A 
DEFENCE 
OF 
IJflfoers' JStaiiu flf SSfftbstar; 
BEING THE SUBSTANCE OF REMARKS MADE ON THE 8TH OF JUNE, 
1859, AT A MEETING OF THE GENERAL COMMITTEE OF 
ONE HUNDRED ON THE WEBSTER MEMORIAL. 
EDWARD EVERETT. 
BOSTON: 
WILLIAM WHITE, PRINTER, 4 SPRING LANE. 
1 8 5 9. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
The following remarks were made in substance, at a meeting of the 
Committee of One Hundred on the Webster Memorial, on the 8th instant. 
The occasion on which they were made is sufficiently stated in the first 
pages of the speech. The motion pending was to rescind so much of the 
resolution, passed with a single dissenting voice, by the Committee of One 
Hundred, on the 17th of February last, as directs the Executive Com- 
mittee, (if permission could be obtained of the legislature for the purpose,) 
to erect the statue in the State House grounds. After the conclusion of 
my speech and some further brief debate, the question was put by ayes 
and nays, and the motion to rescind was carried by a vote of 11 to 9,— 
twenty-three members of the Committee of One Hundred only being 
present. A motion was then made, that the Executive Committee should 
cause the statue to be set up on trial, in some suitable place other than 
the State House yard. The hour was now late, the members of the Com- 
mittee impatient, and the friends of the statue allowed this motion to pass 
without a division.* 
It was known to them, however, that several, and it was believed by 
them, that many members friendly to the erection of the statue were 
absent from the meeting. It was felt that a majority of four, on a vote of 
twenty-three, was a very inadequate expression of the sense of the whole 
Committee, especially in reference to a measure so harsh and revolutionary, 
as rescinding the former doings of the Committee, which had passed all 
but unanimously, and which had been the basis of legislative action. Steps 
were immediately taken to put this matter beyond doubt, by the circula- 
tion of a paper expressing the opinion on behalf of the signers, that the 
statue ought to be forthwith erected in the State House grounds, in pur- 
suance of the resolution of the 17th of February, and in conformity with 
the permission requested and obtained from the legislature. 
Signatures have already been appended to this paper, amounting (as 
about ten members of the original Committee of One Hundred are absent 
from the country or otherwise not accessible,) to about two-thirds of the 
whole Committee. 
* The following is the motion adopted:—“ Voted, That the executive committee he and 
they are hereby instructed to erect the statue on a suitable temporary pedestal, in some 
public place in the open air, other than the grounds of the State House, where it cap be 
exhibited to greater advantage than in present position.” POWERS’ STATUE OP WEBSTER. 
4 
It being thus demonstrated that the very slender vote of the 8th, by 
which it was attempted to reverse all the former doings of the Committee, 
was by no means a correct expression of the sense of that body, the 
Executive Committee have called another meeting of the Committee of 
One Hundred, for Saturday next, the 2d of July, at 10 o’clock, A. M. 
At this meeting it will be proposed, on behalf of the majority of the 
Executive Committee, to reconsider the votes passed on the 8th, in order 
that the original resolutions of the 17th of February last, may be carried 
into effect by the erection of the statue in the State House grounds. 
When the following speech was made, the motion before the Committee 
of One Hundred was to rescind the resolution of the 17th of February, 
and the gentlemen who preceded me confined themselves principally to 
unfavorable comments on Mr. Powers’ statue. My remarks, for this reason, 
took the form, in part, of a defence of the statue against these comments. 
After the rescinding motion had prevailed, another motion, as I have said, 
was brought forward, directing the Executive Committee to set up the 
statue for exhibition, on trial. But little debate, as has been observed, 
took place, and the motion was allowed to pass without resistance, which 
it was known would be, at that time, unavailing. 
In the few remarks which were made when this motion was introduced, 
it was attempted to show that such an experimental exhibition of the 
statue on trial was a reasonable procedure, and one of which the artist 
had no right to complain. Aware that such ground would probably be 
taken, I had, by anticipation, in my remarks, spoken of it as being “ if 
possible, more objectionable and offensive than the immediate condemna- 
tion of the statue,” and it will be perceived that every consideration urged 
by me, in defence of the statue, bears as conclusively against setting it up 
for exhibition, on trial, as if that had been the pending motion. 
I maintained that such a course was entirely unprecedented; one to 
which no work of high art was ever subjected; and one to which no artist 
of spirit, knowing the diversity of tastes, and the inffucnces by which the 
judgment is liable to be warped in reference to works of art, would submit 
for a moment. 
I showed that if Mr. Richard Greenough’s Franklin, and the statues of 
Washington by Iloudon, Canova, Chantrey, Horatio Greenough, and 
Crawford, had been treated in this way, not one of them would have 
reached its permanent pedestal. 
I intimated repeatedly that if ever such a trial-exhibition had been admis- 
sible, the time for it had gone by; and that it was now treating the artist 
with cruelty and the legislature with disrespect, after asking and receiving 
their permission, and informing the artist that it had been obtained, to 
turn round and rescind all the former proceedings, after a lapse of four 
months, and set up the statue on trial, as a mark for criticism. 
I argued that it was purely illusory, after having denounced and ridi-. INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
5 
culed the statue in public and in private, in the newspapers and the clubs, 
for months, to expect an impartial judgment as the result of such an 
unheard of exhibition. Those who have been thus swift to condemn it, 
who, disregarding the feelings of a most eminent artist and worthy coun- 
tryman, have seemed to take a pleasure in disparaging his work, would now 
scrutinize it for the purpose of confirming their impressions, and showing 
that they have not been unjust. In a word, the proposed exhibition is one 
entirely unknown to the usages of the Art, which are entitled to as much 
respect as those which obtain in any other liberal profession. 
