds, as though piercing
them; but to that advice I do not feel warranted in agreeing, as the old
die gave no authority therefor.” Of the reverse he said: “For the
present purposes we shall not order the reverse; as Mr. Winsor remarks,
it has been so long kept in the dark, a few months more of shade will do
it no harm. I would like to have your opinion if adverse to the cutting
of that side. The law distinctly specifies it and it was not cut
presumably at the same time as the obverse, because the latter was
urgently needed, even as to day. The subject was probably lost sight of
at that time, when all the thoughts of the fathers were engaged in the
foundation of the Republic. I do not expect that the reverse can be
conveniently used for the purpose of sealing documents, but it is not in
my opinion improper that the device should be determined and cut.”
December 13, 1884, Messrs. Tiffany & Co. submitted the designs.
After having studied carefully the description of the devices as
adopted by Congress in 1782, and considered also the suggestions and
remarks that we have of late seen and received regarding the same, we
have carried them out strictly according to the rules of
heraldry. * * *
The eagle is the American bald eagle and has been drawn after careful
studies and made as natural as the rules of heraldry will permit. We
have decided that the third feather shall be the one extending to the
end of the wing. The escutcheon on the eagle’s breast is drawn as
described, the direction of the lines indicating the colors. As no
stars are mentioned in the chief, they have not been introduced here.
The suggestion to suspend the shield from the neck of the eagle by a
ribbon or cord, we have not carried out, as it would not be proper and
would rob the whole arms of its dignity.
The rays are purposely not extended beyond the clouds. All that is
desirable in that direction has been done, but to allow them to
project in the manner spoken of and as we often see them cut, would be
to convey a wrong and very weak idea of the original intention. We
have used the classical olive and have decided not to introduce the
flowers; the fruit (13) and the 13 leaves speak for themselves in a
very clear and positive manner, but the flowers, while they suggest a
growing and fruitful future, would as no special number could be used,
give an uncertainty not desirable, as it would always be supposed that
the particular number of flowers used must have a meaning while that
meaning is not there.
Indications of color should not be given in the olive branch, fruit,
arrows, scroll, etc.; they should be represented as termed in heraldry
‘proper’.
Regarding the reverse the pyramid is drawn to the scale of the great
pyramid; the side seen in perspective to the right means East, this
view being desired. The eye and the date on the foot of the pyramid
should not be incised; on ancient monumental work and work of that
character the die is sunk, or the impression it of course would be in
relief.
The letters used in the Latin are the simple and particular Roman
letters used, and in fact is the best letter used for the purpose.
Regarding the scroll containing the “E pluribus unum” we consider the
present form altogether the best to use as the sheet scroll mentioned
would interfere with the eagle, while the old form of scroll falls in
well with the general design. The dies will be cut in steel.
This letter may be said to be the argument for the Whitehouse designs.
They were submitted to Mr. Champlin, who wrote, January 7, 1885:
It seems to me useless to regret that Congress did not adopt in 1782 a
different device for the great seal of the United States. The present
device was legally adopted and all we can do is to follow the
provisions of the act, having an eye, of course, to general heraldic
propriety; but even if the laws of heraldry are transgressed in some
minor particulars, I think we still are bound to follow the letter of
the law, despite the rules of heraldry. If we must have a strictly
heraldic seal, let us go to work ab initio and change the law.
If this be, as I believe it to be, the true way of dealing with the
question, let us see whether the designs furnished by Tiffany & Co.
fulfill the provisions of the law.
1. The law reads “Paleways of thirteen pieces, argent and gules, a
chief, azure”. The drawing marked A is correct in this particular.
This differs from the order of the stripes on the national
ensign. * * * The pales should all be of the same width.
2. “The escutcheon on the breast of the American eagle displayed
proper.” In Mr. Barton’s device of June 13, 1782, of which that
adopted by the committee is a modification, the American Eagle is
expressly called “the bald-headed eagle”, so there can be no question
on that point. The eagle must be an American eagle and not the
ordinary heraldic eagle. It must be displayed, not with _wings
displayed_ (in which case it would be represented perched), but
displayed—that is, with both wings and talons extended. In my opinion
the drawing is correct, though I would suggest that the treatment,
especially the wings, might be a little less realistic, and still
comply with the law.
3. “Holding in his dexter talon an olive branch, and in his sinister a
bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper, and in his beak” etc. The olive
branch and arrows should, of course, be of the conventional form as no
other is specified.
4. Crest—“A glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and
surrounding thirteen stars forming a constellation, argent, on an
azure field.” This is bad, very bad, heraldically, but I see no way
out but to reproduce the original, which I think is done in the
drawing.
Reverse. “A pyramid unfinished.” The law does not call for a pyramid
of thirteen courses of stone. * * *
Mr. Champlin did not give an opinion on the propriety of cutting the
reverse, but so general was the criticism of it, and so palpable were
its shortcomings, that it was determined not to cut it, and Mr.
Whitehouse’s design of it was not accepted. Its fate has been singular.
It was prescribed as part of the seal by the act of 1782, but went
unnoticed. The act of September 15, 1789, continued the seal as
prescribed in 1782, but no effort was then made to design or cut the
reverse. When the seal of 1841 was made it was still ignored, and in
1883 it was definitely determined, after designs had been drawn, to
abandon it.
The act of July 7, 1884, made appropriation “to obtain dies of the
obverse and reverse” of the seal, the act following the State
Department’s request, and it had undoubtedly been the intention of the
Department, when the appropriation was asked for, to cut the reverse;
but its purpose was changed after fuller consideration, and it felt at
liberty to leave this part of the new law unexecuted, as the law of 1782
had remained in part unexecuted for a hundred years. It may be added
that when the exhibit of the State Department was prepared for the
Chicago Exposition in 1892, large emblazonments of the obverse and
reverse of the seal were painted, but the appearance presented by the
reverse was so spiritless, prosaic, heavy, and inappropriate that it was
never hung.
The design of the obverse of the seal of 1884 was determined upon, as we
have seen, with great care. It was an enlargement with some
modifications of the seal of 1782, the modifications being in the
direction of a closer adherence to the law creating the seal. For
example, the eagle’s head bears no crest, as in the European type and as
advised against by Mr. Whitmore for the American eagle specified by the
law.
[Illustration: