Ohio History Journal

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?1   By ROBERT D. W. CONNOR   When a distinguished Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States not long ago mournfully lamented that the decision

of the Court in the Gold Clause Case had destroyed the Constitution of the United States, he merely echoed an opinion that has been ex- pressed by dissenting jurists in every generation from the days of John Marshall to those   of   Charles  Evans Hughes. In the earlier period it was the Jeffersonian "radi- cals" whose cue it was to weep bitter tears every time John Marshall destroyed the Constitution; in these latter days it is the Hamiltonian "reactionaries" who enjoy an attack of the jitters every time his latest successor allows it to escape preservation. In both cases concern is felt for the preservation of the Constitu- tion as a body of political

principles, as the fundamental organic law of the Nation, and   1. An address delivered before the Ohio State Archaeological and Historical Society, at the evening session of the fiftieth anniversary meeting at Columbus, Ohio, April 23, 1935. (311)

• 1
 

312   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

judicial interpretations of that document which one group hails

as preserving its principles, the other mourns as wanton de-

struction. There is, however, another sense in which the two

groups are in complete accord in the answer to the question, Shall

the Constitution be preserved? In this sense the question concerns

the Constitution as a physical document--a bit of parchment, if

you please--but one, nevertheless, of the highest historical and

sentimental value to the American people, sharing its preeminence

in this respect with the Declaration of Independence alone. The

question of its preservation in this second sense was raised even

before John Marshall's decisions alarmed timid liberals for the

preservation of its principles, and although it involved one of the

most important functions of government more than a century and

a quarter passed before a definitive answer was given to it.

The truth is, throughout this entire period, the document has

been in much greater danger of destruction than the system of

government to which it gives expression. When the Constitu-

tional Convention of 1787 had completed its work, a bright idea

inspired one of the delegates to move that the journal and other

papers of the Convention be destroyed because, he feared, "if

suffered to be made public, a bad use would be made of them by

those who wish to prevent the adoption of the Constitution." It

would never do for the people to know too much! The Conven-

tion, fortunately, did not share his fears and preferred to entrust

its records to Washington with instructions that he retain them

"subject to the order of Congress, if ever formed under the Con-

stitution" and later, Washington turned them over to the custody

of the newly organized Department of State. The original en-

grossed copy of the Constitution, however, had been sent by the

Convention to the Continental Congress then in session in New

York, and thus, together with the Declaration of Independence,

had become a part of the archives of that peripatetic body.

Before the removal of the seat of government to Washington in

1800, neither the Constitution nor the Declaration had a safe

abiding place, and both were compelled to follow the peregrina-

tions of Congress from city to city, much to their inconvenience

• 2
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?        313

 

and danger; but after the Government was settled on the banks

of the Potomac, they took their places along with the other papers

of the old Continental Congress in the archives of the State

Department.

Here at last, one might assume, the safety of these corner-

stones of American liberty and government was assured. Quite

the contrary! After the organization of the new Government

under the Constitution, the problem of the preservation of the

public archives became even more acute. They not only increased

rapidly in volume, but also in value, and there was not a single

building in the new capital city in which they could be safely

housed. Not only was no effort made to classify, arrange, cata-

logue, and file them, but they were stored in a building which was

a veritable fire-trap. This fact was sharply emphasized in 1800

when a fire destroyed the files of the War Department, and again

in 1801 when the Treasury Department suffered a similar loss.

Finally, in 1810, the problem of their proper care and preser-

vation was brought to the attention of Congress, whereupon the

House of Representatives appointed a committee, with Josiah

Quincy of Massachusetts as chairman, "to inquire into the state

of the ancient records and archives of the United States, and

what measures are necessary for a more safe and orderly preser-

vation thereof."  This committee found that "all the public

records and papers, belonging to the period antecedent to the

adoption of the present Constitution of the United States," were

stored "in the garrets" of "the public building west of the

President's house," which housed the several departments of the

Government, where they were "in a state of great disorder and

exposure; and in a situation neither safe nor convenient nor

honorable to the Nation." Among the archives of the State De-

partment were the original engrossed copies of the Constitution

of the United States and the Declaration of Independence. The

committee, therefore, by direction of the House, reported a bill

which authorized the President to buy or erect a building for the

use of the Postoffice and the Patent Office, and to add to the build-

ing occupied by the State, War, and Navy Departments "as many

• 3
 

314   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

fireproof rooms" as were necessary to house the archives of the

Government. For these purposes the sum of $20,000 was appro-

priated. In the debate on his bill, Quincy said that it was far

from his wish "to increase the expenditure of public moneys,"

