[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 27247-27251]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        TRIBUTE TO LILY STEVENS

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last night, as the Senate was working into 
the late hours of the night and tensions were running high, our 
esteemed and beloved colleague, the former chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, took me by the arm and pulled me aside. There 
was something he wanted to show me. There was something that my 
esteemed and beloved colleague, Ted Stevens, wanted to say to me and 
wanted to show me. There was something he wanted to show me. It was an 
article that his daughter Lily Stevens had written about the U.S. 
Capitol, and he wanted to share it with me.
  I was touched by this. I know Lily. What a prodigious memory she has. 
Ah, what a rose in full bloom, what a lovely woman, Lily. She adores 
her father. He adores her.
  With everything that was going on in the Senate at the time, Senator 
Stevens was showing a father's pride in his daughter's accomplishment.
  I have literally watched Lily grow up. In her article, she points out 
that her father was already a Senator when she was born, and while she 
was a baby, her father would bring her to the Capitol--I have seen him 
many times--and carry her around in a basket. I remember that, just as 
I remember how she attended a number of my parties, and I attended a 
number of hers.
  I watched her grow into the remarkably--talented person she is today. 
She is a graduate of Stanford University and is currently a law student 
at the University of California at Berkeley. Lily is not only 
prodigious and intelligent, but she also is a polite, courteous, 
gracious, and charming young lady. Senator Stevens is so proud of her, 
and he has a right to be.
  The article his daughter wrote is an outgrowth of her senior thesis 
at Stanford University, and as I read it, I understood why Senator 
Stevens was so excited about it and why he wanted to share it with me. 
Titled, ``The Message of the Dome: The United States Capitol in the 
Popular Media,'' the article explores the ways in which the Capitol has 
served and communicated with the general American public over the 
years. It discusses the Capitol as a symbol to the American people and 
how the meaning of that symbol has changed over time.
  This beautifully written article skillfully conveys the sense of 
wonder that awaits every first-time visitor to Capitol Hill. With a 
trip to the Capitol, Lily points out, a visit to Washington goes well 
beyond ``a vacation in the leisure sense.'' It becomes ``an education 
journey, one in which the visitor can learn more about the government 
and the history of the United States.''
  And Lily's article makes fascinating and intriguing points about this 
building in which her father, Senator Ted Stevens, and I work. Visitors 
to the Capitol, Lily Stevens writes, while sharing certain common 
experiences, still find their own individual interests. As she quotes 
one author: ``The Capitol means many things to many people.''
  Lily Stevens makes the point about how the Capitol functions as a 
``national shrine,'' a place for appreciating our democratic form of 
government and for praising our Nation, our history, and our national 
leaders. And she explains how, over the years, the Capitol has 
functioned as a church. Indeed, religious services were once held in 
this building. And the Capitol still performs many functions that are 
religious in nature, like funeral services for certain national 
leaders. Statuary Hall, she points out, can be seen and interpreted as 
``an American Westminster Abbey.'' How about that?
  There is so much fascinating reading in this article, I could speak 
long about it. I am asking that it be printed in the Congressional 
Record, and I urge all my colleagues to read it. I promise you, you 
will enjoy it.
  Senator Ted Stevens is also entitled today to his own personal 
congratulations. Why? Today, November 18, is Senator Stevens' birthday. 
How about that? Senator Stevens' birthday, today. A wonderful man, a 
great legislator. Today Senator Stevens is 82 years young. Oh, to be 82 
again. Just to be 82 again, oh, my. I said to Ted: ``The next 5 years 
are going to be the heaviest, Ted.'' I know. Five years ago I didn't 
need those canes, no. My feet and legs were still good.
  Senator Stevens and I have worked together in the Senate since 1968, 
and we have been on the Senate Appropriations Committee together since 
1972. In all this time together, I have always known Senator Ted 
Stevens to be an outstanding Senator, a great colleague, and a trusted 
friend. Oh, I realize he may grumble every now and then. He is getting 
a little bit grumbly. But you can forgive him for that.
  You never have to be concerned about turning your back on him. He is 
honest. He is straightforward. And his word is his bond. Over the years 
we have had our spats, but never once did I doubt our friendship, our 
admiration for this country, its flag, each other, and our ability to 
work together.
  So today, Ted, I say in the words of the poet:

     Count your garden by the flowers,
     Never by the leaves that fall.
     Count your days by the sunny hours,
     And not remembering clouds at all.
     Count your nights by stars, not shadows,
     Count your life by smiles, not tears.
     And on this beautiful November afternoon,
     Senator Stevens, count your age by friends, not years.

