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 |

The Noyes Armillary Sphere Described In The Historic American Buildngs Survey #532
|| 2/9/2010 || 2:00 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

National Park Service Photograph of the Noyes Armillary Sphere in Meridian Hill Park in the District of Columbia taken in the 1965

National Park Service Photograph Courtesy of the Library of Congress

According to page 39 of the Historic American Buildngs Survey #532 published in 1987 [PDF via the Library of Congress]:

The sculpture which contributed most sucessfully to the architectural design [of Meridian Hill Park] was the 6′ high armillary sphere. Money for the construction of the sphere was donated by Bertha Noyes, a well-known Washington artist and founder of the Washington Arts Club, in memory of her father and her sister. Paul Manship had constructed a model for an earlier proposal for an armillary sphere. For lack of funds, that sphere was not realized, later when the Noyes Armillary Sphere was constructed by Carl Paul Jennewein, he based his design on the earlier Manship model. The sphere was located in the exedra on axis with the cascade, south of the reflecting pool. This location was proposed by Ferruccio Vitale, and the foundation was designed by Horace W. Peaslee. Congress approved the location within Meridian Hill Park on June 10, 1932, subject to the final approval of its location within the park by the Commission. The sphere, which was of great interest conceptually as well as visually, was described by historian James Goode as follows:

In spite of its seemingly contemporary design, the armillary sphere is, in face, an ancient astrological instrument. The armillary sphere was frequently used in Europe in the seventeenth century to illustrate the Ptolemaic theory of a central earth; it used metal rings which illustrated the nine spheres of the universe. The usual device, a skeleton of the celestial globe with circles arranged into degrees for angle measurement, represents the great circles of the heavens. The latter includes the horizon, meridian, equator, tropics, and polar circle. The Noyes Armillary Sphere includes a series of bronze rings on which are also found the symbols of the zodiac and the hours, given in Roman numerals. A bronze arrow forms the axis, and, in the center, a small winged genie greets the sun. (James M. Goode, The Outdoor Sculpture of Washington, D.C., The Smithsonian Institution Press, 1974)

The armillary sphere suffered serious damage during the late 1960s and was removed for repair. Its whereabouts is presently unknown. The armillary sphere was worked in bronze, and placed on a green granite pedestal. Other significant park embellishments were wrought in iron. For example, at the north end of the park, a wrought-iron fence is decorated with small armillary spheres, reflecting the significance of the Noyes Armillary Sphere.


This article and photograph was obtained from the Library of Congress and is in the public domain. They are being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to advocate for a replacement armillary sphere in Meridian Hill Park.



Armillary Sphere Donated to ‘Federal City’ by Author; Ancient Astronomical Device Links Early Chinese to Modern Americans – The Washington Post, November 10, 1936
|| 2/7/2010 || 1:37 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

No one knows where the Noyes Armillary Sphere is today. Over the last few years I have personally called the Smithsonian & the National Park Service inquiring about the sculpture’s existence, but all have said it is lost. I genuinely find that difficult to believe because its not a small sculpture, but a rather large one. Some day in the future I would like to see this sculpture replaced and over time I hope to post more photographs and articles about this lost sculpture of Washington, DC.

According to the Smithsonian Institution Research Information System:

The sculpture originally consisted of two equal rings representing the Meridian and Equator, intersecting to form a sphere. Each intersecting ring was divided into areas representing the equinoxes and the Arctic and Antarctic regions. A wide bronze ring was adorned with the signs of the zodiac…. The base of sphere designed by Horace Peaslee, the architect of Meridian Park. The sphere was accepted by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts in 1929, and was purchased with funds donated by Bertha Noyes, founder of the Washington Arts Club, in memory of her sister Edith. The sphere was vandalized during the 1960s and was removed from the park for repair. During this time, the sphere disappeared, with only the small winged figure of a child remaining.


National Park Service Photograph of the Noyes Armillary Sphere in Meridian Hill Park in the District of Columbia taken in the 1930's

National Park Service Photograph Courtesy of the Library of Congress

Armillary Sphere Donated to ‘Federal City’ by Author; Ancient Astronomical Device Links Early Chinese to Modern Americans.


The bronze sphere, 16 feet in circumference, bears the words: “Given to the Federal City, MCMXXXVI, for Edith Noyes.” It is the gift of Bertha Noyes, noted Washington artist, in memory of her sister.

Although the origin of the armillary sphere as an astronomical instrument is shrouded in mystery, its invention is usually credited to China, where it was first in use in approximately 200 B. C.