and that he "was not very anxious for the accommodation of the

Patent Office," though he appreciated its importance. His chief

concern was for "the public records of the country which," he

said, "were in such a situation as was disgraceful to the House

and to the Nation. Not only were they in disorder, and in a state

of decay, but all the records of the Revolutionary War lie under

the eaves of this building in a condition extremely unsafe, and

daily exposed to destruction by fire."

Quincy's bill passed both houses of Congress and on April

28, 1810, was signed by President Madison. But if the father of

the Constitution felt disposed to congratulate himself that, in

signing this bill, he had assured for all time the safety and

preservation of that document he was due for a rude awakening.

The ink with which he wrote his name was scarcely dry when a

British army, with orders to burn the Yankee capital, captured

Washington. Warned of the approaching disaster, clerks in the

State Department, working in feverish haste and confusion.

tossed the Department's archives, including the Declaration and

the Constitution--companions once more in danger and distress--

into coarse linen sacks, piled them on creaking carts, and under

cover of darkness, rushed off with them to a place of safety in

Virginia. The next morning, August 25, 1814, tile Capitol and

other public buildings in Washington were in ashes. Thus only

by an ignominious flight from the soldiers of that monarch against

whom the thunders of the Declaration had been hurled and the

principles of the Constitution had been proclaimed, were these two

priceless records of the patriotism and statesmanship of the found-

ers of the Republic preserved for their posterity.

After the retirement of the enemy, the Declaration and the

Constitution, timidly slipped back into Washington, where for

another century they were exposed to constant danger of damage

by improper treatment and to destruction by fire. From these

• 4
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?        315

 

dangers they were finally rescued by a distinguished son of Ohio.

Toward the close of the first century of its existence, officials

began to observe that the Declaration of Independence had be-

come so faded and worn from long exposure to light and abuse

from inexpert handling that it was in serious danger of physical

destruction. Its desperate condition caused the secretary of state

to withdraw both it and the Constitution from public view, and

to have them locked up in a steel safe built for that purpose. But

popular interest in these two documents was so great than in 1921

President Harding, by an executive order, directed that they be

released from their steel prison and transferred to the Library of

Congress; and Congress, moved by the same patriotic impulse,

made an appropriation for "a special marble and bronze shrine"

where these charters of American liberty and government are now

preserved and displayed to the public under proper conditions of

security. This exhibition was installed, as President Harding so

fittingly expressed it, "to satisfy the laudable wish of patriotic

Americans to have an opportunity to see the original fundamental

documents upon which rest their independence and their Govern-

ment."

Shall the Constitution be preserved? This question has to

do with one of the primary functions of government--whether

local, state, or national--the preservation and proper administra-

tion of the public archives. The Constitution happens to be the

most important of the archives of the United States; our ques-

tion, therefore, may be re-phrased to read, Shall our national

archives be preserved? Fortunately, after more than a century

of discussion and vacillation, Congress has answered in the affir-

mative and for its former policy of indifference and neglect has

substituted a policy of real concern and interest. A new building

--magnificent in its proportions and beautiful in design--is now

nearing completion within the very shadow of the Nation's

Capitol, in which the archives of the Government are at last to

find a safe and suitable home.

But are these old records, after they cease to be of immediate

use in the business of government, of sufficient value to justify

the erection of a ten million dollar palace for their preservation?

• 5
 

316   OHIO ARCHEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

The answer is obvious. A French scholar recently observed that

the care which a nation, or a state, devotes to the preservation of

the monuments of its past may serve as a true measure of the

degree of civilization to which it has attained. Pursuing that

thought, I think it may be said that the chief monument of any

government--the evidence of its achievements and of the culture

of its people--is its archives. All civilized countries, therefore,

accept the preservation of their archives as one of the natural and

major functions of government--a duty to the past and to the

future alike. In a recent debate in our own House of Representa-

tives on this very question, Hon. Clifton A. Woodrum, of Vir-

ginia, replying to a fellow-member who seemed inclined to question

the wisdom of proposed expenditures for this purpose, was

loudly applauded by the House when he said, "In my judgment

there is no more important thing that we can do than to carry out

this great activity, and in this material day, when we are thinking

so much of material things, let us not lose altogether our spiritual

values and perspective."