  I conclude my remarks by again congratulating Senator Stevens on his 
82nd birthday and on his beautiful daughter's marvelous work. I thank 
Ted Stevens for being a superb colleague and a great friend, a great 
servant of his people in Alaska, and for sharing Lily's article with 
me.
  I ask unanimous consent to print the article in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 ``The Message of the Dome:'' the United States Capitol in the Popular 
                            Media, 1865-1946

                           (By Lily Stevens)

       Anyone who has spent a considerable amount of time in the 
     nation's capital has a

[[Page 27248]]

     particular experience with the white building on the Hill. 
     Growing up in Washington D.C., I never lost the wonder and 
     excitement of visiting the Capitol. I cannot remember the 
     first time I entered the building, as it was in a small 
     basket carried by my father. He was elected to represent the 
     state of Alaska in the Senate before I was born. As a little 
     girl, I loved walking up the marble stairs within the 
     building, feeling the grooves worn into the center of each 
     step. I would run my hand up the shiny round banisters 
     attached to the wall and shuffle my feet along step after 
     step. The Capitol was a wondrous place that always seemed to 
     be changing. I could have run for hours around the big tile 
     circles on the floor, following one pattern until it made me 
     so dizzy that I lay on the ground laughing, staring at the 
     tall ceiling, until I got up to start my game again.
       There were just so many things to look at: the marble heads 
     on stands that towered above me, the paintings on the walls 
     and ceilings, the many people who crowded the halls. Every 
     time I walked into the Rotunda, I would lay my head down on 
     the white circle that represents the center of Washington so 
     that I could see all of the figures on the ceiling. My next 
     stop in the Rotunda would be my favorite painting so that I 
     could count the eleven toes on one barefooted man. In 
     Statuary Hall, I would look for King Kamehameha, with his 
     brilliant gold clothes. When I left the room, my neck would 
     hurt from looking up at his enormous face, looming over six 
     feet above mine. As I grew older, I knew every ghost story, 
     and loved to tell the tales of Lincoln being spotted in his 
     tall hat before stepping through walls, of the large cat that 
     would appear in the Rotunda and continually grow larger until 
     it would finally disappear. I knew where alcohol was hidden 
     during Prohibition, where the bomb had gone off in the early 
     1980s, and where to stand to hear the whispering secrets of 
     Statuary Hall.
       My fascination with the Capitol led me to this project for 
     my undergraduate honors thesis at Stanford University. I 
     wanted to explore the ways in which the Capitol has served 
     and communicated with the general American public. I wondered 
     why so many visitors had entered the Capitol, and what they 
     were looking to find. In my thesis, I explored what the 
     Capitol had symbolized to Americans and whether its meaning 
     had changed over time. I thought of the many images and 
     references to the Capitol that I had seen in the popular 
     media and wondered how the building had been shown and 
     described since its construction. In this excerpt, which 
     include the first chapter, ``All Roads Lead to Washington,'' 
     we will look at Washington as a figurative center of the 
     country, as the destination for anyone interested in learning 
     more about the government and the nation.
       Authors throughout the early part of the twentieth century 
     described Washington as a natural destination for any 
     traveler. In 1940, Marion Burt Sanford offered advice for a 
     trip to the nation's capital to readers of Woman's Home 
     Companion. She declared the city to be the country's focal 
     point: ``In front of the White House is the zero milestone 
     from which all distances in the country are measured, so all 
     roads lead to Washington.'' Her article rested on a puzzling 
     premise. She claimed that Washington was a ``zero 
     milestone,'' and yet the nations's capital was certainly not 
     at the geographical center of the country. Some capitals sit 
     at a central location, convenient to every part of the 
     country: Paris, France and Madrid, Spain for example. 
     Washington, D.C., however, is on the eastern seaboard, and 
     certainly not accessible for the western portion of the 
     country. Yet taken in a figurative sense, Washington D.C. is 
     a location that draws many visitors. As the federal capital, 
     it is a destination for politicians, lobbyists, tourists, 
     school groups, and others. Every person in the United States 
     has a tie to the city, as the place where the laws are made 
     and enforced and where the country is governed. Therefore, 
     though Sanford's claim that ``all roads lead to Washington'' 
     is, in the literal sense, a misstatement, it does offer an 
     interesting way of looking a the nation's capital as a magnet 
     for many types of people.
       While the White House was the ``zero milestone,'' Sanford 
     suggested that the first stop for any traveler must be the 
     Capitol. Even before any organized visits, the Capitol was a 
     starting point for a memorable walk in the city: ``If you 
     arrive at night and are not too weary take the taxi to the 
     Grant Statue below the Capitol and walk a mile down the wide 
     silent Mall to the illuminated Washington Monument and the 
     Lincoln Memorial. You will never forget it.'' Making a memory 
     of visiting the monuments at night was the first on her list 
     for a woman to do when coming to the city. The reader she 
     addressed was a casual visitor, one who would be interested 
     in seeing the major monuments as well as in experiencing the 
     social side of the city. Sanford advised her readers: ``The 
     first day in Washington should be given to the Capitol and 