The Noyes memorial was designed by C. Paul Jennewein, New York sculptor, whose other works in Washington include the statue of a nude with fawn in Judiciary Square which was erected in memory of Joseph James Darlington, a District Supreme Court justice. Its placement in 1922 stirred a heated controversy.

Mounted on a granite pedestal three feet in height, the sphere has the signs of the Zodiac in relief on the outside of the great circle, within which are cleverly contrived the hours of the day marked in Roman numerals. In the center is a winged figure of a child greeting the sun.

At the base is a tablet, also of bronze, which corrects minor variations of the dial at different times of the year. Adjustments were made by a Columbia University astronomer in order that the instrument might be scientifically exact.


This newspaper article was obtained from the Washington Post historical newspaper archives. This article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to advocate for a replacement armillary sphere in Meridian Hill Park.


Related Armillary Sphere Entries:



Vote Victory Result Of Luck, Hard Work, Some Sweat, Tears – The Washington Post, March 30, 1961
|| 2/2/2010 || 11:29 am || + Render A Comment || ||

This newspaper article highlights some of the work that was undertaken to ratify the 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution. Two curious items that I learned from transcribing this article was that the Washington Post sent out a team of correspondents to 44 state capitals to cover the ratification process and that Tennessee was the only Southern state to ratify the Constitutional Amendment. As I have noted here & here, Arkansas was the only Southern State to flatly reject the Constitutional Amendment based mostly on the racial makeup of the District of Columbia. Nonetheless, I’ve got to wonder that with all the technological innovations in the last 50 years, would it be easier to pass a Constitutional Amendment nowadays than it was then?


Vote Victory Result Of Luck, Hard Work, Some Sweat, Tears

23d Amendment Had Close Calls, Many Friends

To the Washington resident starved for the vote the Constitution offered cake: He could be elected President of the United States.

Until the adoption of the 23d Amendment yesterday the Constitution denied him bread: the right to vote for the great office to which he always has been eligible to be elected.

Amending the Constitution is extremely difficult. The approval of two thirds of the members of both Houses of Congress must be won, then the approval of three fourths of the states (either their legislatures, as in the case of the 23d Amendment, or of specially called state conventions, as the case with the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition).

Amended 12 Times

And in the 170 years since the Bill of Rights went into effect the job has been done only 12 times. Several attempts have failed.

The 23d Amendment hardly had the intoxicating, thirst-slaking appeal of the prohibition-repeal Amendment. That it went through 39 states faster than the 21st went through 36 is astonishing.

It is astonishing even if you know of the confluence of luck and circumstance- including the dedicated, devoted work of many persons to a democratic principle, of the fortuitous political self-interest of some, even of the desire to use the presidential vote to head off home rule- that lie behind the 23d’s passage.

The whole story can never be told. But there are several examples of luck and lucky dedication that helped bring the vote to Washington:

+ A ratification resolution squeaked by the Illinois Senate with a 2-vote margin.

+ Tennessee almost certainly would not have ratified had it not been for the decision of Gov. Buford Ellington to rescue an Amendment resolution that a House committee had tabled. Tennessee was the only Southern state that ratified.

+ A House-passed resolution was before the Indiana Senate. Adjournment- until 1963- was but a few days away. It was not realized that the bill had not been lost en route from the printer and was, therefore, not on the Senate calendar.

Because of a routine “How are things going?” phone call from Sturgis Warner, presidential vote counsel to the District Democratic and Republican State Committees, the lost bill was found- and ratified in time.

The GOP-controlled Wyoming Senate got a do-not-pass recommendation from its Judiciary Committee. Under ordinary circumstances that would have been the end of the resolution.

Mary Bruner, District GOP Committee secretary and a former clerk in the Wyoming House, was horrified. She felt that the central problem was that Wyoming legislators did not understand that the Amendment would give District residents the presidential vote- period.

The Wyoming Press Association was meeting at the time in Cheyenne. Mrs. Bruner’s younger brother, Jim Griffith Jr., editor of the Lusk (Wyo.) Herald, had just been elected president.

She contacted him and influential Wyoming friends, including Lewis E. Bates, editor of the Wyoming State Tribune in Cheyenne, and State Treasurer C. J. Rogers.

Even before the Judiciary Committee action, the state’s lone Congressman, Rep. William Henry Harrison (R-Wyo.), had wired compelling appeals for support.

