REPUBLICANS OBJECT

Why the Council Committee on Parks Opposes A Monument To Confederates

“SHOULD GO IN A CEMETERY”

Councilman Utz Declines To Commit Himself

Mr. Swann, The Only Democratic Member Of The Committee, Says He Wants The Monument In The Park Because He Understands It Will Be A Work Of Art.

The City Council committee on parks will meet this afternoon to reconsider the ordinance to permit the erection of a monument in Druid Hill Park or on the triangular space of land at Mount Royal and North avenues to the dead Confederate soldiers and sailors of Maryland. The committee is composed of Messrs. J.B. Triebler, A.J. Utz and Sherlock Swann, of the First Branch, and J.B. Fizone, Dr. H.M. Imhofe and James C. Jenkins, of the Second Branch.

About six weeks ago the ordinance was reported unfavorably by the committee on parks, but no report has been made to the Council. The committee at the time of its decision on a report has been made to the Council. The committee at the time of its decision on a report made no explanation of its action. Councilman Swann, democrat, was prevented by illness from attending the meeting, and none but republicans were present. The resolution for the monument, which is to be erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy, was introduced by President Eccles. The park board, which has control of the parks, ahs, it is said, authority to permit the erection of monuments in Druid Hill Park, and if the one which it is proposed to erect is of sufficiently artistic design, it will be placed in the park, the Council committee to the contrary not withstanding.

Councilman Sherlock Swann, the democratic member of the republican Council committee on parks, who was ill with typhoid fever and unable to be present when the committee decided upon its unfavorable report, over two months ago, said: “I am in favor of embellishing the park. I hold no prejudice against those in the civil war. I am thinking of the city. An ornate monument worthy of a place in thepark, whether to dead Confederates or to dead Maryland Federal soldiers, is all the same to me. I would support either. I want this Confederate monument because I understand that it will be a work of art. I think that it should be placed at Mount Royal and North avenues because there it would be most prominetn, but if the Daughters of the Confederacy want it in Druid Hill Park I agree with them – it should be placed there.”

Other members of the committee made the following explanations of their positions on the mater:

“A Bad Precedent.”

Councilman Treibler – I am not opposed to granting a site on which to erect a monumetn to the Confederate dead, but with other members of the committee, I do not consider that Druid Hill Park is a suitable place for the erection of such a monument. A public square or other location in some part of the city would, it would seem to me, be a much more appropriate place. The monuments now in the park – those erected to the memory of the father of our country and to the discoverer of America – are ones in which all would have a common interest. If permission would be given by the City Council to the Daughters of the Confederacy to erect the proposed monument in Druid Hill Park, might not the members of the Grand Army of the Republic come forward and, claiming a similar privilege, endeavor to erect there a memorial which would far surpass the one which it is proposed to raise there in memory of the Confederate dead? It would be a bad precedent.

Mr. Utz Non-Committal

Councilman Utz, when seen at his home last night, said at first that he “saw no objection to the erection of the monument in Druid Hill Park,” but on consultation with a member of the family declared that he did not wish to commit himself, and declined to answer such questions.

“Better Let Such Matters Rest”

Councilman Fizone – I have not given the matter much consideration, but I believe it would establish a bad precedent to place the monument in the park. If that was allowed, every organization that wanted to could ask for a place there for a monument and would think it ought to have it. If, as it was said, the building of the No. 11 truckhouse near the park entrance would establish a bad precedent, the placing of a monument in the park would amount to the same thing. I have no objection to the monument if it is put in a proper place, although I think that as it is to commemorate a lost cause it is better to let such things rest and not stir people up about them any more. I have talked with a number of people about this question and find quite a number who do not think the monument should be placed in the park. The places for monuments to the dead are the cemeteries.

“Proper Place Is A Cemetery”

Councilman Imhofe – I had no objection to the memorial because it was to be erected to the Confederate dead. My objection was to placing any monument to the dead in our parks. We must not turn our parks into cemeteries. The proper place for the proposed memorial is in someone of our cemeteries. We reported the ordinance unfavorable over six weeks ago. I see why Mr. Triebler, the chairman of the committee, has not reported the action of the committee back to the Council.

“Park Not The Proper Place.”

Councilman Jenkins – I am opposed to the monument being placed in the park, but not from any reason of prejudice. I do not think that the park is an appropriate place for such a monument. It would be more suitable for a cemetery. Again, I do not think it is a matter over which the City Council has any jurisdiction. The park commissioners alone have authority in the matter.