     the surrounding buildings.'' She warned that in order to have 
     a successful trip to the nation's capital, the visit must not 
     be too hasty: ``You can't see the House and Senate in action, 
     or the rare private collections in the vast Library of 
     Congress, or saunter past the embassies on Massachusetts 
     Avenue on a hurried bus tour.'' Her proposed tour was a 
     casual one in which women, their husbands, and perphaps their 
     families could enjoy as much time as possible at different 
     points of interest.
       Sanford's article reflected a common practice of any 
     Americans, that of a short journey to Washington to visit and 
     experience the monuments and nation's government. Central to 
     this journey was a trip to the U.S. Capitol, for the visitor 
     to wander the halls, see the building, and watch Congress in 
     action. Many articles such as Sanford's described in detail 
     the functions of the Capitol, the sculptures of Statutory 
     Hall and the paintings of the Rotunda. All offered a virtual 
     paper tour of the pubic monuments. These articles suggested 
     that the Capitol and Washington D.C. were a major point of 
     interest to Americans. Authors like Sanford encouraged a trip 
     Washington. But what did the travelers hope to learn or find 
     in the Capitol, and what types of visitors came? Why, in 
     particular, was the Capitol such a popular destination for 
     the traveler?
       A trip to Washington was not usually a vacation in the 
     leisure sense; rather, it was an educational journey, one in 
     which the visitor could learn more about the government and 
     the history of the United States. Some articles focusing on 
     the Capitol or Washington referred to travelers as 
     ``pilgrims.'' This term for visitors to the Capitol evoked 
     both a religious tone and a reminder of the country's 
     history. In one definition of the word, pilgrims are 
     religious devotees, often covering large distances to reach a 
     particular sacred spot. In his essay on ``Geography and 
     Pilgrimage,'' Surinder Bhardwaj defined the religious pilgrim 
     in terms of three characteristics: ``. . . the religiously 
     motivated individual, the intended sacred goal or place, and 
     the act of making the spatial effort to bring about their 
     conjunction.'' Pilgrims can also be travelers in search of a 
     spiritual revelation or enlightenment, wanderers without a 
     concrete destination. One dictionary entry for ``pilgrim'' 
     declares that the word is applicable to any traveler, whether 
     on a religious mission or not. A pilgrim can be anyone who 
     leaves home behind to make a journey. In another definition, 
     the term ``pilgrim'' labels the early European settlers of 
     the United States who fled their countries, suffering 
     hardships on their trip across the ocean to be able to 
     practice religious freedom and develop their own communities. 
     This definition is perhaps not as relevant to the idea of 
     visitors to the Capitol, but the reference to the founding of 
     the United States is poignant and instructive--and would not 
     have been lost on American readers.
       What constituted a ``pilgrimage'' to the Capitol, and who 
     were these ``pilgrims''? They all came to the nation's 
     capital to see the workings of the government and the history 
     of the buildings, but pilgrims were may different types of 
     people. They were schoolchildren brought to the building by 
     their teachers to learn a civics lesson. They were historians 
     on a pilgrimage to see the sites where certain senators sat 
     and certain documents were signed. They were mourners who 
     came to pay last respects to assassinated presidents and 
     unknown soldiers. They were also women like Clara Bird Kopp, 
     who wrote an article for the National Republic describing her 
     daylong journey around the Capitol. Entitle ``A Pilgrimage to 
     the Capitol,'' her article showed ways in which an everyday 
     person could make a casual pilgrimage to the Capitol, see 
     their senator or congressman and make a connection with the 
     building. Pilgrims, therefore, could come with a specific 
     interest, could be on a trip to learn something new about the 
     government, or could just come to experience the Capitol.
       What did these pilgrims hope to find? Certainly not on a 
     religious mission, they went to Washington in search of 
     knowledge about the government. The idea behind many of these 
     trips was that the complex structure of the United States 
     Government and its three branches could somehow be slightly 
     decoded, slightly more understood if one traveled to 
     Washington. Seeing parts of the government in action, whether 
     Justices presiding in the Supreme Court or Senators arguing 
     on the floor, would lead to a deeper understanding of the 
     functions of the government. Along with the live experience 
     of viewing the Congress within the Capitol came the 
     opportunity to peruse the architectural, artistic, and 
     historic elements of the building. Not only did the Capitol 
     present highlights of the country's history through artwork, 
     it also held memories of great events that took place within 
     its walls, whether joyful or sorrowful. While some who 
     entered the Capitol and wrote about their experience saw 
     themselves as pilgrims of democracy, others were casual 
     visitors. Still others were professionals in search of a 
     certain statute or room. Some were visitors on a mission, at 
     the Capitol to lobby, protest, or otherwise participate in 
     the process of democracy.
       One of the most visible and common groups of ``pilgrims'' 
     in the Capitol was schoolchildren. Every American education 
     included an exploration of the federal government, and often 
     a trip to Washington accompanied this lesson. In an article 
     for National Geographic Magazine, Gilbert Grosvenor included 
     a picture of group of young Americans, with a caption that 
     read: ``A group of proud pilgrims on the steps of the

