1 / 212
The Daily Render

by

A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and Future

| FRONT PAGE | GEOSPATIAL ART | DC HISTORY / TIMELINE | NEWS | COLONIST | FOUND MAPS | FRACTALS |
| PHOTOGRAPHY | ANTIQUE | DESIGN | VIDEO | RANDOM | CONTACT |

GOVERNORS TO AID D.C. VOTE FIGHT – The Washington Times, March 4, 1919
|| 9/30/2010 || 10:07 am || + Render A Comment || ||

Newspaper scan from Chronicling America

Sentiment among the 100 governors and mayors of States and cities throughout the United States, now in conference in Washington was today expressed as being solidly in favor of the District’s appeal for suffrage.

Feeling is running high among the conferees, most of whom were not aware of the voteless condition of District residents until they came to Washington to attend the conference.

Action by the governors and mayors in passing resolutions favoring the District suffrage movement and in pledging themselves to urge their constituents to instruct their Congressmen to give the vote to Washington is expected before the termination of the conference tomorrow.

The attitude of the visitors, who came from nearly every State in the Union, was best expressed today by Lieut. Gov. George Stephan of Denver, Colorado.

“The sense of justice and the democratic principles upon which the American nation is founded all demand that the people of the National Capital be given the right to vote,” he said.

Can’t Believe His Ears.

“There is no argument which can be used against the appeal of Washington for suffrage for its citizens. I could hardly believe my ears when I was told that the people of the National Capital of the greatest republic on earth were forbidden to vote.

“To think that the residents of the city of Washington, endeared in the hearts of American people for the past century and as the very heart of American democracy, should be deprived of the right of casting the ballot. It is beyond my understanding.

“Congress should take steps at the right the undemocratic conditions as regards the right to vote, existing in the National Capital.

West to Back Fight.

“I can safely say that the West, where the love of country and of the principles of true democracy are of first concern, will be solidly behind the National Capital in its campaign to win the right to vote.”

“The North, East, and South, I can also safely say, in behalf of the men from those sections of the country attending the conference, will support Washington’s plea, by instructing their Congressmen to permit the vote in the National Capital.

“I predict that when a bill to give suffrage to the District comes up in Congress, the ‘ayes’ will make it unanimous; for Congress is representative of the democratic ideals of the American nation, and Congress will see to it that American principles prevail throughout the whole country.

Should Introduce Bill.

“Washington should be given the right to vote, just as soon as it is possible to put a District suffrage bill through Congress.” said Daniel L. Keister, mayor of Harrisburg, Pa., and one of the conferees meeting at the White House today.

“‘Taxation without representation is tyranny,’ is as much of an Americanism today as it was in the time of Patrick Henry. It strikes me as rather peculiar that the National Capital, which has been justly idealized as the seat of American ideals, should be deprived of a constitutional right.

“Washington, I know, is glad to send her sons to defend the honor of the nation; Washington is glad to give her wealth to aid in upholding the strength of the nation, and Washington, I Know, rightfully resents having her citizens regarded as people without the ability to vote as American citizens.

“By all means, let the residents of the National Capital vote. When their campaign for suffrage comes up in Congress, they will surely find all of the strength and influence of the rest of the nation behind them in their please for their constitutional rights.”


This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article on Chronicling America. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



Debate in the U.S. Senate Concerning An Act to Retrocede the County of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State of Virginia – Thursday, July 2, 1846
|| 9/29/2010 || 3:49 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

Thus far I have republished R. M. T. Hunter’s speech and the House of Representatives subsequent debate on the proposed retrocession of Alexandria County. Almost two months later, on July 2nd, 1846, the United States Senate took up the debate. Unlike the previous two entries which came from the Congressional Globe, this transcription comes from the Abridgment of the Debates of Congress. I’m curious as to how much debate was shorted for the abridgment.


Print from the Library of Congress


Retrocession of Alexandria.

On motion of Mr. ARCHER, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of the bill for the retrocession of the city and county of Alexandria to the State of Virginia.

Mr. ARCHER observed that he was willing that the vote should be taken upon the bill without discussion, provided the opponents of the bill offered no remarks upon it which would force them into a discussion.

Mr. BENTON said this was a case in which he desired to vote with a majority of the inhabitants of that portion of the District which it was proposed to surrender to the State of Virginia; but he did not at present know what the wishes of that majority were.

Mr. ARCHER observed, that one of the clauses of the bill now before the Senate provided that the bill should not take effect until the wishes of the inhabitants were ascertained by a vote, to be taken in the manner provided for in another clause of the bill, to wit: the vote of the white inhabitants of six months’ residence.