In addition to considerations of this kind, I endeavored to show, with 
what success the reader must judge, that great injustice had been done to 
the statue; that it is a faithful representation of Mr. Webster in middle 
life ; that the countenance—the most important part—was stamped with 
his own approval; and that the statue itself as a whole, and in the several 
parts in which such a work could be contemplated, was by intimate 
friends of Mr. Webster, fully competent to form an opinion, regarded as 
worthy of the artist and the man. If the views submitted by me on these 
points are correct, they show that it would be the height of injustice to 
refuse to execute the resolution of the 17th of February, and instead of 
this, to set up the statue for a preliminary trial exhibition, which would be 
simply “ to elevate it as a target for invidious criticism.” 
It may be proper to observe, that, in common with my friends, Messrs. 
Felton and William Amory, after the passage of the resolutions of the 8th 
of June, I tendered my resignation as a member of the Executive Com- 
mittee, feeling that I could not conscientiously co-operate in carrying them 
into effect. Having been led, however, in the manner above described, 
to entertain a confident expectation that a reversal of those proceedings 
could be had, we have, in conformity with the wishes of many friends, 
resumed our places on the executive committee, to which we have been 
kindly re-elected by our colleagues. 
I scarce need say, in conclusion, that, in commenting freely on the course 
pursued by the opponents of the statue, I intend no personal disrespect 
toward those gentlemen. As the friend of Mr. Powers of twenty-five 
years’ standing, the witness of the trials and sacrifices, under which he has 
risen to his present eminent position as an artist, and as the agent of the 
Executive Committee, whose every step, till the late unhappy divisions, 
was taken with unanimity, I have felt that I was acting purely on the 
defensive, and doing no more than my duty to my colleagues and to the 
artist, in replying to the unfavorable criticisms on his work, and protesting 
against the unprecedented ordeal to which it is now proposed to submit it. 
EDWARD EVERETT. 
Summer Street, 27 June, 1859, POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
SPEECH OE Mil. EVERETT. 
Mr. Chairman—I never attended a meeting with greater regret in 
my life, nor rose to address one with greater pain. Fully concurring in 
the desire expressed bv the gentleman who opened the meeting, (Mr. T. 
B. Curtis,) that all its proceedings should be conducted in the most 
friendly and conciliatory spirit, I forbear to dwell on all the causes, which 
make the duty I now rise to perform a most painful one. I must, how- 
ever, deplore that hopeless diversity of taste and opinion, which exists 
among men. We are met together, all friends of one great and lamented 
name, selected by our fellow-citizens for the one object of doing honor to 
his memory ; and yet, while I do the same justice to the motives of other 
gentlemen, which 1 wish them to do to mine, the course pursued in refer- 
ence to Mr. Powers’ statue—the course which this meeting has been 
called to consummate, appears to me—I am compelled to say it—entirely 
without justification in the character of the work itself, unjust and cruel 
in the extreme to the eminent and meritorious artist, the author of the 
work, and disrespectful and trifling toward the legislature, to which (in 
virtue of a resolution passed with a single dissenting voice in this com- 
mittee, on the 17th of February last) we made application, through the 
governor of the Commonwealth, for permission to place the statue in the 
State House grounds ; which permission, on the governor’s recommenda- 
tion, was liberally and unanimously granted by the two houses. In what 
light I regard the course which has been pursued, in its personal bearings 
on the majority of the executive committee, I will not say. I have too 
long been connected with public life to expect any consideration to be 
had of one’s private feelings, on an occasion of this kind. 
Often as I have had occasion to marvel in the course of my life at the 
diametrically opposite views which are taken of the same subject by men 
who might rather have been expected to agree with each other, I have 
never been more astonished with this difference of opinion and judgment, 
than on the present occasion. Let me, as briefly as possible, narrate the 
facts of the case. This Committee of One Hundred, raised by the citizens 
at large, assembled in Faneuil Hall to take suitable measures to do honor 
to the memory of Mr. Webster, appointed a sub-committee of ten, (which has 
been called the executive committee,) to consider and report the measures 
proper to be adopted. They reported in favor of a bronze statue of 
heroic size, to be executed by some distinguished American artist. This 
report was unanimously adopted by the general Committee of One Hun- 
dred, and the executive committee were instructed to carry it into effect. 
The executive committee appointed a sub-committee of three, of whom I 
had the honor to be one, to select the artist. The majority of that com- 
mittee gave a decided preference to Mr. Powers; the other member of 
the committee acquiesced, and a unanimous report in favor of his being 
employed was made to the committee of ten, and accepted by them. MR. EVERETT’S SPEECH. 
7 
The choice lay between Mr. Powers and Mr. Crawford, and Mr. Powers 
was selected by the sub-committee as being, in the opinion of the majority 
of its members, the most skilful, as he was the oldest, of the living Amer- 
ican sculptors;—comparatively at leisure, while Mr. Crawford’s hands 
were filled with government commissions for the new wings of the capitol, 
for which Mr. Powers declined being a candidate;—and, above all, as 
having modelled Mr. Webster’s head from life, during a three weeks’ visit 
for that purpose at Marshfield; an advantage possessed by no other artist. 
Mr. Powers was immediately written to, a contract was made, the 
statue executed, but lost at sea on its way to this country. A duplicate 
of the statue was ordered on the unanimous vote of the executive com- 
mittee, and was received in Boston in the third week of last January. No 
spot having been definitively fixed upon for its erection, it was placed 
temporarily in the hall of entrance of the Athenaeum, and in a very bad 
light. Under these circumstances, unfavorable judgments, as in all similar 
cases, as I shall presently show, were expressed of the statue. It Avas 
immediately made the subject of hasty neAvspaper criticism, as also gener- 
ally happens, and something like a public opinion by degrees created 
against it; the friends of the statue, as is usually the case, forbearing to 
enter into controversy, and not doubting that justice would eventually 
prevail. These events took place Avliile I was absent from Boston. 