[[Page 27249]]

     Capitol.'' The paragraph of explanation below the image spoke 
     of the phenomenon of pilgrims, of visitors to the Capitol:
       ``Tens of thousands of Americans take a short course in 
     patriotism and government annually by making a pilgrimage to 
     Washington; but none of them get more of happiness and 
     inspiration out of it than the members of the boys' and 
     girls' clubs of the rural high schools. The boys and girls in 
     this picture hail from the parishes of Louisiana and won a 
     national poultry judging contest. They are seeing Washington 
     under the guidance of one of their Senators and the Secretary 
     of Agriculture.''
       For the students and their companions, presumably their 
     teachers or guardians, the trip to Washington was a special 
     honor. Grosvenor used them as models for his idea of the 
     pilgrimage, which he described as ``a short course in 
     patriotism and government.'' These pilgrims were becoming 
     better, more faithful citizens through their trip to the 
     Capitol and Washington. Grosvenor equated enhanced patriotism 
     with a first-hand experience in Washington, as though 
     visiting national buildings like the Capitol would naturally 
     inspire feelings of pride in the government and in the 
     country. While most visitors did, in effect, take ``a short 
     course in . . . government,'' not all necessarily left the 
     Capitol with patriotic feelings, as we will later discuss.
       Several articles in education periodicals complemented 
     Grosvenor's positive view of the school-age child's reaction 
     to a pilgrimage to Washington by suggesting knowledge of the 
     Capitol should be basic like reading, writing, and 
     arithmetic. In the National Education Association Journal as 
     well as in School Life, articles highlighted the Capitol and 
     suggested reasons why a visitor might be interested in the 
     building. One unidentified author of such an article spoke of 
     the general visitor to Washington: ``Next to himself and his 
     home town or city, the average citizen is interested in his 
     country, its laws and lawmakers, its seat of government. In 
     April and May . . . Washington's parks and drives reflect the 
     lavish mood of nature and countless visitors climb the steps 
     leading to the Capitol.'' The author boldly stated that any 
     ``average citizen'' has a natural interest in the government 
     and that the trip to Washington, DC was a trend of 
     ``countless visitors.'' Most of the articles in education 
     magazines took this interest of the ``average citizen'' as a 
     given, and described aspects of the Capitol or Washington for 
     the pilgrim. Behind all of these articles was the idea that 
     children and adults alike would become better, more 
     knowledgeable citizens by being pilgrims, thus partaking in a 
     common experience with many other Americans.
       Although many shared in the common experience of visiting 
     the Capitol, each individual might have found a different 
     interest. Writing in the National Education Association 
     Journal, Mildred Sandison Fenner suggested: ``The Capitol 
     means many things to many people.'' Her article appeared 
     during World War II, at a time when Washington had become a 
     center of focus for the world. She used the Capitol, as a 
     house of government and a national monument, to reach out to 
     many types of Americans and world citizens. She divided 
     people into seven categories and addressed a section to each, 
     explaining what aspects of the U.S. Capitol would be of 
     interest to those people. Her categories: travelers, 
     architects, artists, historians, teachers, ``all American 
     citizens,'' and ``all Citizens of the world who believe in 
     the four freedoms.'' By commenting on all of these specific 
     interests, she was able to describe almost every intrigue 
     about the Capitol, as well as explain her ideas about what it 
     meant to all people. Travelers, she said, would remember the 
     Capitol as their first sight if they arrived at Union 
     Station. Speaking of the architects' interests, she was able 
     to describe the basic appearance and dimensions of the 
     Capitol, as well as speak of the architects who contributed 
     to the building. Artists, she said, would be interested in 
     the ``paintings and sculptures of great historic and 
     patriotic interest.'' Her passage ``to Historians'' was the 
     longest, mentioning several moments in the Capitol's history. 
     She wrote of the laying of the cornerstone, the move of the 
     national capital to Washington, the burning of the Capitol in 
     1814 by the British, the completion of the dome during the 
     Civil War, and more.
       According to Fenner, the Capitol embodied a variety of 
     meanings for the various visitors. For those who led the 
     school trips to Washington, the Capitol could be seen as a 
     key to a broad history. ``To teachers,'' she wrote, ``the 
     story of the capitol is an even broader one, embracing the 
     history of the country itself.'' Of course, she also admitted 
     that ``[t]o all American citizens,'' the Capitol represented 
     the basic actions of government, the legislative body and the 
     basic process of democracy. She expanded this idea in her 
     last section, addressing ``all citizens of the world who 
     believe in the four freedoms.'' To these people, Fenner 
     claimed, ``the Capitol of the United States is the `arsenal 
     of democracy.' To these millions it is a symbol of hope and a 
     prophecy of the future.''
       As a symbol of hope and prophecy, the Capitol became a 
     ``national shrine,'' a term that appeared in a 1947 article 
     in the Saturday Evening Post. Author Beverly Smith remarked 
     upon the ways in which the building served as a center for 
     praising the government, for remembering the past: ``The 
     Capitol is part shrine, part hangout. It has been called `the 
     Caaba (holy of holies) of Liberty,' . . . Rufus Choate said, 
     `We have built no temple but the Capitol.''' The Capitol 
     served as a national shrine, or civic temple, in a variety of 
     ways. As a mostly secular shrine, the Capitol assumed a role 
     of a place for worshipping democracy, for praising the 
     nation, its history, and its leaders. In addition to the 
     artistic remembrances of great moments past, it embodied a 
     certain history of its own, from the burning of the Capitol 
     during the War of 1812, to the memories of documents signed, 
     deals arranged, and people who visited. It was a shrine that 
     celebrated the past, present, and future of the country.
       Like the idea of a ``pilgrim,'' the use of the word 
     ``shrine'' to describe the Capitol conveyed religious 
     connotations. Though it did not function as a religious 
     shrine, and though the United States on principle supported a 
     separation of church and state, the Capitol did have some 
     involvement with religion. Gilbert Grosvenor described one 
     way in which the Capitol functioned almost like a church: 
     ``For some years religious services were held in the old Hall 
     of Representatives on Sunday afternoons; Lincoln attended 
     them during the war period, when the hall was crowded because 
     many churches had been converted into barracks.'' The 
     national shrine also held funeral services for leaders, in 
     addition to the national tradition of leaders laying in state 
     within the rotunda. Grosvenor also commented that the placing 
     of statues in that ``old Hall of Representatives,'' 
     transformed the room into more than just Statuary Hall: ``The 
     floor of this room was raised to its present level when the 
     hall was converted into an American Westminster Abbey.'' 
     Relating the room to an American Westminster Abbey certainly 
     had religious overtones, but he was most likely referring to 
     the memorializing of leaders and notables that took place in 
     the room through sculpture.
       Aside from memorializing American history through art, the 
     history of events within the Capitol itself reflected 
     important moments in the development of the United States. As 
     the National Education Association Journal declared, ``The 
     history of the Capitol is the history of our country.'' 
     Memories of the great and disappointing moments of the past 
     that occurred in the building illustrated various times in 
     the country's history. ``If you study this building long 
     enough,'' Beverly Smith wrote for the Saturday Evening Post,