Mr. HAYWOOD said the bill had been referred to the committee of which he had the honor to be chairman, and it was perhaps proper, therefore, though he had no intention of making a speech upon the subject, that he should draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that the bill provides for taking the sense of the people of the county and city of Alexandria before the bill should go into effect. The committee, however, thought it worthy of consideration, whether it was not the desire of change which prompted the introduction of this innovation, rather than the necessity for the innovation. If there was any particular evil to be remedied by diminishing the extent of the ten miles square, the committee had not been apprised of it; if any particular good to be obtained, they were not apprised. When the retrocession was first suggested to the consideration of the Senate, doubts were entertained by many how far it was competent for Congress to recede what the constitution had for a particular purpose authorized them to accept. The States of Maryland and Virginia had ceded this territory to Congress, to be taken under its exclusive jurisdiction for the seat of Government; and Congress, in the execution of that intention, solemnly declared by enactment its acceptance of the grant, and that this District should be perpetually the seat of Government. Individual citizens of the District, a minority, if they chose to assume that they were so, had purchased property and become residents of the county under this pledge; and unless there was some evil to be remedied, or decided advantage to be gained by the change, which would compensate those citizens, where was the propriety of violating that pledge? He had been unable to see any necessity for it. It was equally the duty of the Government to protect minorities and majorities; and a majority could have no absolute right or authority to compel retrocession if additional burdens were to be imposed as a consequence upon the minority. He spoke not in reference to any constitutional objection, but merely in reference to the act of Congress constituting this District the perpetual seat of the Federal Government.

There was another difficulty which the committee found somewhat embarrassing, and, it was, whether the State of Virginia or of Maryland owned the Potomac River at the time of the cession. If the county of Alexandria were ceded to Virginia, it might possibly be the means of reviving the contest, and making it a contest between Virginia and the District. This would be a matter of very considerable importance to the city of Georgetown. If the bill was to be passed, he thought it ought at least to be amended so as to make it more definite, and that the river should be kept within the United States jurisdiction. It might be of importance that the jurisdiction of the United States should not be limited at all. He believed the Senator from Massachusetts had expressed a desire to offer some remarks upon this question. He did not perceive that Senator now in his seat; for his own part, he would be perfectly willing that the vote should be taken without discussion.

Mr. MILLER said he was inclined to think that the subject was of more importance than he had at first view supposed. His first impressions were in favor of the bill, for he supposed that the whole matter depended very much, upon the wishes of the people of Alexandria and Virginia. But, upon an examination of the subject, he found himself in great doubt as to whether Congress had the power to pass such an act; and, even if they had the power, he was perfectly convinced that it would not be good policy to do it.

Mr. M. then went into an argument upon the subject of the power of Congress in this matter, contending that if Congress had the power to cede away any part of the District, they had the power to cede the whole, and thereby entirely defeat the intention of the constitutional provision in regard to the seat of Government. Instead of doing this, he hoped that Congress would, by a wise and liberal policy, make it the interest of the residents of all parts of the District to continue within the same jurisdiction.

Mr. PENNYBACKER replied to the arguments of the Senator from New Jersey, and maintained that Congress possessed the power to cede a portion of the District to the State of Virginia. He contended further that the portion proposed to be ceded did not, in contemplation of the first law that was passed on the subject, constitute a portion of the ten miles square at all.

Mr. JOHNSON, of Maryland, moved that the Senate adjourn; which was disagreed to—ayes 16, noes 18.

On motion of Mr. BENTON, the Senate, not having come to any vote upon the bill, at about half-past three o’clock proceeded to the consideration of Executive business, and, after some time spent therein, the doors were reopened, and the Senate adjourned.


Thursday, July 2.
Retrocession of Alexandria.

Mr. ARCHER moved that the prior orders of the day be postponed, and that the Senate resume the consideration of the bill for the retrocession of the town and county of Alexandria to the State of Virginia; which motion was agreed to.

The bill was then considered as in Committee of the Whole, when

Mr. R. JOHNSON rose and stated that, as a member of the Committee of tho District of Columbia, and as having voted in committee in favor of this bill, he desired to state the grounds on which he had formed his opinion. He went into a review of the constitutional provision relative to the establishment of a seat of Government, and to the proceedings of Congress with regard to its location within this District, and insisted that there was nothing in either to prohibit a retrocession of tho ten miles square to the States from which it was taken, or any portion thereof. He supposed that an absolute necessity might arise for the removal of the seat of Government, from the possession of this District by an enemy. Could not Congress fix on another seat for its deliberations? and, in that case, could it not cede this District back to the States to which it originally belonged? He stated that Alexandria complained of having been neglected by Congress, and he presumed she had good reason for this complaint; for it was only reasonable that Congress should be more favorable to the portion of the District which was more immediately the seat and scene of its labors.