On my return, and on the 12th of February, a meeting was called of 
the executive committee, of Avhich I Avas the acting chairman, to take 
measures for the definitive erection of the statue. Unfavorable opinions 
of its merits Avere expressed by one or tAvo members of the committee, but 
not the slightest intimation made by any gentleman, that the statue ought 
not to be put up in the most conspicuous and honorable place that could 
be obtained. The head of State Street had been originally contemplated, 
but there Avere serious objections to putting it there. Permission had 
been kindly granted by the Secretary of the Interior to place it, if it 
should be so desired, in the vestibule of the building fitted up as a United 
States Court House; but it Avas decided to recommend to the Committee 
of One Hundred, to apply to the legislature, through the governor, for 
leave to place it on some suitable spot, within the State House grounds. 
It Avas not competent for the executive committee to make this applica- 
tion, without authority from the general Committee of One Hundred, 
inasmuch as this last-named body had originally accepted a report recom- 
mending the head of State Street. 
Accordingly, on the 17th of February, the Committee of One Hundred 
was called together, and a report of all the proceedings of the executive 
committee was made by me, as its acting chairman. That report con- 
cluded with the folloAving resolution:— 
“ Resolved, That the executive committee be, and they are hereby 
authorized and directed to make application, through his excellency the 
governor, to the legislature of the CommonAvealth, for permission to set 
up the statue of Mr. Webster on some suitable spot Avithin the State 
House grounds, at the expense of the “ Webster Memorial Fund; ’’ and, 
in case the application be granted, that the said committee be authorized 
and directed to make all suitable arrangements to carry the same into 
effect, provided the expense of the same shall not exceed the amount of 
funds in the hands of the committee.” 
This meeting of the 17th of February was not large, though the attend- 
ance Avas very nearly equal to that of the meeting Avhere the original 8 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
measures were adopted in 1853. I believe that every one of the gentle- 
men, now actively engaged in procuring the present meeting in opposition 
to the statue, was present at the meeting of the 17th of February. Not a 
word was said by any individual against the report, or the resolution with 
which it concluded; and it was accepted without a call for a division, and 
with a single dissenting voice. 
Thus instructed, as the organ of the executive committee, I addressed a 
letter to the governor, inclosing a copy of the resolution just referred to. 
My letter, and the resolution, were communicated by governor Banks to 
the House of Representatives, in a special message, recommending, in a 
very handsome and liberal manner, that the permission should be granted ; 
a favorable report on the subject was made in the House of Representa- 
tives, and a resolve granting the desired permission passed the two houses 
unanimously, on the 5th of April. 
On my return from another visit to the South, I received from the 
governor, on the 2d May, a certified copy of this resolve, together with 
the names of the Commissioners on the part of the Commonwealth, for 
selecting the spot within the State House grounds. I called together the 
Committee of Ten, (reduced to eight by the removal of one gentleman 
from the city and the withdrawal of another from the committee, tor reasons 
not connected with the statue,) and to my profound astonishment, instead of 
taking measures to carry into effect the resolution of the 17th of February, 
by which we were positively directed to put up the statue in the State House 
grounds, if permission should be granted (and which was the only business 
before the executive committee under any instructions of the Committee of 
One Hundred,) a suggestion was made that a meeting of the One Hundred 
should be called to consider the expediency of procuring another statue of 
Mr. Webster! Three of the eight members of the executive committee 
being absent, all of whom were friendly to the statue, the meeting was 
adjourned without coming to any conclusion. At the adjourned meeting a 
formal motion was drafted, that the executive committee proceed to inquire 
on what terms a statue of Mr. Webster by Mr. Thomas Ball could be pro- 
cured. The name of this artist was subsequently withdrawn, and the mo- 
tion, being put, was rejected, two members of the committee only voting in 
the affirmative. A motion in favor of again calling the One Hundred 
together was then made, and negatived by the same vote, and a resolution 
finally adopted, (two votes only in the negative,) that the executive com- 
mittee should proceed to obey the instructions given, as I have said, on the 
17th of February, with a single dissenting voice, by the Committee of One 
Hundred, and erect the statue in the State House grounds. 
At this stage of the proceedings, it was announced by the Secretary of 
the executive committee, who is a member as well as the Secretary of the 
general Committee of One Hundred, that he had received a paper, signed 
by seventeen members of the general committee, requiring him to call that 
body together, to give further instructions to the executive committee rela- 
tive to the disposition of Mr. Powers’s statue, and that he should do so. 
Here it is necessary to state, that in the month of April, after the pas- 
sage of the resolve of the legislature granting permission to erect the 
statue in the State House grounds, a copy of Mr. Ball’s statuette of Mr. 
Webster had been placed in the vestibule of the Athenmum, (not, however, 
in conformity with the wishes of Mr. Ball,) near the statue by Mr. Powers, 
and an anonymous paper alluding to that fact, and severely condemning 
the statue, had been printed and circulated, inviting subscriptions to a call 
of a meeting of the One Hundred, “ to afford an opportunity for further 
consideration, before the irrevocable act of placing the statue in the grounds mr. everett’s speech. 