     ``. . . you can learn America's history since Washington's 
     day. In the very first Congress which sat here, Jefferson was 
     elected over the devious Burr on the thirty-sixth ballot, 
     saving the young republic from who knows what oblique 
     destiny. Here Andrew Jackson escaped assassination when two 
     pistols missed fire. Here Representative--formerly 
     President--John Quincy Adams died, on that couch now in South 
     Trimble's office. In this building were voted all our wars 
     since 1800. Lincoln worked here as a congressman. Here 
     Woodrow Wilson pleaded, and Franklin Roosevelt spoke, tired 
     and tense in his chair, after his return from Yalta.''
       Her readers received a crash course in some highlights and 
     low points of American history and pride. Notable events 
     include the deaths of officials within the building, the 
     actions of the Congress, and the presence of great leaders. 
     These events were not readily apparent to the tourist. In 
     order for a visitor to appreciate what history the building 
     held, they had to have a tour guide, or a literary tour guide 
     such as Smith, explain these moments.
       Many of these articles gave an insider's account of the 
     past, including both popular and little-known stories of the 
     Capitol's history, for it was not through the casual 
     pilgrimage that a person could notice these spots and 
     instinctively know what happened in the past. Gilbert 
     Grosvenor also included some stories of moments past in ``The 
     Wonder Building of the World.'' He wrote of Statuary Hall, 
     the former chamber of the House of Representatives: ``Here 
     Lincoln, John Quincy Adams, Horace Greeley and Andrew Johnson 
     served in the same Congress. Here Henry Clay welcomed 
     Lafayette, who replied in a speech said to have been written 
     by Clay. Here John Marshall administered the oath of office 
     to Madison and Monroe.'' The preservation of the country's 
     history through memories such as those Smith, Grosvenor, and 
     Fenner described was an essential element to the appreciation 
     of the shrine.
       In addition to holding stories, the national shrine 
     preserved key moments in American history through art. For 
     the artistic ``pilgrim,'' the halls of the Capitol were 
     filled with visual history. Visitors could peruse the art 
     within the Capitol and learn something about the past 
     entirely on their own. Fenner mentioned her own preference 
     for some of the works: ``Among the better oil paintings are 
     those of Stuart, Peale, and Trumbull.'' Congress had 
     commissioned Trumbull's paintings in the early nineteenth 
     century to commemorate scenes of the American Revolution. 
     Throughout the Capitol, frescoes offered allegories of great 
     leaders or of basic principles of the republic. Works of art 
     hung on walls in offices and hallways, all portraying 
     different moments in America's past.

[[Page 27250]]