Mr. MILLER briefly replied, maintaining that Congress had no power to receive a cession of the soil and sovereignty, except for a specified object; and that the object of this cession being the establishment of the seat of Government, it could not be retroceded without the abandonment of that object. He thought a great number of the citizens of the county, being out of the city of Alexandria, were opposed to retrocession.

Mr. HANNEGAN made a few remarks in favor of the bill. The citizens desired to be restored to their original rights, and we have no right to refuse them.

Mr. CALHOUN then rose, and said that he had not been able to discover any valid reason why the retrocession should not be made. The first and great point for consideration was, whether, by this retrocession, the object of the cession would be impaired? He could not see how any evil result could possibly follow. It was a detached portion of the District, lying on the other side of the river, and in no way calculated to facilitate the legislation of the General Government. Nor did he see how any acquired rights could be injured. He did not see how the retrocession could injuriously affect the county of Washington, as he believed it was called, or Georgetown. The next question then was, Was there any serious constitutional objection? According to his judgment there could not be any such, unless there was somewhere in the constitution a prohibitory clause. It was in the power of the Government to remove its seat if it thought proper, unless there was some express provision to the contrary. Now, he saw no such provision in the constitution. It belonged to gentlemen to prove that the retrocession would be unconstitutional. If they had a right— which he held to be incontestable— to remove the seat of Government, the right of parting with any portion of it was apparent. Nor was there, in his opinion, any violation of a pledge on the part of Congress as argued by the Senator from North Carolina, (Mr. HAYWOOD.) The act of Congress, it was true, established this as the permanent seat of Government; but they all knew that an act of Congress possessed no perpetuity of obligation. It was a simple resolution of the body, and could be at any time repealed. Although be thought that Congress had the power to remove the seat of Government, yet he was not to be understood as supposing that it would ever be expedient or wise to remove it. He could not concur in the views presented by Mr. Madison on the subject of the location of the seat of Government, and read yesterday by the Senator from Virginia, (Mr. PENNYBACKER) Mr. Madison made an elaborate argument in favor of the position that the seat of Government ought to be in the centre. As far as the seats of government of the States were concerned, that might be a just argument; but the history of the world would show that the seats of national government never were, or scarcely ever were, situated in the centre, and there was reason for that general arrangement. They were always situated on the frontier the most exposed. Where was London, the seat of the British Government? On the south-east frontier of the kingdom, looking towards the continent of Europe. That of France, Paris, was in the most exposed position. So with regard to the seat of Government in Russia, and so, indeed, with regard to the capitals of all the chief nations of the world. In the nature of things it must be so. Now, if that was true in the general, it was pre-eminently true of this Confederacy; for the Federal Government looked almost exclusively to their foreign relations. And here it had been wisely located; and here, in his opinion, it would continue, so long as the institutions of the Republic endured. If the seat of Government was ever changed, it would be in consequence of some other cause than the retrocession of Alexandria, which could not possibly in any way affect that matter. There might be a change from disruption, or in consequence of some strong local interest prevailing, though under their equal system of Government, that was hardly to be feared. If great inconvenience would arise to members at distances extremely remote, murmurs might originate, and produce such a change. Yet, even on that score, there was not much ground for apprehension, as the equitable arrangement of mileage had placed members on a perfect equality, those farthest removed, and whose home and family associations and affections were most interfered with, receiving appropriate compensation. As it was evident from the temper of the Senate that the bill would pass, he would not longer detain them by any remarks.

Mr. ASHLEY inquired what effect would be produced by the retrocession with regard to the debt of Alexandria?

Mr. CALHOUN said there were abler lawyers than himself in the body; but he supposed that not the slightest effect on the debt would be produced.

Mr. PENNYBACKER expressed the same opinion.