The Senate constituted itself as a committee of the whole, took the Amendment from the Judiciary Committee, passed it and sent it to the House, which later ratified it.

Perhaps it was luck, too, that Washington’s newspapers- divided on home rule and many other issues- were wholeheartedly united in trying to win the presidential vote.

Last September, The Washington Post set up a network of legislative correspondents in 44 state capitals. Especially in recent weeks, they provided The Post with the caliber of phone and wire coverage of fast-breaking news that can come only from experienced, on-the-spot reporters.

Beyond that, these correspondents themselves became interested in the Amendment. Their interest stimulated that of their own and other newspapers, of state legislators and of governors.

Slip-up in Vermont

There was one slip-up. The Vermont Senate had passed a ratification resolution. One day, the Vermont correspondent reported that the House had ratified. The report was duly printed.

Next morning, the office of Rep. Robert T. Stafford (R-Vt.) said there must have been a mistake- that the House had approved on a second, not a third and final, reading.

The cleark of the Vermont House, Dale Brooks, confirmed this. He said the House was in session at the moment (the morning of Friday, March 10) but was tied up with a fish and game bill. He doubted that final action could come before the following Tuesday.

The Washington Post reporter, almost speechless at the possibility of having to repeal Vermont, managed to ask Brooks if he would call collect whenever the House did ratify. Brooks said he’d be glad to.

Brooks called back within 10 minutes. He said that he had apprised Speaker Leroy Lawrence of the situation, and that the Speaker had suspended legislative hunting and fishing and called up the Amendment resolution, which was passed- unanimously.

For New Mexico’s ratification much credit is due to the wife of George Dixon, The Washington Post columnist. She is the daughter of Sen. Dennis Chavez (D-N. Mex.) Her name is Ymelda as most Dison’s fans know by this time.



This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article. The document was obtained from the Washington Post archives and is not in the public domain. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



VOTE PLEA TO CONGRESS – Americanize 400,000, Urges D.C. Joint Citizens’ Committee – The Washington Post, February 13, 1918
|| 1/29/2010 || 12:45 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

The Constitutional Amendment contained in this transcribed newspaper article is quite beautiful. It shows nearly 100 years of compromise and the remains of a civil rights struggle that affects 600,000 American citizens. Only a shred of this original Constitutional Amendment exists today and its in the form of the 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was ratified 43 years after the publication of this newspaper article in 1961. Unfortunately, the 23rd Amendment only allows the residents of the District of Columbia to obtain Presidential Electors (to be able to vote for the President) on par with the least populous state and provides no representation in Congress. The portion of the Constitutional Amendment below that was not ratified remained unfinished business for another 17 years when in 1978 the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment was passed by Congress. After seven years only 16 states of the needed 38 had ratified the amendment and the time window of ratification expired, leaving the residents of the District of Columbia without representation in Congress. There has not been a Constitutional Amendment passed by Congress since and I urge my delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton to introduce Constitutional Amendment similar to the one below. If not now, when?



VOTE PLEA TO CONGRESS


Americanize 400,000, Urges D.C. Joint Citizens’ Committee.


NO VOICE ON WAR OR TAXES


Proposed Amendment Would Give Power to Congress to Grant Franchise on President and Fix Representation in Both Houses– Statehood Not Contemplated.


Renewed appeal to Congress to Americanize the 400,000 inhabitants of the Capital by granting them a voice in the national government was made yesterday by the citizens’ joint committee on national representation for the District of Columbia. Every senator and representative was urged to support the constitutional amendment which will empower Congress to give the disfranchised citizens of Washington the right to representation in Congress, and to vote for President and Vice President.

The citizens’ committee mailed to the members of both houses of Congress a copy of the joint resolution providing for amendment of the Federal Constitution as the preliminary step to conferring the vote and representation on the District populace. With the resolution now pending before Congress went two circulars outlining the rights and privileges which its adoption would make possible to the long disfranchised citizens of the nation’s Capital.

Voice in Electoral College.

One circular explains what the proposed District suffrage amendment would do, and also what it would not do. This leaflet sets forth that by enabling Congress to give the District voting representation in Congress and the electoral college, it will become possible to–

Make Americans of 400,000 people– soon to be 1,000,000- whose present political prospects are less than those of aliens elsewhere in America.

Put in force the principle of “no taxation without representation” at the center of the American republic.

Add representative participation in government to the duty, always borne, of paying taxes and bearing arms.

Remove the present stigma resulting from permanent political impotence of a people more numerous than the population in each of six American States (1910 Census).