     However, the paintings that hung in the Rotunda were not of 
     particular interest to authors, perhaps because any visitor 
     to the Capitol could observe them. More important to these 
     literary pilgrimages were little known stories and facts 
     about the national ``shrine.''
       Both preserving a memory of the past and praising great 
     leaders through sculpture, Statuary Hall was the center of 
     much debate on the early twentieth century, and a common 
     destination for the ``pilgrim'' especially interested in the 
     arts. Dedicated by the House and Senate to be a place where 
     each State could send sculptures of two people of 
     accomplishment, the Hall became a source of many extreme 
     opinions. While some people enjoyed the sculptures and 
     admired the idea of placing leaders from each State within 
     the Capitol, many others described it as a `` chamber of 
     horrors,'' due to the poor quality of the sculptures and the 
     bad arrangement of figures. Gilbert Grosvenor was of the 
     former opinion, and gave a positive view of Statuary Hall. 
     ``An unwarranted phrase,'' he wrote, ``has made it popular to 
     call Statuary Hall a chamber of artistic horrors. Such 
     designation does injustice to the art and the history of the 
     room where the House of Representatives met for 40 years and 
     which now exemplifies a really fine memorial idea. Setting 
     clear his feelings about the hall in the beginning, he 
     continued on to explain how it came to be. A law was passed 
     in 1864 to create Statuary Hall, which he said was so that: 
     ``the States could use it as a place to do national honor to 
     the memory of their sons and daughters renowned for civil and 
     military service, each State being entitled to place two 
     statues here.'' At the time that most of these articles were 
     being written, there was but one woman among the collection 
     of statues, Frances E. Willard. Statuary Hall attracted many 
     visitors who came to gaze at the statues as well as to 
     experience the ``whispering'' phenomenon of the elliptical 
     room; a person standing at one focus of the room could hear a 
     person whispering at the other.
       Many authors, artists, and other citizens did not view 
     Statuary Hall in so pleasing a light as Gorsvenor. Lambert 
     St. Clair wrote an article for Collier's, ``The Nation's 
     Mirth-Provoking Pantheon,'' in which he described the Hall in 
     detail, attacking it artistically. Not only were the 
     sculptures themselves terrible, but their placement around 
     the room also left much desired: ``The arrangement obviously 
     is bad. Forty-one statues are crowded into a space which 
     might accommodate ten artistically . . . Guides expect to 
     grow wealthy rescuing lost tourists when the entire ninety-
     six are placed.'' He did not merely dislike the positioning 
     of the statues, but also the statues themselves. He explained 
     that they had no artistic continuity, as a wide variety of 
     artists had completed them, and that State Legislatures had 
     often favored cheaper statues over ones that were more 
     aesthetically pleasing:
       ``Zachariah Chandler, the latest addition to the hall, 
     wears neatly creased trousers and a new white topcoat with 
     fashionable roll lapels. Lewis Cass, who stands beside him, 
     is clothed in a suit so badly wrinkled that one look will 
     make a tailor's hands twitch. General Lew Wallace's right 
     coat sleeve is laid open halfway to his elbow and rolled back 
     while his left sleeve is drawn tightly about the wrist. 
     Daniel Webster's coat is woefully in need of pressing. The 
     dress worn by Miss Frances E. Willard, the only woman in the 
     group, appears to have been slept in.''
       St. Clair maintained that he was not alone in his opinion, 
     and related the story of a ``merry war'' that was ensuing at 
     the time. The conflict arose between the lieutenant governor 
     of Kansas, Sheffield Ingalls, and an artist who had completed 
     one of the statues. St. Clair explained that Ingalls was 
     attempting to have the statue of his late father, Senator 
     John J. Ingalls, removed from Statuary Hall. Ingalls' 
     motivations reflected his worry about the sensation 
     surrounding the room: ``Reverence for his parent made such 
     action imperative, the son said, inasmuch as the entire 
     collection of statues had, due to their poor arrangement and, 
     in many cases, inartistic execution, become ridiculous and 
     mirth-provoking curiosities to tourists.'' Ingalls' concern 
     that his father would become the source of ridicule and 
     mocking shows the impact that the phrase ``chamber of 
     artistic horrors'' had on how Americans thought about 
     Statuary Hall. Though it originally was intended to honor 
     great leaders, the artistic failings made it a controversial 
     room.
       Former leaders were also honored in the ``national shrine'' 
     through the tradition of laying-in-state. On these occasions, 
     the Rotunda was turned almost into a funeral home or church 
     as Americans came to pay last respects to the deceased. Many 
     presidents have lain in the center of the Rotunda, mostly 
     those who died in office. The ceremony had a strong impact on 
     the participants, as Catherine Cavanagh described in an 
     article for Bookman:
       ``The solemn Rotunda of the Capitol has been made almost 
     unbearably solemn by funeral services which have been held 
     there--notably those of the three presidents who died by the 
     hands of assassins--Lincoln, Garfield and McKinley. And one 
     who has looked upon the silent form of one of our rulers 
     lying under the lofty canopy of the dome can never forget the 