That surely is one answer to the question. For another I

quote from a recent article by Mr. Waldo G. Leland, who prob-

ably is more thoroughly familiar with the archives of our Gov-

ernment than any other person. These archives he says, are

the first and foremost of all the sources of the Nation's his-

tory. ... [They are] composed of the letters, orders, reports,

accounts, and other documents produced in the course of trans-

acting the public business, whether located within the District

of Columbia, or wherever the operations of the Government

extend. The value of these archives may truly be said to be

inestimable. In the transaction of current business those of

recent date are in constant use, while those of earlier origin are

frequently referred to. They constitute the chief protection of

the State against unfounded or ill-founded claims. In inter-

national discussions or disputes they are the principal source

from which arguments may be drawn to support the conten-

tions of the Government. On them are based the titles to mil-

lions of acres of land and to thousands of patent rights. The

actual money loss, to say nothing of the inconvenience, that

would result to the Government, and to citizens as well, by the

• 6
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?         317

 

destruction of any considerable part of the Federal archives,

can hardly be calculated.

You would suppose that any government would be solicitous

to provide for the protection and preservation of public property

of such actual and potential value. But what has actually been our

own case? The story of the Declaration of Independence and of

the Constitution is a concrete illustration of our past policy, and

is not pleasant to think upon.

Official records in current use, as a rule, have been kept in

the buildings occupied by the several departments of the Govern-

ment as they must, of course, be quickly accessible to officials

who have frequently to consult them. Again quoting Mr. Leland:

Those no longer needed in the transaction of current busi-

ness have naturally enough, been considered an incumbrance,

and, if they could not be destroyed as useless papers, they have

been stored wherever space could be found for them. Thus

they are in cellars and sub-cellars, and under terraces, in attics

and over porticoes, in corridors and closed-up doorways piled in

heaps upon the floor, or crowded into alcoves; this, if they are

not farmed out and stored in such rented structures as aban-

doned barns, storage warehouses, deserted theatres, or ancient

or more humble edifices that should long ago have served their

last useful purpose.

Thus the Government's archives are scattered throughout

Washington in more than a hundred different depositories--some

of which are practically inaccessible and none of which are either

suitable or safe for the storage of such valuable property. In

many cases the results have been disastrous. Invaluable docu-

ments have been lost. Others have been injured by frequent re-

movals from one depository to another. Fire has taken its toll.

Inroads have been made by termites, mice, beetles, and other

enemies of paper. Stamp collectors, autograph hunters, and plain

ordinary thieves have helped themselves. And in one case a

cabinet official sold 400 tons of official records to a junk dealer--

he needed the space for his office force!

After the passage of Quincy's bill in 1810, discussion of the

need for better care of the national archives never wholly ceased,

• 7
 

318   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

but it was not, apparently, until 1877 that the problem was again

considered by Congress. In a special message, December 10, 1877,

President Hayes, afterwards the third president of the Ohio

Archaeological and Historical Society, called the attention of Con-

gress to the danger from fire to which the archives of the Gov-

ernment were constantly exposed. "The records of the Govern-

ment," he said, "constitute a most valuable collection for the

country, whether we consider their pecuniary value or their his-

torical importance, and it becomes my duty to call your attention

to the means suggested for securing these valuable archives."

The following year, and again in 1879, he laid before Congress a

recommendation of the secretary of war for the erection of a fire-

proof hall of records to cost about $200,000, adding: "These

recommendations are all commended to your favorable attention."

It may not be without interest to this audience that two other

sons of Ohio took important parts in the movement for a national

archives building. President McKinley expressed a deep interest

in it and pointed out to Congress "the urgent necessity of a hall

of records." After describing the danger to which the archives

of the Government were exposed, he said: "There should be a

separate building especially designed for receiving and preserv-

ing the annually accumulating archives of the several executive

departments. . . . I urgently recommend that Congress take early

action in this matter."