Mr. ALLEN expressed his regret that the discussion had passed beyond the bill, and added, that he rose only for the purpose of dissenting from the views expressed by the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. CALHOUN) in regard to the location of the seat of Government. He (Mr. A.) had no intention to agitate the question of changing the seat of Government. It might not be proper to do so at the present time; but the general reasons urged by the Senator from South Carolina would give it an eternity of location at this point, and it was to that idea that he (Mr. A.) objected. The Senator had alluded to the example of other nations of the world— to those ancient monarchies where the location of the capital was a matter dependent upon the caprice of the court, and not the convenience of the people. Was it to be supposed for a moment that such examples were proper for the imitation of this Confederacy? No. He thought that the United States should on that very ground adopt a different policy. The location of the seat of Government near the seaboard in the vicinity of the commercial cities, gave to those cities a preponderating influence in the counsels of the Congress of the United States, five hundred fold to one over the influence exerted by a corresponding number of people situated in the vast interior. They had no committees from the banks of the Missouri, the Mississippi, or even of the Ohio, “lobbying” in these halls to regulate tariff duties. No. They had no companies of individuals in those western regions, and delegated to the Capitol with the view of obtaining laws to meet tho wishes of individual and sectional interests, instead of tho wants and wishes of the great mass of the nation. The whole tendency of the Government since its foundation had been to place itself exclusively under the control of the commercial interest: and this pernicious tendency had been produced by the location of the seat of Government near the great influential commercial cities on the seaboard. He might present many illustrations of this fact. Before the telegraphic communication was established, when a bill was introduced into Congress, Wall-street had notice of it, if necessary, in fifteen hours, and in fifteen hours more the cars brought a delegation from Wall-street to regulate the details of the bill. Thus had their tariffs been formed— thus had the commercial interests overruled all others from their proximity to the Capitol. The great mass of the people— four-fifths of them— lived on the soil, and obtained from it subsistence. It was in their centre that the seat of Government should be located. These were his opinions, and he stated them not as having any immediate bearing on the bill before the House, but in opposition to the views expressed by the Senator from South Carolina, whose remarks were always entitled to high consideration, and carried with them great weight.

Mr. CALHOUN again rose, and stated that it happened, that at the Memphis Convention— a body composed of six hundred members, possessed of great intelligence, and representing almost exclusively the interests of those who lived upon the soil— a resolution was offered recommending a change of the seat of the General Government. A most extraordinary sensation was produced, and when the resolution was submitted, there was one loud-toned, overwhelming “no” opposed to the solitary voice of the mover.

Mr. ALLEN. Where was that?

Mr. CALHOUN. At the Memphis Convention.

Mr. ALLEN. Ah! that proves nothing. The only difficulty has been the choice of another site, and the contesting claims have been so numerous, that the change has not been, ere this, seriously mooted.

Mr. WESTCOTT was in favor of the bill, because it relieved the people of Alexandria from a galling disfranchisement, of which he knew something by experience.

Mr. ARCHER advocated the bill in a long and able speech.

Mr. HAYWOOD opposed the bill, and in an eloquent manner contended for the sacred immunity of the constitution, and the wise arrangement of the sages of the Revolution. He also argued the constitutional question at considerable length, and with characteristic ability.

Mr. PENNYBACKER replied.

Mr. BREESE regarded the bill as unconstitutional.

The bill was then reported to the Senate; and the yeas and nays being called for on the question of ordering it to be engrossed for a third reading, they were ordered, and, being taken, resulted as follows:

YEAS.— Messrs. Allen, Archer, Ashley, Atchison, Atherton, Barrow, Benton, Calhoun, Cameron, Chalmers, Cilley, Thomas Clayton, John M. Clayton, Corwin, Crittenden, Davis, Dayton, Fairfield, Greene, Hannegan, Jarnagin, Johnson of Maryland, Johnson of Louisiana, Lewis, Morehead, Pennybacker, Rusk, Sevier, Simmons, Turney, Westcott, and Yulee— 32.

NAYS.—Messrs. Brecse, Bright, Dickinson, Dix, Evans, Haywood, Houston, Huntington, Mangum, Miller, Niles, Phelps, Semple, and Sturgeon—14.

So the bill was ordered to a third reading.

Mr. ARCHER asked that the bill be put upon its third reading now.

No objection being offered, the bill was read a third time, and passed.

The title of the hill as passed is as follows, viz.: “An act to retrocede the county of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia, to the State of Virginia.”


This Congressional Debate was transcribed from a scan from Google Books. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



Mentioned on Today’s Art Beat on WAMU
|| 9/28/2010 || 10:23 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

Screen grab from WAMU

This morning when I left my house to go to the corner store to pick up my morning beverage, my housemate was listening to the Washington, DC NPR affiliate station, WAMU. About 10 minutes later, when I returned home, my housemate said with a big smile, “You were just mentioned on the radio.” I went up to my room, was able to find the segment on-line, and downloaded the MP3.


Click here to listen to an MP3 of the segment.


Text:

(September 28-November 13) LOCATIONAL AVOCATION
District denizen and cartographer Nikolas Schiller combines his loves for art, mapmaking, and technology to produce Geospatial Art, on display at Northwest Washington’s Old Print Gallery. Aerial photography is kaleidoscopically manipulated into abstract and familiar forms through November 13.



