REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON JOINT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT WITH
WILLIAM H. POWELL, FEBRUARY 27, 1865.
February 27th, the Senate having under consideration a joint
resolution from the House of Representatives, authorizing a
contract with William H. Powell for a picture at the Capitol,
not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars in amount, Mr.
Sumner said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that my friend from Vermont [Mr. COLLAMER]
feels obliged to press this proposition. I do not like to vote against
it. Still more, I am reluctant to speak against it. But, satisfied as
I am, after careful reflection, that it ought not to pass, I shall
express briefly the grounds of my opposition. When it was called up
the other day, I ventured to say that I did not think this the time
for us to enter upon the patronage of art. Of course such patronage
is beautiful and most tempting. It may seem ungracious to arrest it;
but I submit confidently, that at this moment, with the national
debt accumulating at the rate of millions a day, with brave soldiers
still unpaid, with a drain upon our resources at every point, it is
not advisable to enter upon the patronage of art, beautiful and most
tempting as it is.
There is much to be done to complete the National Capitol in all its
parts. Let the work proceed, until the sublime structure stands forth
worthy in everything of the destinies it enshrines. But I think we may
hesitate at this time to enter upon any ornamentation not essential to
the work. If you order one costly picture, you will be called to order
another; and where will this expenditure stop? Better wait for the days
of peace, soon to come, I trust, when your means will be greater, and
you will approach the question in a calmer mood.
Thus far I have said nothing of the artist. But the vote proposed
selects one artist for especial honor, and leaves all others unnoticed.
It is like a vote of thanks to an officer in the army or navy. Are
the merits of this artist so peculiar and commanding that he should
be taken and all others left? I doubt. At least, I know that there
are other artists in the country who deserve well of those who assume
the patronage of art. Are you ready, in this off-hand way, without
inquiry, without even hearing their names, to discriminate against them
all? I put these questions in no spirit of criticism, and certainly in
no unkindness to the artist, for whom, let me say, I have a sincere
regard. There is already one picture by him in the Capitol. A second
would be more than enough.
Then, again, are you sure that the subject selected at the present time
would be such as a maturer and more chastened taste could approve? This
is a period of war. We are all under its influence. But I doubt if it
be desirable to keep before us any picture of war, especially of a war
with fellow-citizens. There are moral triumphs to which art may better
lend its charms. I need only refer to the Proclamation of Emancipation,
which belongs to the great events of history.
I send to the Chair an amendment, to come in at the end of the
resolution:--
“_Provided_, That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the
National Union, there shall be no picture of a victory in
battle with our own fellow-citizens.”
* * * * *
In the debate that ensued, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts,
said: “I rise more especially to say that I disagree with
my colleague altogether in the proposition that no work of
art shall grace the Capitol of this country that represents
anything of the present war of a military or naval character.
I do not believe in that doctrine.” Mr. Howe, of Wisconsin,
said: “If there were any one proposition which could make
the original resolution more distasteful to me than it is in
itself, it would be the proviso moved by the Senator from
Massachusetts.”
February 28th, the amendment of Mr. Sumner was rejected without
a division.