Statehood Not Proposed.

Make the heart of our own nation “safe for democracy” while engaged in the world crusade to that end.

Make it possible for the District boys fighting in France to look forward on their return to a voting right in the government they have fought to defend.

Make it no longer possible to say that the American Capital city the only national capital that has no voice in its national government.

Showing the other side of the shield, the circular then sets forth that a constitutional amendment does not propose statehood for the District; does not propose destruction of the “ten mile square” provision of the Constitution or lessen in the slightest degree complete control of the nation over the District; it is not a measure for local self-government, and does not disturb in any way the financial relation of the nation and Capital, either by the abolition or perpetuation of the half-and-half law.

Gives Congress Power to Act.

The joint resolution proposing the amendment necessary to the Constitution as a condition precedent to the granting by Congress of District suffrage, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Chamberlain, of Oregon, while in the House it was offered by Representative Austin, of Tennessee. This resolution when passed by a two-thirds vote of the Senate and House and ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the States provides that:



“The Congress shall have power to admit the status of citizens of a State the resident of the District constituting the seat of the government of the United States, created by article 1, section 8, for the purpose of representation in the Congress and among the electors of President and Vice President and for the purpose of suing and being sued in the courts of the United States under the provisions of article 3, section 2.

“When the Congress shall exercise this power the residents of such District shall be entitled to elect one or two senators as determined by the Congress, representatives in the House according to their numbers as determined by the decennial enumeration, and presidential electors equal in number to their aggregate representation in the House and Senate.

“The Congress shall provide by law the qualifications of voters and the time and manner of choosing the senator or senators, the representative or representatives, and the electors herein authorized.

“The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing power.”


Low Court Standing.

Under the caption “Americanize Washingtonians,” the citizens committee in the other circular sets forth that the 400,000 Americans in the District constitute the only community of intelligent, public-spirited citizens in the United States which is denied representation in the national government.

“As a suitor in the courts of the United States,” runs this appeal for congressional support, “the District resident has, the Supreme Court says, a lower standing than an alien.

“In relation to national laws the sole function of the District resident is to obey. They take no part in making the laws which they must obey.

“In relation to national taxes their sole function is to pay. They have nothing to say, like other taxpayers, concerning the amount and kind of taxes they shall pay and how the tax money shall be spent.

No Voice in War Declaration.

“In relational to national war their sole function is to fight in obedience to command. They have no voice, like other Americans, in the councils which determine war and peace. They have no representation in the government which requires them to fight, to bleed and perhaps to die.

“National representation is a distinctive, basic right of the American citizen- in a government of the people, by the people, for the people- in a government which roots its justice in a consent of the governed- in a representative government which inseparably couples taxation and arms-bearing as a soldier with representation.

“Since the 400,000 Americans of the District pay the national taxes, obey national laws and go to war in the nation’s defense, they are entitled on American principles to be represented in the national government which taxes them, which makes all laws for them and which sends them to war.

Not to Disturb National Control.

“The constitutional amendment which we urge empowers Congress to correct this inequity without disturbing in the slightest national control of the Capital or the present form of municipal government. Congress retains every power in these respects that it now possess. All that happens will be that the District becomes a small fractional part of that Congress, and politically an integral part of the nation which that Congress represents.

“National representation will clothe the Washingtonian with a vital American privilege to which he is undeniably in equity entitled; will cleanse him of the stigma and stain of un-Americanism, and, curing his political impotency, will arm him with a certain power.

“It will relieve that nation of the shame of un-Americanism at its heart and of impotency to cure this evil.

“It will inflict no injury or hardship upon either nation or Capital to counteract these benefits.

“Consistency and justice; national pride and self-respect; the will to efface a shameful blot from the national escutcheon; the spirit of true Americanism and righteous hatred of autocracy in any guise; the patriotic impulse toward full preparedness of the nation as a champion of democracy and representative government everywhere in the world- all combine to make irresistible at this very moment our appeal for the adoption of this amendment.



This newspaper article was transcribed from a scan of the original newspaper article. The document was obtained from the Washington Post archives and is in the public domain. It is being republished here in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



Arkansas Is First To Reject District Voting Amendment – The Washington Post, January 25, 1961
|| 1/25/2010 || 3:13 pm || 1 Comment Rendered || ||

It should be noted that after nearly fifty years Arkansas has still not ratified the 23rd Amendment to the United States Constitution.