Congress, however, did not act, and in 1912 President Taft,

in his last message to that body, gently took it to task for its

negligence. Referring to the "unsatisfactory distribution of rec-

ords, the lack of any proper index or guide to their contents,"

he ventured again to urge, "the necessity for the erection of a

building to contain the public archives."

I have already mentioned the action of President Harding

in rescuing from possible destruction and restoring to the Ameri-

can people the two most priceless of their public archives. Hayes,

McKinley, Taft, Harding--surely the members of this Society

may justly recall with pride the interest of these eminent Ohioans

• 8
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?         319

 

in forwarding the movement for a national archives to its suc-

cessful conclusion.

It was the work of years, however, for even after the strong

messages of President Hayes on this subject, Congress seems not

to have been greatly impressed until a fire, which broke out in

the War Department early in December, 1880, brought the matter

more sharply to its attention. This timely, practical argument

led to the introduction in the Senate of a bill for the erection of

a hall of records. The measure excited but little interest until a

second fire, which occurred in the War Department on February

8, 1881, galvanized the Senators into action. Two days later they

passed the bill but the expiration of the Forty-sixth Congress, on

March 3, prevented its consideration by the House. Several

similar bills were passed by the Senate during the next seven

Congresses (1881-1895), but "notwithstanding favorable recom-

mendations of Presidents Arthur and Cleveland, failed of passage

in the House--partly because of the rival interests of local real

estate men." In the Fifty-seventh Congress, Senator George Gra-

ham Vest of Missouri, who had introduced and sponsored most

of these bills, summed up the situation in these words:

This bill has been before Congress for 20 years. Every

department of the Government . . . has suggested again and

again the necessity for a hall of records. . . . Three Presidents

have recommended the erection of this building, as have half

a dozen Cabinet officers, and yet it seems impossible to get any

legislation upon the subject.

However, the situation was not quite so discouraging as it

seemed to the Senator. Since 1880 thirty-eight archives bills had

been introduced in one or the other house, and a movement had

been started that could not be stopped. Congress had frequently

called for reports on the subject and these reports were gradually

enlarging the ideas of executive officials, of Congress, and of the

public as to the requirements of an adequate archives establish-

ment for a great nation. In 1878 it had seemed to the secretary of

war that these requirements would be met by "a cheap building

. . . to cost about $200,000, to be built quickly of brick," but in

• 9
 

320   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

1898 the secretary of the treasury estimated that an archives

building proportioned to the requirements of the Government

would cost $1,200,000," i. e., exactly $1,000,000 more than the

secretary of war had estimated twenty years earlier; and two

years later he raised his estimate to $3,000,000.

Moreover, throughout this period, government officials had

been thinking of a national archives merely as a sort of storage

warehouse to which departments could consign to oblivion their

old records no longer of use in their current business. But in

1908, the American Historical Association called the attention of

Congress to the importance which a national archives, properly

organized and administered, would have for researches in Ameri-

can history. This idea of service to scholarship as a primary func-

tion of a national archives gave a new slant to the movement, and

stimulated a livelier interest in the proposal than had been aroused

by official representations which, through constant repetition, had

tended to become perfunctory.

The period of agitation was now drawing to a close. The

year 1913 marked the turning but not the end of the road. In

that year Congress authorized the secretary of the treasury to

have plans and specifications prepared for a fireproof national

archives building to cost not over $1,500,000. These plans, how-

ever, were not to be completed until inspection should be made of

the best modern national archives buildings in Europe and con-

sultation had with the best European authorities on the construc-

tion and arrangement of such buildings. A wise precaution,

surely, but alas for the best laid schemes of mice and men! The

year 1913 gave way to 1914 and the inspection of archives build-

ings in Europe suddenly ceased to appeal to American architects

as an occasion for a pleasant summer junket. In 1916, therefore,

Congress struck out the proviso and authorized the construction

of the building "without such inspection and consultation in

Europe." Our archives building was to be 100 percent American!