The Provenance of Geospatial Art Printed by Imagekind
|| 9/24/2010 || 3:18 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

Provenance, from the French provenir, “to come from”, means the origin, or the source of something, or the history of the ownership or location of an object. Between February of 2007 and May of 2009, I used the printing service Imagekind to sell my maps on-line. Over the years I sold or printed 56 maps and generated over $1,000 in sales. I stopped using the service to sell directly to customers because I was continuously bothered that I was unable to find out enough information about how my maps were being sold. Back then, I would receive an e-mail informing me someone purchased a map, then I’d log in to the Imagekind website, and see that someone purchased X map and I made $ on the commission— thats it. What I was not told was what material the map was printed on, the size of the print, how the map was framed, and where the purchaser was located. In essence, I was unable to discern very much information about my customers and instead of being kept in the dark, I decided to deaccession my collection from the store. Last week I decided to log into my account and discovered that Imagekind had updated their administrative controls. One of the new options was the ability to track sales better, so I decided to upgrade and to my surprise I was able to download my entire sales history with all the nuanced details I had been longing for.

Below is the complete listing of every printing by Imagekind in reverse chronological order of purchase. The listings which have the commission at $0.00 are the maps that I ordered myself. Click on the Title of the map to view it’s original blog entry.



Title:Washington Monument Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 04/01/2009
City: Germantown
State/Province: MD
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $19.29
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $19.29
Title: Lincoln Memorial Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 04/01/2009
City: Germantown
State/Province: MD
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $9.89
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $9.89
Title: Park La Brea Quilt #3
Size: 6.7″ X 10.0″ (Petite)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 03/31/2009
City: los angeles
State/Province: CA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $14.34
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $14.34
Title: Yankee Stadium Quilt
Size: 16.0″ X 10.7″ (Small)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 12/20/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: GWU Quilt #3
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: UltraSmooth Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 12/12/2008
City: Cleveland
State/Province: OH
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $26.22
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $26.22
Title: Chicago Quilt #3
Size: 21.3″ X 32.0″ (Large)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 11/16/2008
City: New Paltz
State/Province: NY
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $42.56
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $42.56
Title: Shirlington Quilt
Size: 48.0″ X 32.0″ (Grande)
Material: Pro Matte Canvas, Gallery Wrapped
Date of Purchase: 10/15/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: A New & Arabesque Map of the Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden
Frame: Red Gold Ornate
Mats: Top:Topaz
Glazing: UV protection Acrylic
Size: 25.8″ X 30.3″ (Medium)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 09/30/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $17.61
Title: New York Public Library Quilt
Size: 40.0″ X 60.0″ (Massive)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 09/16/2008
City: New York
State/Province: NY
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: NOVA ET ACCVRATISSIMA TOTIVS TERRARVM ORBIS TABVLA [2008 Remix]
Size: 16.0″ X 21.3″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 09/11/2008
City: Loveland
State/Province: CO
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Park La Brea Quilt #3
Size: 40.0″ X 60.0″ (Massive)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 06/04/2008
City: New York
State/Province: NY
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Pentagon Quilt #3
Size: 21.3″ X 32.0″ (Large)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 04/24/2008
City: Chicago
State/Province: IL
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: NOVA ET ACCVRATISSIMA TOTIVS TERRARVM ORBIS TABVLA [2008 Remix]
Frame: Arqadia Gold Carved
Mats: Top:Almond Mid:Porcelain Bot:Almond
Glazing: UV protection Acrylic
Size: 27.5″ X 32.8″ (Medium)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 03/07/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $29.61
Commission on this Sale: $29.61
Title: Washington Monument Quilt
Frame: Florentine Black Loft
Mats: Top:Wheat
Glazing: Non Glare Glass
Size: 18.9″ X 24.3″ (Small)
Material: UltraSmooth Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 02/20/2008
City: McLean
State/Province: VA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $56.33
Framing Commission: $11.03
Commission on this Sale: $67.37
Title: Superdome Quilt – 1st Derivative #2
Size: 48.0″ X 32.0″ (Grande)
Material: Pro Matte Canvas, Gallery Wrapped
Date of Purchase: 02/08/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Charlotte Spheres
Size: 32.0″ X 48.0″ (Grande)
Material: Pro Matte Canvas, Gallery Wrapped
Date of Purchase: 02/08/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Federal Triangle Quilt #4
Size: 40.0″ X 60.0″ (Massive)
Material: Pro Matte Canvas, not stretched on bars
Date of Purchase: 01/23/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Capitol Hill Mandala
Frame: Contemporary Black
Mats: Top:Chalk
Glazing: Non-glare Acrylic
Size: 23.5″ X 23.5″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 01/23/2008
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $11.22
Title: Harvard Quilt – NE
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 12/26/2007
City: Cambridge
State/Province: MA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $25.73
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $25.73
Title: Israel / Palestine 1993
Size: 48.0″ X 32.0″ (Grande)
Material: Pro Matte Canvas, Museum Wrap
Date of Purchase: 12/18/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Home Quilt #4
Size: 33.0″ X 48.0″ (Grande)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 12/17/2007
City: Bethesda
State/Province: MD
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $64.02
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $64.02
Title: NOVA ET ACCVRATISSIMA TOTIVS TERRARVM ORBIS TABVLA [2007 Remix]
Size: 16.0″ X 21.2″ (Medium)
Material: Pro Matte Canvas, not stretched on bars
Date of Purchase: 12/11/2007
City: Tampa
State/Province: FL
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Sacramento Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 12/07/2007
City: Sacramento
State/Province: CA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $9.89
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $9.89
Title: Mount Pleasant Quilt
Frame: Wide Square Black
Mats: Top:Matte White
Glazing: Acrylic
Size: 28.8″ X 39.5″ (Large)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 12/07/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $18.80