Arkansas Is First To Reject District Voting Amendment

Vote Is 59-26;
Opponent Fears Try at Statehood


Arkansas Is First To Reject District Voting Amendment
By Monton Mintz, Staff Reporter

Arkansas yesterday rejected the proposed Constitutional Amendment that would let District residents vote for President and Vice President. It is the first state to do so.

The Arkansas House of Representatives refused to ratify by a vote of 59 to 26. Ratification is possible only with favorable action by both the House and Senate.

Rep. Marion Crank of Little River County led the fight against ratification. The Associated Press reported from Little Rock that he told the House:

“They propose to create another state. Giving them electors is the first step.”

Several cries of “Amen” were heard when he finished speaking, the AP said.

Rep. Jack S. Oakes of Woodruff County, a proponent ratification, brought Washington’s Negro population into limited discussion.

He said he understood that the City was 80-per-cent Negro, but Arkansas should not deprive the District of the right to vote.

“This just gives them another propaganda weapon,” he said.

Oakes’ estimate of the District population is not supported by the Census Bureau. The Bureau said on Jan. 16 that preliminary figures show the population is 53.9 per cent Negro.

As to Crank’s assertion that the Amendment is the first step toward statehood, Washington leaders of the campaign for national suffrage pointed out that Congress carefully framed the Amendment to do only one thing: to allow District residents to vote for presidential electors.

The Citizens for Presidential Vote says in its official brochure: “The Amendment would not make the District of Columbia a state, nor endow it with any attributes of a state. Neither would it give the District any representation in the House of Representatives or the Senate.”

Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus did not endorse the Amendment, although he had said in September that “I cannot conceive of a situation where I would refuse to let anyone vote.”

In the Ohio Senate yesterday, a ratification resolution was introduced by Minority Leader Frank W. King (D-Toledo). The Amendment has the backing of Gov. Michael V. DiSalle.

Five state legislatures have approved the Amendment, leaving 33 to go. Ratification resolutions are pending in at least 10.

In Maryland, both houses have approved resolutions whose texts differ slightly. Final action awaits agreement on a single resolution.

Similar resolutions have been approved by the Pennsylvania House and the Minnesota and Oregon Senates.


This newspaper article was obtained from the Washington Post historical newspaper archives. This article is not in the public domain but is being republished here under the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law in order to continue my advocacy for full representation for the American citizens of the District of Columbia.



The 1910 Publication Calendar of the Washington Times from the Chronicling America Newspaper Collection [100 Year Old News]
|| 1/12/2010 || 2:14 pm || 1 Comment Rendered || ||

Scan of the newspaper masthead

Text & content from the Chronicling America newspaper collection website

The Morning Times was founded on March 18, 1894, by union printers. Financial difficulties, however, soon forced the printers to sell to Charles G. Conn, a Democratic congressman from Indiana. In August 1895 the Washington Evening Times was added, and the two editions sold as a combined subscription. The evening edition soon became dominant, substantially surpassing the morning paper’s circulation. Late the following year, Conn sold both editions to Stilson Hutchins who had sold his interest in the Washington Post a few years earlier. In 1901 Frank A. Munsey, who was known for his consolidation practices and as a destroyer of the dailies, purchased the paper and ran it from the Munsey Building, which he had built on E Street in the northwest quadrant of the city. Munsey ceased printing the morning edition on November 29, 1902, and his evening and Sunday editions became known, simply, as the Washington Times. William Randolph Hearst gained control of the Times in 1917 and five years later merged it with the Washington Herald.


1910 Newspapers

January, 1910
S M T W T F S
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
February, 1910
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
             
March, 1910
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
             
April, 1910
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
             
May, 1910
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
             
June, 1910
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
             
July, 1910
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
August, 1910
S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
             
September, 1910
S M T W T F S
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
             
October, 1910
S M T W T F S
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
November, 1910
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
             
December, 1910
S M T W T F S
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
             

+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Alexandria Gazette
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Deseret Evening News
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Los Angeles Herald
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the New York Sun
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the New York Tribune
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Ogden Standard
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Paducah evening sun
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Palestine Daily Herald
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the San Francisco Call
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Washington Herald
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Washington Times


The 1910 Publication Calendar of the Washington Herald from the Chronicling America Newspaper Collection [100 Year Old News]
|| 1/11/2010 || 2:01 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