9 
of the Capitol is consummated.” In the course of five or six weeks, seven- 
teen signatures were affixed to a requisition for a meeting, (which was 
stated to be “ for the purpose of considering whether it is expedient to give 
further instructions to the executive committee respecting the disposition 
of Mr. Powers’ statue of Webster,”) and the present meeting has been 
called. Since it was summoned, the Secretary has just informed us that 
seventeen additional names have been procured.* 
Such, as briefly as I have been able to state it, is the history of the pro- 
ceedings which have been had in reference to the statue, and of the attempt 
to reverse them, which is the object of this meeting. I must own, Sir, and 
I desire to say it with all respect to the gentlemen concerned in the move- 
ment, that I think they cannot have duly considered its true nature and 
character. Let me submit to them a parallel case. The citizens of Boston, 
originally on the suggestion of my much valued friend, Mr. R. C. Winthrop, 
took measures five or six years ago to erect a monumental statue of Frank- 
lin ; a most appropriate and becoming tribute to the greatest native son of 
Boston. Though less personally connected with him than the men of this 
generation are with Mr. Webster, it was not less our duty to posterity to 
hand down a truthful memorial of this not less illustrious name. Well, 
Sir, a committee was appointed, subscriptions were raised, an artist selected, 
the statue modelled and cast, and permission asked and obtained of the city 
government to erect it in a public square. Thus far, as you see, the cases 
are precisely parallel, with the exception that, in reference to the statue of 
Mr. Webster, the more formal step of an application to the legislature 
through the governor of the Commonwealth, followed by the joint resolu- 
tion of the two houses, had been taken. Now I have ever thought most 
favorably of this statue of Franklin. It formed the topic of two pages in 
the discourse which I delivered in Boston, on “ the early days of Franklin,” 
last January, and which was repeated in several other cities. I there 
expressed the opinion that it was an “ admirable” work, and so I esteem 
it. But its greatest admirers will not claim that it is perfect, nor that no 
other good statue of Franklin can be made. It gives only one conception 
of his character, that of a serene equamimity verging toward the decline 
of life. It gives, nothing of the bolder traits of Franklin’s character; 
nothing of the spirit that stood erect before the privy council, nor of the 
heroism that entered, with an armed kite, into the thunder-cloud. I have 
even heard serious anatomical defects pointed out in it by good judges. 
Of these I do not pretend to have an opinion. Now suppose, after all the 
steps above enumerated had been taken, and while Mr. Richard Green- 
ough’s statue stood on temporary exhibition in a dark corner, (like that 
where Powers’ statue of Webster now stands,) a popular statuette of 
Franklin had been procured, representing another and more spirited con- 
ception of his character, and free from the alleged defects alluded to,—had 
been placed for contrast by the side of the statue of Mr. Greenough, the 
newspapers filled with the bitterest sarcasm and ridicule of his work, an 
anonymous printed paper, denouncing the work, circulated to rally and 
organize this opposition, and at length a meeting like this called to undo 
all the former proceedings, and to procure the repudiation of Mr. Green- 
ough’s statue, can there be two opinions whether or not this would have 
been a most unjust procedure, cruel toward the artist, a trifling with the 
city government, and disrespectful toward the executive committee, who 
had acted under the unanimous instructions of their constituents ? And 
* It appears that several of the signatures to this requisition were given hy persons friendly 
to the erection of the statue, in entire misapprehension of the objects for which the meeting 
was called. 10 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
yet, Sir, in this supposed case, I have omitted some features of hardship, 
which exist in the case before you, and which give a still more oppressive 
character to the movement. 
Much unfavorable criticism has been expended on Mr. Powers’ statue ; 
much said here and in the newspapers on the injustice which it does to the 
great original; but the same criticisms, or criticisms still more severe, are 
almost sure to be made upon all attempts to portray the likenesses, whether 
by painting or statuary, of very eminent men. They arise partly from 
the unavoidable—the proverbial—difference of judgment, which always 
exists in matters of taste, on the part of different observers, and then, in a 
case like this, from the impossibility of coming up in any work of art to 
the exalted ideal image which exists in the mind of the observer, differing 
it may be in each individual, but in all, above the reach of pencil or chisel 
fully to embody. Let me, Sir, as briefly as possible, illustrate this insup- 
erable difficulty, by reference to the five celebrated statues of Washington, 
which have been erected in this country; those I mean of Iloudon, of 
Canova, of Chantrey, of Horatio Greenough, and of Crawford. There 
are other statues of Washington by living artists, but 1 confine myself for 
obvious reasons to those of artists who have passed away. Every one of 
the works enumerated is a capital work by a renowned artist, so accepted 
and regarded by the public; and yet there is not one of them on which 
precisely the same unfavorable criticism as those passed on the Powers 
statue have not been or might not be made, and in some cases criticisms 
still more severe. There is not one of them which could have stood the 
test to which it is proposed to subject this statue, that of a preliminary 
exhibition. 
' To begin with Iloudon’s, an invaluable statue by a superior artist, mod- 
elled from life, and the only one of the five so modelled. There is a cast 
of it as large as the original in the vestibule of the Athenamm ; every 
gentleman can see for himself, whether or not exceptions precisely analo- 
gous to those taken to Powers’ Webster could be urged against it. The 
head is surpassingly beautiful, and is the classical, standard head of Wash- 
ington. With respect to the body, also modelled from life, I will ask those 
gentlemen, who complain so much of the statue of Mr. Webster for not 
giving you an accurate idea of his majestic form, to go and look at the 
figure of Houdon’s Washington, and ask themselves what idea it gives 
them, apart from the head, of his majestic person. The fasces on the left 
hand seem to me greatly out of proportion to the work, and otherwise 
objectionable; though I utter all these views with extreme distrust of my 
own judgment. I lately heard this statue pronounced “ as bad as a statue 
could be,” by a gentleman of great intellectual culture and taste in a 
southern city;—a gentleman as likely to form a correct opinion of a work 
of art as any person in this room. Hoes not every gentleman already see 
that with the same local influences, the same appliances, the same means 
as those employed in the case before us, it would have been quite as easy 
to discredit Iloudon’s Washington, in the opinion of those who knew Gen- 
eral Washington at a later period of his life, and when his person had 
materially changed, as it has been to discredit Powers’ Webster in the 
minds of some persons ? 
The statue of Washington by Canova, made for the State of North 
Carolina, and destroyed in the conflagration of her capitol, comes next. 
I saw this great work, while it was in progress in the studio of the cele- 
brated sculptor. I conversed with him on the difficulties attending the 
employment of the modern costume in the statues of great men. He 
regarded these difficulties as insuperable; he thought it was absolutely MR. EVERETT’S SPEECH. 