     awe of the occasion. The long black line in front, and the 
     long black line behind, in the procession of reviewers are 
     forgotten--one seemed alone with the august dead in the vast 
     grandeur of the chamber typifying the core of the Nation.''
       To Cavanagh, visiting a leader lying in state not only was 
     a solemn occasion, but also was an opportunity to have 
     solitary time within what she sees as the Nation's figurative 
     heart. As one waited in line to visit the coffin, it was an 
     occasion to ponder all of those who have passed. Authors 
     strongly associated the Rotunda with these services: to the 
     National Education Association Journal, mentioning the 
     tradition of laying in state was a natural part of a 
     description of the rotunda. A general explanation of the size 
     and shape of the Rotunda was accompanied by a reminder of 
     several services that had taken place within the room: ``Here 
     Lincoln's body lay in state; here multitudes passed before 
     the flower-laden catafalque of the unknown soldier prior to 
     interment at Arlington.'' The ritual of paying respects to 
     the unknown soldier began after World War I, and has 
     continued to be a part of the post-war tradition for all 
     major conflicts. By placing the coffin of the Unknown Soldier 
     in the Rotunda before it is interred at Arlington Cemetery, 
     the country has been able to symbolically mourn for all those 
     who died in war. At the same time, this tradition makes the 
     statement that deceased presidents as well as those who die 
     fighting for the United States deserve the same respect and 
     honors.
       The national shrine did not only praise those leaders and 
     notables of the past. As a way of honoring the nation and 
     democracy, some revered the leaders who worked within the 
     Capitol at the time. Grosvenor concluded his long article on 
     the Capitol by saying that the present deserved as much 
     attention and commendation as the past. He included members 
     of the House, Senate, and Supreme Court in his praise. He 
     began by stating a common practice of people to overlook the 
     present: ``Amid the glamour of history, some are prone to 
     discount the achievement of the present and the abilities of 
     those to whom have been entrusted the duties of lawmaking and 
     law-administering. But the student of the past knows that the 
     wail of the `decadence of the times' is one which has gone 
     forth in every age.'' Grosvenor concluded his article by 
     reminding the reader that those current leaders could some 
     day be given great honor: ``The men of to-day who are making 
     the history of America will, in turn, have their meed [sic] 
     of recognition, and in some future time their effigies in 
     bronze and marble will be placed in Statuary Hall as comrades 
     in glory with the Founders and Preservers of the Republic.'' 
     In some ways, Americans paid tribute to the actions of their 
     leaders every day by listening to debates on the floor of the 
     House and Senate and by visiting their delegations' offices.
       However, not all who came to the ``national shrine'' found 
     people, or actions, worth praising. In one book, Historic 
     Buildings of America, ``famous authors'' took a critical look 
     at American institutions and traditions that were generally 
     accepted and praised. A chapter by Charles Dickens, ``Within 
     the Capitol,'' attacked the motivations of all politicians 
     within the chambers. Though Dickens' excerpt was likely 
     written during the early 19th century, its inclusion in this 
     early 20th century book suggests its message resounded with 
     readers years later. Dickens wrote:
       ``I saw in them the wheels that move the meanest perversion 
     of virtuous Political Machinery that the worst tools ever 
     wrought. Despicable trickery at elections; underhanded 
     tamperings with public officers; cowardly attacks upon 
     opponents, with scurrilous newspapers for shields, and hired 
     pens for daggers; shameful trucklings to mercenary knaves 
     whose claim to be considered, is, that every day and week 
     they sow new crops of ruin with their venal types, which are 
     the dragon's teeth of yore, in everything but sharpness; 
     aidings and abettings of every bad inclination in the popular 
     mind, and artful suppressions of all its good influences: 
     such things as these, and in a word, Dishonest Faction in its 
     most depraved and most unblushing form, stare out from every 
     corner of the crowded hall.''
       Dickens would have been one of the critics who Grosvenor 
     attacked in the conclusion to this article. Writing an 
     impassioned account of the characters of leaders within the 
     building, Dickens was far from praising those who made or 
     enforced the laws. Though Dickens was not praising the 
     actions of those politicians within the shrine, he was 
     exercising the right of free speech, a basic principle on 
     which the democracy was founded. As a British citizen, he 
     brought a slightly different perspective to his view of the 
     Congress, but his attack reflects the basic right to offer 
     criticism. Therefore, though he did not admire the actions of 
     these particular leaders, he was valuing an ideal that the 
     ``national shrine'' was intended to represent.
       Just as Dickens criticized the government openly and 
     thereby enjoyed one of the privileges of democracy, so have 
     millions of Americans come to the Capitol in order to express 
     their grievances. Their roads led to Washington for a 
     different purpose: for a pilgrimage of protest. These 
     protests could easily be the subject of an entire paper, and 
     so