Scan of the newspaper masthead

Text & content from the Chronicling America newspaper collection website

The Washington Herald first appeared on October 8, 1906 with the aim of upholding serious journalism in an era of muckraking. The paper was founded and edited by Scott C. Bone, an eminent newspaperman and former managing editor of the Washington Post from 1888 until his dismissal by new owner John R. McLean in 1905. Bone published the 16-page morning daily to challenge the position of the Post as the foundation of Washington journalism. At its peak, the Herald enjoyed a circulation of roughly 50,000, and surpassed the Post in daily sales. It occupied offices at 734 Fifteenth Street, in close vicinity to newspaper row in the city’s northwest quadrant, and its editorial board included prominent figures such as managing editor William P. Spargeon, the first president of the National Press Club. Bone himself garnered respect in the newspaper world for his work with the Post, and later the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and went on to become governor of Alaska.

The paper created a niche for itself based on substantive news reporting, displaying the motto “A Paper of Quality” on its masthead. An early advertisement proclaimed the arrival of the Herald as a “clean, compact, newsy newspaper that would appeal to the intelligent and discriminating clientele of Washington.” Its front page most prominently featured discussions of domestic politics, followed by stories of international scope, and the occasional newsworthy crime or personal interest story. The Herald also included a page each on sports, market news, and women’s interest, plus a slew of advertisements and classifieds. Its Sunday edition attempted to rival that of the Post with a 30-page edition featuring special sections on society news, literature, theater, and serialized fiction.

Although the Herald rose to be one of the top three penny dailies in Washington, it underwent a series of transformations after its second decade. In 1913, Clinton T. Brainerd, president of the McClure Syndicate Service, purchased the paper. In 1922, the Herald was taken over by William Randolph Hearst who appointed one of the first female newspaper editors of the era – Eleanor Medill “Cissy” Patterson of the Medill media dynasty. Cissy Patterson revived the paper and its popularity, and in 1939 she merged it with the Washington Times creating the Washington Times-Herald. After her death in 1948, however, the paper declined once again. The Herald died an ironic death in 1954 when the Times-Herald was merged with the Washington Post. Although named the Washington Post and Times Herald, the Post restored its original name in 1973 and the Herald faded into obscurity.


1910 Newspapers

January, 1910
S M T W T F S
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
February, 1910
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
             
March, 1910
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31    
             
April, 1910
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
             
May, 1910
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
             
June, 1910
S M T W T F S
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30    
             
July, 1910
S M T W T F S
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            
August, 1910
S M T W T F S
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      
             
September, 1910
S M T W T F S
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  
             
October, 1910
S M T W T F S
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 ed-1ed-2 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          
November, 1910
S M T W T F S
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
             
December, 1910
S M T W T F S
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
             

+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Alexandria Gazette
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Deseret Evening News
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Los Angeles Herald
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the New York Sun
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the New York Tribune
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Ogden Standard
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Paducah evening sun
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Palestine Daily Herald
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the San Francisco Call
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Washington Herald
+ 1910 Publication Calendar of the Washington Times



ALEXANDRIA AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – The Alexandria Gazette, June 9, 1909
|| 12/25/2009 || 2:06 pm || + Render A Comment || ||

This editorial is the third in a series of editorials published by the Alexandria Gazette in first week of June 1909. As the editors hinted to at the end of the previous editorial, they reprint a previous opinion that was rendered by Senator George Frisbie Hoar of the judiciary committee shortly before his death.

Printed in full, for the first then, as it is the first time now, are the committee’s findings that the matter between Congress and Alexandria County, the former portion of the District of Columbia, have been resolved by political, not judicial means, and there is nothing stopping the negotiations for the reacquisition from taking place. The Hoar opinion was written 7 years prior in 1902 and concluded that the Federal government can purchase those lands back with the consent of the State of Virginia.


Click to view the newspaper clipping

ALEXANDRIA AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA – The Alexandria Gazette, June 9, 1909

As heretofore stated Mr. Hayes, of California, on May 27 introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to extend the limits of the District of Columbia so as to take in all of Alexandria county, but not Alexandria city or that part of Falls Church which lies within the county. The bill was published in full in the Gazette of June 1. Commenting upon this the Gazette of June 1st suggested that Mr. Hayes should read the report made to the Senate on this subject by the late Senator Hoar. This report reads as follows and has never before been published in full:



Constitutionality of the retrocession of a certain portion of the District of Columbia ceded to the United States by Virginia.
April 11, 1902, — Ordered to be printed.
MR. HOAR, from the committee on the judiciary, submitted the folowing

ADVERSE REPORT.