11 
necessary to resort to the ancient costume. This he did in the case of 
Washington, and, regarding the Chieftain as the prominent conception of 
his chai’acter, he is represented in the Roman military dress with a brazen 
cuirass, half of the thigh, the knee and legs bare, and military sandals; 
and in this costume he was inditing the constitution of the United States ! 
The head, if I recollect right, was a not very accurate repetition of Hou- 
don’s. It is unnecessary to observe that, in the facts I have now stated, 
there are ample materials for judgments of this noble work, by an artist 
who stood at that time at the head of his profession, quite as unfavorable 
as those pronounced on the statue of Mr. Webster, by Powers; and that 
if the same course had been pursued toward it, and a preliminary exhibi- 
tion and criticism insisted upon, the result must for the moment have been 
as prejudicial to its reputation. 
The statue of Washington, by Chantrey, stands on the floor of our State 
House. He divided with Canova the palm of mastery in his art, at the 
time when the statue was made, which was before Thorwaldsen had become, 
by acknowledgment equal, if not superior to either of them. I saw this 
admirable work in Sir Francis Chantrey’s studio in London, and I con- 
ferred with him on the vexed question of costume, repeating the substance 
of my conversations with Canova the winter before. Sir Francis differed 
in toto; he maintained that historical truth and accuracy required that 
modern statues should be clothed in modern costume, the ungainly pecu- 
liarities of which must be evaded by selecting those articles,—cloaks, 
mantles, and dressing gowns,—which best admit a flowing development. 
In pursuance of this view, he draped Washington in a cloak; a dignified 
and beautiful drapery, but certainly unlike any cloak ever worn by 
Washington ; entirely changing the aspect of his person, giving it a slightly 
round-shouldered appearance; and assuredly, if Houdon’s statue is any 
authority, as unlike life as possible. How easy would it have been by 
placing a skillfully wrought statuette side by side with this admirable 
statue on the eve of its erection, and exposing it to exhibition on probation, 
to raise an outcry against it! 
I come next to the noble statue of Washington by Horatio Greenough, 
originally placed in the rotundaofthe Capitol at Washington, and afterwards 
removed to the open grounds on the eastern front,—removed, too, with the 
full consent of the gifted artist; and this I mention to show the importance to 
a work of art of its being seen in a favorable light. Although his statue was 
originally intended to stand in that magnificent hall, the central point of the 
Union, where, over all other places in the world an American artist would 
most wish to set up a statue, he yet preferred, on account of the disad- 
vantageous lights under which it was there seen, that it should be removed 
into the capitol square, and exposed to the elements, although, being of 
marble, it must necessarily perish by corrosion in the lapse of years, and 
in no very long time lose all the beauty of its surface; to say nothing of 
injuries by wanton hands, from which it has already suffered. We all 
remember the shout of derision raised against this magnificent work. For 
myself, Sir, I greatly admired it. I saw it at Florence under the hands of 
the sculptor, whom I most highly esteemed as an artist, and cherished as 
a friend. I wrote an article, in which I endeavored to do full justice to its 
merits, in one of the periodicals of the day. I declared that if it had been 
dug up from the ground, stained and mutilated, like the works of the ancient 
sculptors, it would be thought equal to any of them; and yet, Sir, the 
terms of disparagement and ridicule so liberally bestowed upon Mr. 
Powers’ Webster are complimentary compared with those lavished upon 
Greenough’s Washington. They stung the generous and sensitive artist to 12 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
madness, as the motion on your table, if it takes effect, will sting an artist 
equally gifted, generous, and sensitive. Mr. Greenough once wrote me, 
in the bitterness of his heart, that he intended to make an equestrian 
statue of Washington in small clothes and Hussar boots, to show his loving 
countrymen that he was a tolerable tailor and bootmaker, which they 
seemed to think was the main thing in a sculptor. 
Mr. Crawford’s superb equestrian statue at Richmond closes the list. I 
had the good fortune to be present at its inauguration on the 22d of Feb- 
ruary, 1858 ; and at the banquet in the evening. I expressed, in the most 
fervent language I could command, the sincere admiration with which I 
regarded it. And yet, Sir, I have heard it spoken of in reference to almost 
every point both of the horse and the rider, and that by persons of intelli- 
gence, culture, and influence, in terms far more severe than any that 1 
have heard applied to Powers’ Webster; and these remarks have been 
extended to the figures of Patrick Henry and Mr. Jefferson, which form 
part of the monumental work. I could, if I were willing to do so, give 
these unfavorable judgments in minute detail. Sir, these severe critics, in 
all these cases, supposing them to be competent judges of works of art, 
forget that no human work is perfect; that nothing is easier than to find 
fault; and that, with reference to matters of taste, there is almost invaria- 
bly a difference of opinion, and no where so surely as in works of this 
kind. 
Now, Sir, when, in meetings of the executive committee, I have urged 
considerations of this kind, two answers only have been attempted ; one 
that they are irrelevant. AVhat, irrelevant to show, by these five capital 
examples, what might also be shown of all the portraits of Washington 
ever painted, and of Stuart’s not less than any of them, that you are 
applying a test to Powers’ statue of Webster, by which, if applied to all 
these first-rate works, not one would sustain the test any better than his V 
Not relevant to argue the injustice of the course you are pursuing against 
this statue, by showing that the same course if equally pursued toward the 
statues of Houdon, Canova, Chan trey, Horatio and Richard Greenough, 
and Crawford, would have prevented every one of them from ever 
reaching its pedestal ? 
The other answer which had been given to these considerations is that 
the cases are different. None of us, it is said, have seen Washington ; we 
are either comparatively ignorant or indifferent how he looked or how he 
is represented. Mr. AVebster we have seen and known; we carry his 
image in our minds, and it is our duty to see it faithfully reproduced in 
the statue. But I do not admit this indifference to AVashington’s likeness. 