Framing Commission: $13.88
Commission on this Sale: $32.68
Title: Pittsburgh Quilt
Size: 21.3″ X 32.0″ (Large)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 11/28/2007
City: Christchurch
State/Province: Canterbury
Country: NZ
Artwork Commission: $42.56
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $42.56
Title: Central Park Quilt – South
Size: 6.7″ X 10.0″ (Petite)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 11/27/2007
City: WASHINGTON
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $8.40
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $8.40
Title: Eastern Market Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 11/27/2007
City: WASHINGTON
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $23.75
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $23.75
Title: Lincoln Park Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 11/27/2007
City: WASHINGTON
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $9.89
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $9.89
Title: Lincoln Park Quilt #2
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 11/27/2007
City: WASHINGTON
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $9.89
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $9.89
Title: Lincoln Memorial Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 11/15/2007
City: Philadelphia
State/Province: PA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $9.89
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $9.89
Title: Egypt Commission
Size: 16.0″ X 16.0″ (Medium)
Material: Hahnemuhle Photo Rag 308
Date of Purchase: 11/07/2007
City: Tampa
State/Province: FL
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Harvard Quilt -NW
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Premium Gloss Canvas, Gallery Wrap
Date of Purchase: 11/06/2007
City: Brooklyn
State/Province: NY
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $89.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $89.00
Title: Pentagon Quilt #3
Frame: Neo Black Slope
Mats: Top:Charcoal
Glazing: Acrylic
Size: 24.3″ X 32.3″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 10/26/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $25.21
Framing Commission: $12.39
Commission on this Sale: $37.60
Title: Union Station Quilt #2
Frame: Neo Black Slope
Mats: Top:Granite
Glazing: Acrylic
Size: 24.3″ X 32.3″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 10/26/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $12.86
Framing Commission: $12.39
Commission on this Sale: $25.25
Title: Dupont Circle Quilt
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 10/24/2007
City: Falls Church
State/Province: VA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $25.73
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $25.73
Title: UCLA Quilt w/ Engraving
Size: 48.0″ X 32.0″ (Grande)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 10/08/2007
City: Los Angeles
State/Province: CA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Pittsburgh Quilt #3
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 07/11/2007
City: Hermitage
State/Province: PA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $12.86
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $12.86
Title: Superdome Quilt
Size: 24.0″ X 16.0″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 07/11/2007
City: Hermitage
State/Province: PA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $12.86
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $12.86
Title: Queen Anne Quilt
Size: 32.0″ X 48.0″ (Grande)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 06/29/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $0.00
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $0.00
Title: Pittsburgh Quilt #3
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 06/12/2007
City: Pittsburgh
State/Province: PA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $25.73
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $25.73
Title: Catholic University Quilt #2
Size: 6.7″ X 10.0″ (Petite)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 05/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $16.32
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $16.32
Title: Georgetown University Quilt
Size: 6.7″ X 10.0″ (Petite)
Material: Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl
Date of Purchase: 05/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $16.32
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $16.32
Title: Eastern Market Quilt
Size: 21.3″ X 32.0″ (Large)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 04/30/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $42.56
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $42.56
Title: Washington Monument Quilt
Frame: Wide Square Black
Mats: Top:Meringue
Glazing: Acrylic
Size: 18.2″ X 23.5″ (Small)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 04/30/2007
City: Arlington
State/Province: VA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $19.29
Framing Commission: $6.76
Commission on this Sale: $26.05
Title: Georgetown University Quilt
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/18/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $12.86
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $12.86
Title: RFK Quilt
Size: 33.0″ X 48.0″ (Grande)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/16/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $16.82
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $16.82
Title: GWU Quilt #4
Size: 21.3″ X 32.0″ (Large)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/15/2007
City: Fairfax
State/Province: VA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $18.80
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $18.80
Title: Seattle Quilt #2
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Premium Photo Luster
Date of Purchase: 03/15/2007
City: Bothell
State/Province: WA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $13.35
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $13.35
Title: C.I.A. Quilt #2
Size: 21.3″ X 32.0″ (Large)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 03/15/2007
City: Falls Church
State/Province: VA
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $42.56
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $42.56
Title: Eastern Market Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $19.29
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $19.29
Title: Woodley Park Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $9.89
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $9.89
Title: Denver Quilt #2
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $19.29
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $19.29
Title: Houston Quilt
Size: 10.7″ X 16.0″ (Small)
Material: Somerset Velvet Fine Art
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $19.29
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $19.29
Title: American University Quilt #2
Size: 6.7″ X 10.0″ (Petite)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Washington
State/Province: DC
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $8.40
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $8.40
Title: The Modern Geographer
Size: 16.0″ X 21.3″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Annapolis
State/Province: MD
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $12.86
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $12.86