The committee on the judiciary, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. 50) directing the attorney-general to bring suit to determine the constitutionality of the retrocession of that portion of the original District of Columbia which was ceded to the United States by the state of Virginia, submit the following report:

The territory on the other side of the Potomac river, including the city of Alexandria, which was originally a part of the 10 miles square, was ceded by Virginia for the seat of government. It was retroceded to Virginia by act of Congress in 1846, accepted by Virginia, and thereafter Congress exercised no jurisdiction over it, except so far as it controls the Arlington national cemetery, the experimental farm of the Department of Agriculture, the military school for cavalry, and the signal corps, with the land and building occupied by them.

It seems to the committee that it is not expedient that this act of retrocession should be set aside by Congress, even if Congress have the power so to do, without the consent of Virginia. Virginia accepted the transaction, it being understood that it was at the desire and for the benefit of the national government. She has established in Alexandria the important and intimate relations which every state forms for its own citizens dwelling on her own soil; and the people, on the other hand, we presume, feel the loyal and deep attachment which such a relation excites. Such a tie ought not to be broken at all without the consent of the parties, except in case of some paramount and overwhelming public interest.

As to the suggestion that the retrocession was unconstitutional, it seems to as the answer is that from the nature of the case it is a political question and not a judicial question, and that it has been settled by the political authorities alone competent to decide it. It is like the question, What is the true state government, the true and lawful government of a state?– like the question, What is the true frontier? where any dispute exists as to whether territory belongs to us or so a neighboring foreign country, and many like questions.

These are partly questions of law and partly of fact. The questions of law may be settled by the highest court to whom, in the course of judicial proceedings, they may be taken, unless, and until that court choose to reverse its previous opinions. But the fact must be determined in each case, when it arises, by the jury or other tribunal authorized to find the fact. It would be utterly intolerable that territory should be held in one case to be a part of Virginia, and in another case to be a part of the District of Columbia, according as might be held, in the individual case.

So it seems to the case must be deemed settled by the acquiescence in the act by Virginia and of the United States, as manifested by the conduct of the departments of government for more that half a century. The consequences of holding that this retrocession has been void from the beginning would be very serious.

If it be desirable that Alexandria become a part of the District of Columbia again, the only way to accomplish it will be to open negotiations with Virginia and get her consent (See Luther v. Borden, 7 How., 1.)

The committee, therefore, report adversely, and recommend that the resolution be indefinitely postponed.


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



STILL AFTER ALEXANDRIA – The Alexandria Gazette, June 5th, 1909
|| 12/24/2009 || 10:25 am || 1 Comment Rendered || ||

This editorial is a follow-up to a previous editorial that included the full text of a bill that Representative Hayes, of California, had introduced in Congress the previous week to expand the size of the District of Columbia. Representative Hayes goes on record in this article saying that his bill is imperfect and that in the next session he would like to also include Alexandria City, which was left out. The editor of the Alexandria Gazette concludes with a hint at what the next editorial will be….


STILL AFTER ALEXANDRIA – The Alexandria Gazette, June 5th, 1909

Representative Hayes, of California, says he will push his bill, recently introduced in the House, for the return to the District of Columbia of the land once part of the District and later ceded to the State of Virginia. The action of the Twenty-third Congress in making the return of this land to Virginia has been criticised as unconstitutional, and President Taft at the dinner given him by the business men of Washington expressed a wish for the enlargement of the District.

Mr. Hayes said yesterday: “I am convinced that the land first ceded by Virginia is still legally a part of the District of Columbia. The constitution plainly states that an area not more than 10 miles square shall be the capital of the United States, under the jurisdiction of Congress. This Virginia land was ceded to the government for the District of Columbia, and there was and is no authority for its transfer back to Virginia. Since my bill was introduced I have become convinced that if the land is reclaimed by the government the town of Alexandria must be included in the transfer. I intend to push my measure at the next session, and I believe that the land will come back to the District. Certainly, no lawyer will contend for a moment that it rightfully belongs to the Dominion State, and I do not see how Congress can act otherwise than to restore the land to the jurisdiction of Congress.”

The president said in his speech that the city of Alexandria should be allowed to remain in Virginia, but members of Congress are of the opinion that if it is unconstitutional for the tract to remain in Virginia it is also unconstitutional for part of of the tract to remain in the State.

Mr. Hayes should read the report on this subject made to the Senate by Senator Hoar shortly before his death.