I do not admit that the statues have been allowed to go up, merely because 
men did not care how he was represented. They have been allowed to 
go up because they were the works of capital artists, and because it is 
impossible in works of art that all should see and judge alike. Besides, 
Sir, this answer strengthens my argument. If the test you apply is one 
which not one of these accepted statues can sustain, where the conditions 
of a satisfactory work are so comparatively easy, how can it be with any 
equity applied in this case, where you have got to satisfy an ideal in every 
man’s heart, and reproduce Mr. Webster in such a way, as to satisfy the 
multiform tastes, and recollections of the thousands and tens of thousands 
who knew him personally, and flatter themselves they can measure with 
their eye in a cursory inspection, more accurately than an experienced 
sculptor with the calipers in his hand ? 
But I do not rest the case merely on the ground that the exceptions 
taken to. Mr. Powers’ statue gre no other, no greater in kind or degree, MR. EVERETT’S SPEECH. 
13 
than those tqken to other similar works. With entire deference to those 
who differ from me, I maintain that it is a first rate work ; true to nature 
and life, in countenance and expression, form and action ; worthy of the 
great artist and of the great man whom it faithfully portrays. To support 
this opinion, I proceed to make a few remarks upon the statue, in refer- 
ence to the several points of head and expression—form and action—cos- 
tume, and accessories; for these four points are, I suppose, all that are 
material to be considered. 
I begin with what I consider the least material, and first the accessories 
—the fasces symbolizing the Union of the States. I own that I do not 
much like the admixture of symbols of any kind with portraiture, and I 
do not particularly admire this part of the work. It is a very difficult 
part of a statue to treat. Most sculptors think a support of this kind 
necessary to give a balance to the work, but it is difficult to give it per- 
tinence and character. It is treated in different wavs in Mr. Ball’s stat- 
uette, (which has been placed in contrast with Powers’ statue,) and in 
Mr. Ball’s statue. In one it is on the right hand and in the other on the 
left; in the one it is higher than in the other ; in the one it is draped, and 
in the other I think not; and gentlemen may not find it easy to tell, in 
either case, precisely what the object indicated is. I mention this not 
invidiously, but to show the inherent difficulty in this part of an historical 
statue. I must say, as I have already observed, that I think the fasces in 
Houdon’s statue very heavy, out of proportion, and otherwise objectionable. 
The costume of Powers’ statue has been severely criticised; in fact 
the weight of rebuke has, I think, fallen on the unlucky set of the trowsers 
on the lower leg. Well, Sir, the costume is modelled from nature. A suit 
of Mr. Webster’s garments was sent to the artist, and they were placed, 
not on poles, as one of the gentlemen who preceded me has suggested, 
but on a lay figure carefully built up for the purpose, of the size of life, 
as accurately as that can be measured by as true and keen an eye as ever 
beamed in the head of man. They may be a trifle looser than Mr. Web- 
ster woukl have worn them to an evening party, but before gentlemen 
conclude that they would have looked better or more life-like if differently 
treated, they would do well to examine the effect of a tight fit in Houdon’s 
statue of Washington, of which the cast stands side by side, in the vestibule 
of the Athenaeum, and also to consider the different appearance of woollen 
dress in bronze and in plaster, in works of art and in nature. A full 
length likeness was lately taken of me, by one of the very best photog- 
raphers in the country, Brady, of New York. It has been thought very 
true to nature. The figure is so small as not to be affected by the con- 
vexity of the lens. A member of my family, and a very nice observer, 
approving it in other respects, thought the lower garments and boots were 
such as I had never worn. I was wearing at the time, and had worn for 
weeks, the identical articles in which the photograph was taken! 
The person and action of the statue have been much objected to as by no 
means characteristic or expressive. The figure has been called lank and 
slouching; it has been said that Mr. Webster’s attitude was firm, and 
rested equally on both feet, and that he never, “ from the cradle to his 
grave,” stood as this statue represents him. Sir, gentlemen are misled by 
their recent recollections of Mr. Webster. The attitude to which they 
allude, and which I think they exaggerate, grew upon him with the 
increase of his person, towards the close of his life. I knew him a good 
deal nearer the cradle than most gentlemen; at least, than any one who 
has spoken here to-day. I went to school to him before he was twenty- 
pne years of age, and if I could draw, I could give you his figure, down 14 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
to the exact shape of the toe of his boot, as accurately as I could give 
you the faces at my breakfast table this morning. I have his portrait, 
painted by a respectable artist, when he was about thirty-six years of 
age; it gives but the head and shoulders, but you can judge from them 
that there was, at that time, nothing of what you demand as the true 
Websterian attitude; and yet, Sir, this was at the age when he argued 
the Dartmouth College case. He was then rather spare than stout. Ad- 
vancing in life, as very frequently happens, he increased in size, and his 
carriage and attitude changed accordingly. This is unavoidable; tall 
men stoop; short men, if stout, hold themselves erect, rather leaning back; 
and a tallish man, but moderately portly, has a sway of movement, which 
disappears with increase of bulk. This change is not noticed, because it 
comes on, in most cases, gradually. When I returned from Europe in 
1855, after more than five years’ absence, I was very much struck with the 
alteration which had taken place in Mr. Webster’s face and figure in the 
interval. If the change were made at once it would always strike the 
observer. If you took a cincture weighing twenty-five or thirty pounds, 
and placed it' round the person, you would immediately change the carriage 
of the individual, and cause him to stand more squarely on his feet. I 
make these remarks, not on my own authority, but on that of one of the 
most skilful artists in Boston, and they have been confirmed to me by one 
of our most eminent anatomists. If gentlemen will trace the person of 
Washington, as it appears in Peale’s statue, painted in 1770, in Iloudon's 
statue modelled in 1785, and Stuart’s full length, painted about ten years 
later, they will find it difficult to believe, without the head, that any two 
of these likenesses belonged to the same individual. 