Title: Catholic University Quilt
Size: 16.0″ X 24.0″ (Medium)
Material: Enhanced Matte
Date of Purchase: 03/14/2007
City: Annapolis
State/Province: MD
Country: US
Artwork Commission: $12.86
Framing Commission: $0.00
Commission on this Sale: $12.86
Print: 41
Framed Print: 8
Canvas: 7
Total Products Sold: 56
Artwork Commission: $896.46
Framing Commission: $86.06
Total Commission: $1,011.36


SIEBOLD FOLLOWER OF PATRICK HENRY – The Washington Times, June 18, 1909
|| 9/20/2010 || 2:56 pm || + Render A Comment || ||


SIEBOLD FOLLOWER OF PATRICK HENRY


Says “No Taxation Without Representation” – Refuses to Pay Cigar Tax


Benno Seibold, proprietor of a small general store, at 901 Fourteenth street southeast, would like to have the people of the District rally behind him in his appeal for their constitutional rights of representation or no taxation. He has refused to pay his cigar tax, although it has been due since last November, and declares that the law of 1878, which imposes taxation for half of the expenses of the local government upon property owners here, is null and void.

He bases his objection on that portion of the Constitution which provides that all taxes, duties, and imposts shall be uniform throughout the United States. They are not uniform, he says, and so they are not constitutional.

The Government inspectors have called Mr. Siebold’s attention to the fact that he has not paid the cigar tax on two occasions, but he has responded each time that he was not ignorant of the law. They have not offered to arrest him, but he admits that under the statutes he is subject to arrest and he would welcome arrest, as it would give him an opportunity to try out the constitutionality of the law which he refuses to obey.

The annual cigar tax is $12. Mr. Seibold has paid for a liquor license and he has sent in his real estate taxes.

When questioned this morning, he declared he believed with Patrick Henry that “taxation without representation is tyranny,” and the people of the District are being subjected to tyranny every day. He wants several representatives in Congress and also wants all taxation to be the same in the District as outside, which would mean there would be no property taxes at all.

Mr. Seibold is very bitter at the authorities for spending great amount of money in the northwest section while the southeast is neglected.

“Here we are within a mile of the Capitol and you can go out and get stuck in the mud about anywhere along the streets,” he said warmly. “But you can go five or six miles up into the northwest and find that the District is spending all kinds of money. This form of Government we have is rotten, rotten.”

He is preparing several recommendations as to the District government which he will submit to President Taft.


This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article on Chronicling America. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



Listing of Maps on Display at The Old Print Gallery
|| 9/17/2010 || 2:20 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

For tonight’s opening I have assembled a list of maps that are currently on display at The Old Print Gallery. Click on the maps to view their original blog entries or click here to view maps on The Old Print Gallery website.


Georgetown Lenz #2

+ MORE



Washington Circle Parallelogram
|| 9/15/2010 || 9:05 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Washington Circle Parallelogram by Nikolas Schiller

I’ve mostly stayed away from creating maps that were not perfectly symmetrical, but this unique map is an exception. In geometry, a parallelogram is a four-sided shape with two pairs of parallel sides. This miscellaneous map builds off of the basic parallelogram shape, but due to the way the imagery tessellates, this parallelogram has a unique repetitive design not found in any of my previous maps.

View the Google Map of Washington Circle in the District of Columbia.