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



A Bill To Extend The Limits of the District of Columbia – The Alexandria Gazette, June 1, 1909
|| 12/23/2009 || 11:54 am || + Render A Comment || ||

It appears that some of my recent work uncovering the history of the District of Columbia has been somewhat popular as of late. I could not be happier. History brings joy only to those willing to learn it.

This entry was transcribed from the June 1st, 1909 edition of the Alexandria Gazette. The newspaper printed the entire text of a bill introduced by Representative Everis A. Hayes of California.

In this bill he outlines the expansion of the District of Columbia back to it’s original boundary, with the exceptions of Alexandria City and Falls Church, and gives the President authority to negotiate with the governor of the State of Virginia a price of no more than $100,000 for the land. [that is between 2 million and 40 million 2009 dollars depending on how you calculate it]

There is a portion of the text that is illegible due to the use of tape when the newspaper was archived. However, I was able to adjust the contrast to be able to make out about 90% of the missing text.

I have a couple more subsequent articles to be transcribed that follow up on what exactly happened to this bill.



A BILL TO EXTEND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA LIMITS.

The following is the full text of the bill introduced in the House of Representatives on May 27, 1909 by Mr. Hayes, of California, which was referred to the committee on the District of Columbia:

A bill extending the limits of the District of Columbia.

Whereas more territory ought to be held under the exclusive legislation given Congress over the District which is the seat of the general government for purposes of such a seat; and

Whereas that portion of Alexandria county, in the State of Virginia, which was originally ceded to the United States by the State if Virginia and receded to the State of Virginia by the twenty-ninth Congress by an act approved July ninth, eighteen hundred and forty-six, is now necessary for the public uses of the District of Columbia; Therefore,

Be it enacted by the [lost] House of Representatives of the United States in Congress assembled, [lost] that portion of the original District of Columbia ceded to the United States of America by the State of Virginia and which was receded to the State of Virginia by the twenty-ninth Congress by an act approved July ninth, eighteen hundred and forty-six, except that portion lying within the boundary lines or corporate limits of the towns of Alexandria and Falls Church, be held under the exclusive legislation given Congress over the District of Columbia, which is the seat of the general government, for the purposes os such a seat, and all the rights and jurisdiction therewith be, and the same are hereby, forever bound unto the District in full and absolute right and jurisdiction as well as of soil as of persons residing or to reside therein.

Sec. 2. That the right of jurisdiction and sovereignty shall be exercised by the United States government for the purposes of the District of Columbia over that portion of said Alexandria county, State of Virginia, except that portion lying within the corporate limits of the towns of Alexandria and Falls Church on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten.

Sec. 3. That the President is hereby authorized and empowered to open negotiations with the State of Virginia, through the Secretary of War or such other officer or commissioner as he may deem necessary and proper, to comply with the provisions of this act; and, further, the President is authorized to pay over into the treasury of the State of Virginia such sum of money as may be mutually agreed upon by the President of the United States and the governor of the State of Virginia for relinquishing her sovereignty or jurisdictions over the said portion of Alexandria county to the District of Columbia.

Sec. 4. That if it be not possible to conclude negotiations with the State of Virginia prior to July first, nineteen hundred and ten, the sovereignty of the District of Columbia and the exclusive legislation by Congress, together with all the rights and jurisdiction of the same, as well as of persons as of soil, shall extend over Alexandria county as aforesaid, except that portion included within the corporate limits of the town of Alexandria and the town of Falls Church, on and after the first day of July, nineteen hundred and ten, and the negotiations fixing the amount of the award to be awarded to the State of Virginia may be completed and the money paid over into the treasury of the State of Virginia at some future time as may be agreed upon by the President of the United States and the governor of the State of Virginia.

Sec. 5. That in addition to any sum of money which may be paid into the treasury of the State of Virginia by the President of the United States as provided by this act Congress will assume and pay all the debts or any part thereof now due or outstanding against that portion of Alexandria county no included within the corporate limits of the towns of Alexandria and Falls Church at the time of the passage of this act.

Sec. 6. That so much money as may be needed to pay in full said outstanding debts or obligations against that portion of Alexandria county, Virginia, as aforesaid, is hereby appropriated our the United States treasury, out of any money not otherwise appropriated, to be paid when and as the same may become due and payable.

Sec. 7. That so much money as may be needed is hereby appropriated out of the United States treasury no otherwise appropriated, to carry out the provisions of this act, not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars.


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





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




::SUBSCRIBE::


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

::LAST 51 POSTS::

Fair Use


32 queries. 0.786 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 ::