That I do not stand alone in these views, let me read you a letter from 
a gentleman of great discernment and of the highest intelligence, who 
knew Mr. Webster well at the meridian of his days; I mean Professor 
Theophilus Parsons, of the Law School of Cambridge:— 
Cambridge, June G, 1859. 
Dear Sir,—I observe that there is some difficulty as to the proper dis- 
position of Mr. Powers’ statue of Mr. Webster, and have thought my 
testimony might not be worthless. Late in 1822 I went to Washington 
with Mr. Webster, being employed by claimants under the treaty with 
Spain. I had been much with Mr. Webster before, and for some months 
in Washington lived in the same house with him, and worked in the same 
room. Soon after my return I left Boston for some years, and my inti- 
macy with Mr. Webster was never resumed. I have always remembered 
him better as he appeared then, than as he appeared at a later period. I 
am certain that Mr. Powers’ statue is exceedingly like Mr. Webster, as 
he was from 40 to 50. I have studied it with much interest. The bronze 
face is as good every where as the marble bust of Powers, from which it 
was copied, and is better in some respects,—indicating that Mr. Powers 
had profited by criticism. 
Mr. Webster argued many cases before the supreme court that session. 
I assisted him in preparing his briefs, and for that reason as well as others 
was interested in the cases, and listened to every argument. I have now 
a perfectly distinct recollection of his attitude and manner, and in all 
these respects the bronze statue is perfectly accurate. Later in life he 
became more fleshy in face and figure ; and perhaps, because years dimin- 
ished the vigor and tension of the muscles and fibres, there was a relaxa- 
tion about the features, and figure, and attitude, which had no existence, 
at an earlier period, and have none in the statue. mr. everett’s speech. 
15 
If younger men (and they are now the great majority) wish for a statue 
of Mr. Webster representing him as they knew him, let it be made. But 
if the evidence of those who remember Mr. Webster best, as he appeared 
from thirty to forty years ago can be gathered, I am sure that the work of 
Mr. Powers will be proved to be true to its original, in form and feature, 
in character, expression, and attitude. 
Very sincerely yours, 
(Signed) Tiieo. Parsons. 
Such is Mr. Parsons testimony. I will only add, Sir, to show the 
looseness of observation, which has existed in this case, that neither Mr. 
Ball’s statuette nor his statue, which have both been commended as stand- 
ing evenly on both feet and legs, does really stand in that manner. The 
right foot in both of them is somewhat advanced, and the figure is not 
drawn up into the peculiar attitude, which has been declared to be so 
characteristic of Mr. Webster. 
I come now to the head—the face and expression—surely the most 
important—the vital part of a statue ; although the extraordinary paradox 
has been advanced in opposition to Mr. Powers’ statue, that the person is 
more so; that the form and movement are more significant, it has been 
said, than nose and eye-brow. How happens it, then, that from the dawn 
of art, heads without bodies,—busts without the person,—have been 
sculptured to preserve the memory of their originals; but never, from the 
days of Dtedalus to the present time, was a headless body sculptured for 
that purpose ? A good deal has been said, in this connection, of the 
majestic expressiveness of Mr. Webster’s person. I hope, Sir, I am not 
insensible to what there was of grand and imposing about him in that, as 
in every other respect; but I rather think, when you come to separate 
head and body, and claim for the latter by itself a peculiar significance, 
particularly when cast in bronze, that a good deal of imagination will be 
found to enter into the impression. A noble head may impart a portion 
of its grandeur even to an ungainly person; but I doubt if the trunk of 
the Apollo would be thought any thing better than a piece of well-shaped 
flesh, if surmounted by a stupid, unmeaning face. 
Besides, Sir, gentlemen demand from the bronze what, from the nature 
of the case, can exist only in the living man. They have in their imagi- 
nations (as they think) the image of the great statesman himself,—the 
whole beaming countenance, the flashing eye, the lip quivering with 
emotion, the throbbing veins, the heaving muscles of the sinewy frame, 
all tuned in concert with the clai'ion voice still ringing in their ears ; and 
they complain that the lifeless, rigid bronze does not produce the same 
effect upon them. Sir, if you stood before Mr. Webster himself, and the 
hand of a superior power should strike him into monumental bronze, 
giving him this ghastly metallic hue, seal his eyes and lips, stiffen his legs, 
paralyze his arms, and cause him to stand stark and cold before you, 
motionless and speechless, would you not cry out, in amazement, quantum 
mutatus,—how changed from him whose voice, and look, and gesture, 
caused your flesh to creep with delighted awe ? When you complain of 
the statue for not inspiring you with those feelings which you experienced 
in the presence of the living man, you simply complain of it for not being 
more like Mr. Webster than he would have been like himself, if converted, 
by some magic power, into bronze. 
No, Sir, the head, the countenance and the expression are the vital part 
of the statue, especially in the case of such a head as Mr. Webster’s; and 
of the sufficiency of Mr. Powers’ work in this respect, I happen to have 16 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
it in my power to produce a testimonial, which I hope will convince even 
those who have hitherto been dissatisfied on that point; it is nothing less 
than the judgment of Mr. Webster himself! I had been informed some 
time ago, that Mr. Webster had, in the hearing of a gentleman here 
present, (Mr. Harvey,) stamped Mr. Powers’ marble bust with his appro- 
bation; and anxious not to mistake or exaggerate his testimony, I 
addressed the following note to Mr. Ilarvey, to know if my recollection 
was correct:— 
Boston, June 3, 1859. 
My Dear Sir,—You informed me the other day, that you went with Mr. 
