Liberty's Torch: The Great Adventure to Build the Statue of Liberty (33 page)

Hewitt pointed out that President Grant had previously signed a bill authorizing the welcoming of the statue, and this proposal in the sundry bill only sought to make the expense specific. He went on to say that for far too long New York had footed the statue’s cost, including the welcoming of the
Isère
to the harbor. “Citizens of New York have, at their own cost, by a popular subscription amounting to $323,000, completed the pedestal, without asking one dollar of Government money.”

The French, he said, had contributed around $250,000. The statue would stand triumphantly. The only question was how grand the inauguration should be.

One of the House members asked whether Bedloe’s Island was federal land and Hewitt confirmed it was. Hewitt went on to say that, although the U.S. government owned the land and therefore should rightly bear the costs of the statue, he had up to this point always tried to insist that New Yorkers bear the brunt, because of the statue’s location. He had so believed that New York could cover most of the expenses that he had inserted in the original 1877 resolution the words stating that the statue pedestal would be paid for by private subscription so that the government would not be saddled with such a cost.

He emphasized that he held to this view even when subscriptions lagged and representatives introduced bills to make the government commit one hundred thousand dollars. He told Congress that he had told his constituents, “No, we are rich enough in New York to pay all the expenses attendant upon the reception of this statue until it rears its head to the skies; after that let the Government take it and do with it what it will.”

Reporters would later speculate that those last words—trumpeting the relative wealth of New York over all other states—irritated other House members. When work resumed in the afternoon, Hewitt was facing a fight.

Congressman Bland of Missouri read the old joint resolution signed by Grant into the record: “And it is hereby authorized to cause suitable regulations to be made for its future maintenance as a beacon, and for the permanent care and preservation thereof.” He then added his own point: “It is not to provide $100,000 for the purpose of having a good time. . . . We have no authority to waste the public funds to provide for an inaugural and good time for the citizens of New York. If they have been so liberal as to contribute the amount of money necessary for the erection of that monument for the benefit of their citizens, they certainly, if it is necessary to have an inauguration, ought to pay their own expenses.”

“Not one dollar of this goes to the city of New York in the way of entertainment,” Hewitt protested.

Perry Belmont concurred. “By the statement of the gentleman from Missouri, I judge there are those who take this to be a matter of a somewhat local character simply because the statue is to be erected in the harbor of New York. It is not a local matter, Mr. Chairman; it is of a national character, and even of an international character.”

A representative from Georgia rallied to the idea that a lighthouse should be sponsored by national funds, as it helped commerce.

The Republican Charles N. Brumm, a square-jawed Greenbacker from Pennsylvania, rose to speak. Greenbackers were an agrarian-based, anti–paper money, antimonopoly party. “Mr. Chairman . . . I wish to say a word in favor of this proposition. I think that under all the circumstances this Government ought to make the reception a success.”

Those kindly, supportive words seemed strange coming from Brumm. Two years earlier, he had tangled with Hewitt, accusing him of apologizing to a British government official about a House vote. He had portrayed Hewitt’s alleged apology as akin to treason.

Then Brumm went on, “And inasmuch as the city of New York is so small and so poor that it can not do it, this Government of ours ought to run no risk as to its being a failure, and ought to put its shoulder to the wheel and say we are going to treat our French friends in a becoming and respectable manner and make a sufficient appropriation to do the thing in a handsome way.”

Blumm summarized the statue’s history. “Now let us see. The proposition was made to present us with a statue of liberty enlightening the world. New York it was supposed and decided was the proper place to put it. Yet New York City had no ground to give for its erection, and the Government came handsomely in to the aid of the poor city and gave the child a place to rest upon. But after the site is selected there is something else necessary. It would not do to set the statue down in the mud, so that there had to be a fund provided for the erection of a foundation and the necessary pedestal on which to stand it. New York was too poor to build that pedestal.”

Belmont steamed at the sarcastic tone. “Will the gentleman allow me?” he cut in.

“Yes, sir; for a question.”

“I suppose the gentleman knows the citizens of New York formed a committee which raised $323,000 for the purpose of erecting a pedestal?”

“I am aware of it,” Brumm conceded, “but how did the committee raise it? Why, every one of us contributed toward the $323,000. The patriotic poor, even to the washer-women of our country and the sewing-girls, contributed their dollars and bought your miniature statues as mementoes of your greed. They had more patriotism in them than your millionaires of New York.”

Brumm had hit his stride. “You were too mean to contribute the necessary funds to raise your pedestal . . . ,” he seethed. “You have been begging throughout the length and breadth of the land for that pedestal. And now you are not satisfied with that, but you want to have a grand spree, and you want the people to go to your city to make it a success. But you think you can not do it yourselves and you come to the Government again and go down on your marrow-bones begging for a miserable $100,000 to have this spree.

“I am willing you should have it,” Brumm finally trumpeted. “If it is to be done at all it should be done right. I will say, God knows if there is any place in the world that requires enlightenment it is New York City.”

Laughter filled the hall.

“I hope there will be patriotism enough in this House to run no risks upon this proposition; for New York City will not do it half right; therefore, to avoid disgrace, we must do it for her. At all events do not let us disappoint our honored French friends and guests in this undertaking. I shall vote for the proposition.”

Brumm sat down. Members began discussing why Stone was asking for more money than Randall had proposed. Lewis Beach, a Democrat from New York, interrupted: “Let us take a vote.”

“I am ready to give an explanation if the House desires it,” Hewitt offered.

Ryan demurred. “I think the House does not understand it.”