But then came 1917 and its aftermath, when the United States

Government became more concerned in making new records than

in housing old ones. Another decade of delayed hopes followed,

• 10
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?         321

 

marked by an expansion of Government activities and consequent

increase in Government records at a vastly accelerated rate, which

drove executive officials almost to frenzy in vain efforts to find

space for both their files and for the daily work of their office

forces. During the thirteen years from 1917 to 1930 the accumu-

lation of Government archives was more than double the total

accumulation for the whole period of 128 years from the adop-

tion of the Constitution in 1789 to our entrance into the World

War in 1917.

This situation, of course, increased the pressure on Congress

for an archives building. In the meantime, in 1916, Congress had

taken steps to provide more adequate quarters for crowded Gov-

ernment departments by launching a great building program.

Temporarily halted by our entrance into the World War, interest

in the public buildings program was revived after the war, and

among the buildings included in it was the National Archives

building. For it $6,900,000 was set aside--increased two years

later to $8,750,000. When completed the total cost, including the

site and equipment, will be approximately $12,000,000. Ground

for the building was broken on September 9, 1931; the corner-

stone was laid by President Hoover on February 19, 1932; it is

now thought that it will be ready to receive the archives of the

Government about September 1, 1935.

Some of you doubtless have followed the erection of this

building with great interest but perhaps there are some features

about it with which you are not familiar. Speaking with all due

moderation, I think it can be said that when finished and fully

equipped, it will be the finest home for the archives of a great

government anywhere in the world. There's nothing strange

about this. Our Government had lagged far behind the govern-

ments of other great nations in making provisions for its national

archives--it is, in fact, the last of the great governments of the

world to do so. But this delay has had at least one advantage--

it has enabled us to profit by the experience of others. Before a

single blueprint for our building was made, architects were sent

to Europe, after the war, to study the archives buildings of Great

• 11
 

322   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

Britain and Germany, France, Holland, Austria, and other

European nations. From these studies they learned many valu-

able things--chiefly, perhaps, what not to do--and, therefore,

were able to take advantage of the experiences of those countries,

to avoid their mistakes and to introduce in our building many new

devices for dealing with old problems. The result is a structure

which, from an architectural point of view, most people regard as

one of the two or three most beautiful buildings in Washington;

while from an administrative point of view, it is perhaps the

most nearly perfect building of its kind in the world.

Classical in design, it rivals in dignity and beauty the Lincoln

Memorial and the new Supreme Court building. To its erection

each state in the Union has made contributions, either in mate-

rials or in service. Indiana contributed her limestone, Tennessee

her marble, Massachusetts her granite, New York her artificial

stone, Michigan her woods, North Carolina her lumber, Illinois

her bronze. From various states have come the architects who

designed the building, the artists who embellished it, and the engi-

neers, mechanics, and laborers who constructed it. The building

is American from start to finish; everything that has gone into it

--the materials of which it is built, the ideas expressed in its

design, the mechanical skill that has constructed it, are all Ameri-

can products.

In the brief time at my disposal it would be impossible to

describe this building adequately. Perhaps, however, a few details

may be of interest. On its four sides stand seventy-four magnifi-

cent Corinthian columns, each fifty-seven feet in height. The

facades over the entrances from Constitution and Pennsylvania

Avenues, will be adorned with figures symbolizing the achieve-

ments of mankind in literature and the arts, while around the

frieze above these facades are twelve large discs representing the

departments of the Government whose archives will find a perma-

nent home in the building. Flanking each of the entrances from

Constitution and Pennsylvania Avenues will be two impressive

statues symbolic of the purposes for which the building was

erected.

• 12
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?         323

 

The main entrance is from Constitution Avenue. Coming up

the steps from the street, the visitor approaches two huge bronze

doors--forty-nine feet in height--said to be the largest bronze

doors in the world. When these swing open for him, he steps

into a perfectly proportioned logia, through which he passes into

a magnificent exhibition hall--semi-circular in shape--whose

beautiful half-dome towers seventy-five feet above the floor on

which he stands. Upon entering this hall, he will see before him

two murals depicting major events in the history of the United

States, and will find himself surrounded by exhibit cases con-

taining some of the most valuable and significant documents of

modern times.