: detail :
Detail of Washington Circle Parallelogram by Nikolas Schiller

View the rest of the details:

+ MORE



Georgetown Quilt – East
|| 9/13/2010 || 8:59 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Georgetown Quilt - East by Nikolas Schiller

Georgetown Quilt – East / Center / West are 3 new limited edition maps that are being created for the upcoming exhibition at The Old Print Gallery. Each individual map is composed of a section of Georgetown stretching between Rock Creek Park (East) to the area around The Old Print Gallery (Center) to the Key Bridge (West). Georgetown Quilt – Center is composed of what I call an Octagon Quilt Projection map because there are 8 lines of symmetry that radiate from the center of the map. The East & West maps, which will flank the Center, were created using the Hexagon Quilt Projection, which creates 6 lines of symmetry radiating from the center.

View the Google Map of the Georgetown neighborhood of the District of Columbia.


: detail :
Detail of Georgetown Quilt - East by Nikolas Schiller

View the rest of the details:

+ MORE



Georgetown Quilt – West
|| 9/8/2010 || 5:38 pm || 2 Comments Rendered || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Georgetown Quilt - West by Nikolas Schiller

Georgetown Quilt – East / Center / West are 3 new limited edition maps that are being created for the upcoming exhibition at The Old Print Gallery. Each individual map is composed of a section of Georgetown stretching between Rock Creek Park (East) to the area around The Old Print Gallery (Center) to the Key Bridge (West). Georgetown Quilt – Center is composed of what I call an Octagon Quilt Projection map because there are 8 lines of symmetry that radiate from the center of the map. The East & West maps, which will flank the Center, were created using the Hexagon Quilt Projection, which creates 6 lines of symmetry radiating from the center.

View the Google Map of the western portion of the Georgetown neighborhood in the District of Columbia.


: detail :
Detail of Georgetown Quilt - West by Nikolas Schiller

View the rest of the details:

+ MORE



Georgetown Quilt – Center
|| 9/5/2010 || 5:30 pm || 3 Comments Rendered || ||

: rendered at 18,000 X 12,000 :
Georgetown Quilt - Center by Nikolas Schiller

Georgetown Quilt – East / Center / West are 3 new limited edition maps that are being created for the upcoming exhibition at The Old Print Gallery. Each individual map is composed of a section of Georgetown stretching between Rock Creek Park (East) to the area around The Old Print Gallery (Center) to the Key Bridge (West). Georgetown Quilt – Center is composed of what I call an Octagon Quilt Projection map because there are 8 lines of symmetry that radiate from the center of the map. The East & West maps, which will flank the Center, were created using the Hexagon Quilt Projection, which creates 6 lines of symmetry radiating from the center.

View the Google Map of the Georgetown neighborhood in the District of Columbia.


: detail :
Detail of Georgetown Quilt - Center by Nikolas Schiller

View the rest of the details:

+ MORE





The Daily Render By
A Digital Scrapbook for the Past, Present, and Future.

©2004-2017 Nikolas R. Schiller - Colonist of the District of Columbia - Privacy Policy - Fair Use - RSS - Contact



1 / 212

::SUBSCRIBE::


+ Facebook
+ Twitter
+ YouTube
+ MySpace
+ Google
+ Vimeo

::LAST 51 POSTS::

Fair Use


15 queries. 0.750 seconds.
Powered by WordPress

Photo by Charlie McCormick
Nikolas Schiller is a second-class American citizen living in America's last colony, Washington, DC. This blog is my on-line repository of what I have created or found on-line since May of 2004. If you have any questions or comments, please contact:

If you would like to use content found here, please consult my Fair Use page.

::LOCATIONS & CATEGORIES::





thank you,
come again!

::THE QUILT PROJECTION::

Square
Square

Diamond
diamond

Hexagon
hexagon

Octagon
octagon

Dodecagon
Dodecagon

Beyond
beyond

::OTHER PROJECTIONS::

The Lenz Project
Lenz

Mandala Project
Mandala

The Star Series


Abstract Series
abstract

Memory Series
Memory

Mother Earth Series
Mother Earth

Misc Renderings
Misc

::RENDERS BY YEAR::

+ 95 in 2008
+ 305 in 2007
+ 213 in 2006
+ 122 in 2005
+ 106 in 2004

::POPULAR MAPS::

- The Los Angeles Interchanges Series
- The Lost Series
- Terra Fermi
- Antique Map Mashups
- Google StreetView I.E.D.
- LOLmaps
- The Inaugural Map
- The Shanghai Map
- Ball of Destruction
- The Lenz Project - Maps at the Library of Congress
- Winner of the Everywhere Man Award

::ARCHIVES BY YEAR::

+ 2011
+ 2010
+ 2009
+ 2008
+ 2007
+ 2006
+ 2005
+ 2004


::MONTHLY ARCHIVES::

:: LAST VISITORS ::