Hewitt ignored the slight and started with the difference on entertainment for local guests. He offered to reduce that amount by $2,500. “I will cordially assent, for the simple reason that the sum can be raised in a few moments by passing around the hat.” That reference to New York’s wealth likewise might have irritated other House members.

Hewitt pointed out that the increased expense for preparing the grounds was simply to show the island at a standard that the ceremonial French would expect. It would be akin, Hewitt offered, to how one would get one’s own lawns and gardens in order for a guest. Hewitt went on to say that the experts had calculated the cost for converting the statue into a functional beacon. “This beacon, which consists of a gigantic hand, is to be made so luminous that the entire harbor of New York, from the Narrows to the wharves, will be as if lighted by a great heavenly body introduced by the hand of man.”

Hewitt proceeded to push his amendment through committee, having only dropped the $2,500 entertainment charge from his request. The vote was called.

The ayes numbered 102. The nays, 50. That meant Hewitt’s larger proposal would be put forward for a full vote in the House. A problem arose.

“No quorum,” Risden Tyler Bennett, a North Carolina Democrat, pointed out. A quorum was a total of at least 162 votes.

The chairman then appointed Bennett and Hewitt to tally the yeas and nays again. This time 116 voted yes, and 49 no: a total of 165 votes, three more than a quorum. The amendment was adopted to go before the regular House.

Congress broke for a recess. Upon returning, the House voted on the whole bill, with a few clauses set aside for separate vote, the Statue of Liberty funding being one of them.

The House was divided on the issue of Stone’s increased expenditure. There were 90 ayes, and 77 nays. They could not reach a quorum and the votes were counted again. In fact, twice more.

Finally, the votes were tallied as 103 ayes, 107 nays, and 113 not voting. Every other clause in this bill had passed, but the Liberty amendment had failed by only four votes. The Bartholdi statue would not receive a dime from Congress.

Pulitzer’s
World
covered the proceedings with disgust, marveling that Congress, which loved doling out money, would reject this request. Pulitzer had an insider’s view, since he had served in Congress up until that past April, a year of service halted when he decided he couldn’t run a newspaper and serve his constituents as well as they deserved. The
World
briefly described the floor debate and concluded: “No doubt the appropriation will be agreed to in the Senate and will form part of the bill in the end.”

The only hope left for Liberty to get funding was for the Senate Appropriations Committee to insert a line for her when it received the bill. Then a House-Senate conference committee might sign off.

Hewitt was despondent. Without this government funding, the statue would never be ready for unveiling in the fall. His colleagues griped that the amendment had failed because certain New York members had failed to be present to vote, namely Campbell of New York, Campbell of Brooklyn, and Bliss and Mahoney of Brooklyn. If those men had been present, they could have tied the vote and caused a few nonvoters to swing over to the positive side.

Friday afternoon, Hewitt set off by train back to New York. He borrowed a
Congressional Record
from Congressman Pidcock of New Jersey and read through Liberty’s vote tally. Right there, in the ayes column, were the four men he had thought missing.

Out loud, he expressed absolute confusion. He said he thought the men hadn’t voted but here they were in print.

“How is it possible that such a transaction should occur?” one of the gentlemen listening asked him.

Hewitt promised to look into it thoroughly on his return to Washington and launch a full investigation if necessary, since it would appear that those four votes were fraudulent.

As it turned out, one of the gentlemen present when Hewitt marveled aloud at this voting discrepancy was the editor of the
Washington Post
. The article about vote tampering on Liberty appeared in the Sunday paper. It exploded into other papers and it soon became a scandal. Someone had tried to tamper with votes on the Bartholdi statue to get the funding passed. An investigation needed to be called.

On Monday, Hewitt arrived back in Washington and immediately went to the desk of the clerk, Mr. Craig, to get the facts. The clerk showed him the tally sheet, revealing that these gentlemen had been present and had voted on the first roll call as well.

On Tuesday, July 6, the session opened with a nearly full House sweating under the glass roof. “The generous attendance was caused by the fact that some wicked person on last Thursday had voted for Brooklyn members when the roll was called,” a reporter noted.

Large blocks of ice probably sat in the corners of the room, with the cool air fanned toward the politicians by aides as a way to augment the central air system, but that amenity did not soothe Hewitt sufficiently. Whether because of the heat or anxiety, he mopped his broad brow as he spoke. He described the Bartholdi vote, a close one, and the slender majority that defeated it. “I was exceedingly interested in the result, and hence tried to secure as many affirmative votes as possible.”

Hewitt said he still did not know if the men had voted and was sorry for any problem he had caused them by bringing up the matter.

Timothy Campbell of New York then rose to say he had been present and voted. He had gone absent during the announcement of the tally. “I hope we will hear no more of such business,” he added.

Felix Campbell of Brooklyn said he was astonished that he had been recorded as voting.

Archibald Bliss of Brooklyn said he hadn’t voted and had no idea how his name could have gotten mixed up with supporters of the resolution.

Peter Paul Mahoney of Brooklyn was not in attendance now, but his friends said he was present at the vote and would confirm this upon his arrival. That left two, perhaps three, potentially illegal votes that might be explained away by confusion, as the Speaker suggested, owing to the “very close and somewhat exciting vote.” But it seemed odd that the disputes were confined to New Yorkers. The public perception would be that someone had tried to pull off a fraud on behalf of the statue. And the end result would be no federal money for Liberty; “an uneasy feeling prevails among the members in consequence of this unpleasant incident,” commented a reporter.

Bartholdi meanwhile remained oblivious. He sent a letter on July 6 saying he had telegraphed New York about the vote in Congress because a French paper had announced that the project had failed
.
“I have been very glad to be able to correct their information,” he wrote.