[[Page 27251]]

     I will just take a look at one of the protests as an example 
     of the many that have occurred. In an article for New 
     Republic in 1931, John Dos Passos described a ``hunger 
     march'' that took place at the Capitol. The situation was 
     tense as a group of men proceeded up Constitution Avenue to 
     the expanse between the Capitol and the Library of Congress. 
     Dos Passos gave a picture of the scene to the reader:
       ``The marchers fill the broad semicircle in front of the 
     Capitol, each group taking up its position in perfect order, 
     as if the show had been rehearsed . . . Above the heads of 
     the marchers are banners with slogans printed out: `in the 
     last war we fought for the bosses: in the next war we'll 
     fight for the workers . . . $150 cash . . . full pay for 
     unemployed insurance.''
       These men had come to the Capitol to seek government aid 
     during the Great Depression, and though the banners may have 
     changed for each different group that came to protest, the 
     general process of a protest pilgrimage was familiar. This 
     group had come to Washington, like many, to raise awareness 
     about their plight and to get the attention of lawmakers 
     within the Capitol. In his article, Dos Passos took a highly 
     cynical tone, describing the dome of the Capitol that 
     ``bulges smugly'' and the Senate Chamber as a ``termite nest 
     under glass.'' He also suggested that the Capitol building 
     itself played an active role in the protest, for as the men 
     shouted their demands, Dos Passos claimed that ``a deep-
     throated echo comes back from the Capitol facade a few beats 
     later than each shout. It's as if the status and the 
     classical-revival republican ornaments in the pediment were 
     shouting too.'' For Dos Passos, the Capitol took on a human 
     quality, with the status seeming to participate in the march 
     as well. The pilgrimage of protest such as this ``hunger 
     march'' was but another way that the ideals embodied in the 
     Capitol, the ``national shrine,'' could be expressed.
       Underlying many of the articles that discussed the Capitol 
     as a pilgrim's destination was the idea that the building 
     belonged to the American public. These articles attempted to 
     relate a more human side to the Capitol, one that could 
     describe the formal white building as a familiar place. The 
     American public should think of the building as theirs. 
     Beverly Smith suggested throughout her article that though 
     the Capitol was a shrine, it should also be thought of as 
     accessible, even as ``a friend.'' She quoted a fellow 
     journalist: ```I am not one of those who can sneer at the 
     Capitol,' wrote Mary Clemmer Ames, a lady correspondent in 
     Washington 70 years ago. `Its faults, like the faults of a 
     friend, are sacred.''' Her entire article contrasted the 
     Capitol as shrine with the Capitol as a hangout, which 
     created a picture of the building as a national space that 
     should be a comfortable place for pilgrims. She declared that 
     the building was a friendlier place than its image suggested, 
     an idea that appeared in other representations of Washington 
     from the time. Similarly, in an article entitled ``Nerve 
     Center of the World,'' Albert Parry wrote that Washington 
     could still be thought of as a small town, even though its 
     importance was growing on the national and international 
     scene, ``If anything,'' he wrote, ``Washington is a charming 
     Southern town which has grown large and cosmopolitan without 
     losing its drawl.'' In these and other articles on the 
     Capitol and Washington, journalists were demystifying the 
     formal ideal of the Capitol, making it a more accessible 
     place.
       Smith in particular wanted Americans to see ways in which 
     the Capitol belonged to them. In one story she related a 
     physical way in which everyday Americans left their mark on 
     the building:

     By day in the sunshine or at night under its floodlights, the 
     great dome looms white and pure. But, if you climb the long 
     spiral stairs to the little galleries around the dome, you 
     see that every inch of the surface within human reach is 
     covered with writing, in pencil, ink, crayon and lipstick--
     all the small familiar chirography of the American people: 
     Jimmy loves Marge . . . Kilroy was here . . . Mr. and Mrs. G. 
     Wallace Shiffbaur, of Minesota . . . Hubba, hubba. Hearts and 
     arrows. Periodically the writing is painted out, but a new 
     swarm of tourists and honeymooners covers it up again, quick 
     as magic. ``What can you do?'' says a guard. ``It's their 
     Capitol, ain't it?'
       Though the dome appeared to be completely ``white and 
     pure,'' she informed her readers that upon closer look, it 
     was filled with graffiti, the kind that normally covered 
     bathrooms and college hangouts. It was quite an image that 
     she presented; as a whole, the Capitol seemed formal, pure, 
     and stately, and yet on close inspection, it was partially 
     made up of the marks of everyday Americans. The guard who 
     watched people daily write upon the dome merely shrugged his 
     shoulders at the practice. He saw no problem with the 
     signatures, as he believed the building upon which they were 
     writing was their property as citizens of the country.
       The Capitol as a destination and a place for pilgrimage 
     drew countless number of Americans to its step. The roads and 
     paths of many different types of pilgrims led to Washington 
     and to the United States Capitol. Pilgrims to the Capitol 
     were sometimes eager, sometimes critical. They came to see 
     their leaders in action, to wander the halls, to view the 
     places where certain events occurred, and to participate in 
     the democratic process. They encountered or red about a space 
     that could become as familiar to them as an ``old comfortable 
     home.'' By appealing to different interest, these journalists 
     made the building understandable and intriguing to all types 
     of readers and visitors. The Woman's Home Companion offered 
     advice on how to organize a trip to Washington and the best 
     times to visit the Capitol; the Saturday Evening Post wrote 
     stores full of human interest, including both formal 
     descriptions and little-known facts. Besides the stories of 
     contemporary life, articles focused on the Capitol's 
     interior: paintings and sculptures that celebrated great 
     moments in the history of the United States and great leaders 
     past. Mentor published articles specific to its readers, 
     focusing on the art within the Capitol. Through these 
     articles, authors reached out to readers to make the Capitol 
     more accessible to all. The civic space, the ``shrine,'' 
     offered visitors and readers alike a glimpse of the past, the 
     present, and the future. Authors invited readers to consider 
     the building as belonging to all Americans, and not as an 
     untouchable place. While Americans no longer participate in 
     the ritual of signing their name on the dome, they still come 
     to experience the Capitol as countless have done before them. 
     The Capitol remains a central destination for all who find 
     themselves on a road that leads to Washington.

                          ____________________