The entrance from Pennsylvania Avenue leads to the work-

rooms of the archives staff. Running up from the basement floor,

through the seven floors above, are the administration offices, the

library, the classifying, cataloguing and duplicating rooms, the

vaults for the storing of motion picture films, and the search

rooms in which Government officials and students who come to

use the archives can work under ideal conditions.

From the Seventh Street entrance, a ramp leads down to the

basement floor. Down this ramp, to a large receiving room, will

run the trucks, bringing hundreds of tons of Government docu-

ments transferred from their present depositories to the Archives

Building. Here these documents will be distributed to rooms

where they will be assorted and carefully checked, and where

those that require it, will be cleaned, fumigated and repaired.

From these rooms tens of thousands of documents will be shot

up in elevators--a round dozen of them--to their places in the

stacks. There will be twenty-one tiers of stacks, which will hold

2,500,000 cubic feet of archives--the most valuable property in

possession of the United States Government, because they are

absolutely essential to its activities, and if destroyed or lost could

never be replaced. Each section of stacks will be like a sealed

room into which no person except employees of the National

Archives will be permitted to enter. Any unauthorized per-

son attempting to do so will immediately set off an electric alarm

• 13
 

324   OHIO ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL QUARTERLY

 

that will give warning to the captain of the guard in his office

on the basement floor. Adequate protection against fire is of

course provided. Moreover, the building will be air-conditioned

throughout so that the temperature, the humidity, and the chemical

content of the air can be regulated to prevent damage to the docu-

ments. Sunlight will be excluded from the stacks where the docu-

ments are stored. By these and other devices it is believed that

the chances of loss of valuable records by theft, fire, insects,

dampness, exposure to light, or in any other way, have been re-

duced to an absolute minimum.

In anticipation of the early completion of the building, the

last Congress passed an Act, approved by President Roosevelt,

June 19, 1934, to create a National Archives of the United States,

and to define its powers, duties, and functions. The act recognizes

two fundamental functions of the National Archives: First, the

care and preservation of all Government archives of such admin-

istrative or historical value that they must be kept for a long

period of time, or for all time; Second, the classification, arrange-

ment, cataloguing and administration of these records so as to

facilitate their use in the business of government and in the serv-

ice of scholarship. Adequate powers for the performance of

these functions are conferred upon the archivist.

Thus after many years of discussion and heart-breaking de-

lays, Congress has answered our question, Shall the national

archives be preserved? But there remains one other important

step to be taken before we Americans can claim a place among the

most progressive peoples of the world in this respect--the preser-

vation of our state and local archives. A distinguished British

historian, describing the development of such a "system of local

archives" in Great Britain, makes this comment: "With a system

of local archives co-ordinated to the splendid collections of the

Public Record Office the history of England could be written with

a fullness possible in no other country." So with us--the history

of the Government of the United States can be written from the

documents that make up the federal archives, but the history of

the people of the United States cannot be written without the use

• 14
 

SHALL THE CONSTITUTION BE PRESERVED?         325

 

also of the archives of the states and their subordinate units.

Fortunately many of the states have already created and developed

excellent agencies for this purpose. It is the intention of the

National Archives to seek close affiliation and cooperation with

these state archives, and when all the states have fallen in line

we shall be in a position to challenge the statement I have just

quoted from Professor Galbraith.

What I have said about the importance of preserving the

national archives applies with equal force to the preservation of

state and local archives. No one has expressed the significance of

a correct solution of this problem--whether state or national--

better than did former President Hoover in his address at the

laying of the cornerstone of the National Archives building, when

he said:

The building which is rising here will house the name and

record of every patriot who bore arms for our country in the

Revolutionary War, as well as those of all later wars. Further,

there will be aggregated here the most sacred documents of

our history--the originals of the Declaration of Independence

and of the Constitution of the United States.

Here will be preserved all the other records that bind state

to state and the hearts of all our people in an indissoluble

union. The romance of our history will have living habitation

here in the writings of statesmen, soldiers, and others, both men

and women, who have builded the great structure of our na-

tional life.

This temple of our history will appropriately be one of

the most beautiful buildings in America, an expression of the

American soul. It will be one of the most durable, an expres-

sion of the American character.

Devoutly the nation will pray that it may endure forever,

the repository of records of yet more glorious progress in the

life of our beloved country.

• 15