Webster to look at Powers’ bust, in the Athenaeum gallery, shortly after 
Mr. Healey’s great picture was open to inspection, and that after contem- 
plating the bust with fixed attention for some time, Mr. Webster, in reply 
to some criticism of yours, observed that “ it was the best likeness of him 
that had been made, and a faithful representation of him, at his prime.” 
Please let me know whether I have accurately remembered your state- 
ment, and whether you are willing I should make use of it at the meeting 
next Wednesday. 
With great regard, very truly yours, 
Edward Everett. 
Peter Harvey, Esq. 
To this inquiry Mr. Harvey responded that I had accurately stated Mr. 
Webster’s opinion, most emphatically pronounced. 
But it may occur to some one to ask whether the bronze head faithfully 
represents the marble. I have examined that point, passing from one to 
the other, with care, and I do not scruple to allirm that the bronze is a 
decided improvement on the marble. There is a certain protrusion of 
the left side of the under lip in the marble, which some of the friends of 
Mr. Webster disliked. Mr. Powers, indeed, always affirmed that it was 
so natural,—so habitual—that the teeth were worn away by the motion of 
the jaw, which gave this effect to the lip. It is somewhat exaggerated in 
the engraving prefixed to the first volume of Mr. Webster’s works, being 
less considerable in the marble than those who take it for granted that the 
print is accurately engraved, would suppose. Still, however, there is 
something of it, and Mr. Powers, well aware that however habitual that, 
expression might be, there were other shades of expression equally so, 
has, in the bronze, effectually removed the objection ; and the head now 
stands, I verily believe, as noble and true a head as was ever fashioned 
by the chisel of the sculptor. Let me confirm my impressions on this sub- 
ject by the testimony of an artist of great merit, who has himself por- 
trayed Mr. Webster, face and person, with entire success,—I mean Mr. 
Joseph Ames—from whom, a day or two ago, I received the following 
letter:— 
Baltimore, June 3, 1859. 
My Dear Sir:—Your note of May 26, has just reached me, and in 
reply I would say that I have always regarded Mr. Powers’ bust of 
Webster as a most powerful and characteristic representation of the great 
man. And the statue, which gives us Mr. Webster in the prime of life, 
seems to lose nothing of the truthfulness so remarkable in the marble bust; 
in fact, the head, in some respects, strikes me even more grand. MR. EVERETT’S SPEECH. 
17 
It is certainly due to Mr. Powers that this statue should be placed in a 
favorable position, and I sincerely trust the good people of Boston will 
not fail to do so. 
I am, Dear Sir, with great respect, 
Your most obedient servant, 
Joseph Ames. 
Hon. Edward Everett. 
There is another letter in this room from a gentleman who stood second 
to no other in the respect and alfection of Mr. Webster, which I will ask 
Mr. Harvey, to whom it is addressed, to read, and thereby allow me a 
moment’s repose. 
Mr. Harvey here read the following letter from Hon. Rufus Choate:— 
Dorchester, June 8, 1859. 
My Dear Mr. Harvey:—Your very kind note is received. In 
regard to the statue of Mr. Webster as a work of art, my opinion being 
that of one unskilled in such matters can avail nothing. As a likeness, a 
truthful representation—I will say this—it is of Mr. Webster at an age 
earlier than many of its critics knew him—certainly at an age many 
years preceding that when our impressions of him are freshest, being the 
most recent, and it is to this fact that I think a great deal of unfavorable 
criticism can be traced. It is to me an exceedingly pleasant likeness, for 
it recalls him to me as I remember him in the prime of his strength and 
beauty, and power, and yet I think no living artist could portray Mr. 
Webster with entire satisfaction to his family and friends. 
I hope that the liberal and courteous action of the last legislature, in 
giving the State House grounds for the location of the statue, will be met 
in a similar spirit, that justice will be done the artist who ranks so high in 
American art, and who has wrought a likeness so gratifying to those who- 
knew and loved Mr. Webster, in his earlier, as well as his later years, 
and that the judgment of the chairman of the executive committee,, 
[Mr. Everett,] * * * will be fully vindicated by the action of a 
decisive majority of the Committee of One Hundred. 
I remain, my Dear Sir, 
Yery truly yours, 
Rufus Choate. 
Sir, Mr. Powers’ head of Webster will as surely go down to posterity, 
as the head of the illustrious statesman, as Houdon’s head of Washington 
will go down to all after time, as the head of the Father of his Country. 
You may melt the statue into cents, as has been proposed, but unless you 
could also annihilate the model, the bust, and all the copies of it, that 
head, modelled from life when Mr. Webster was at the meridian of his 
powers and fame, will be the head which will forever fill the niche assigned 
to him, in the pantheon of the country’s great men. 
I have no objection, Sir,—nay, I greatly desire—to multiply statues of 
Mr. Webster. Let them adorn all our high places in all our cities; I 
think most favorably of Mr. Ball’s statue, which has been placed in con- 
trast with that of Mr. Powers. Considering that Mr. Webster never sat 
to Mr. Ball, it is truly an admirable work. I will cheerfully contribute 
my share to the expense of putting it in marble or bronze, but 1 will not 
consent to aid in building up his reputation on the fragments of that of a 
noble brother artist; nor would he—I know his generous nature too well 18 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
—himself consent to do so. Sooner would he lay down his right hand, 
with all his cunning, upon the block. 
I hold in my hand a letter from the living representative of Mr. 
Webster, which is expressed with so much modesty and right feeling, that 
I am sure gentlemen will hear it with pleasure, and feel that it ought to 
have much influence over them in a case of this kind. 
Boston, June 7, 1859. 
Hon. Edward Everett :— 
My Dear Sir,—On reaching town, this morning, from Marshfield, I 
received your note of the 4th inst., on the subject of Powers’ statue of 
my father. 
I regret to learn that, as you inform me, a movement is on foot to pre- 
vent the erection of this statue, and in answer to your request for an 
expression of my opinion to be used at a meeting of the Committee of 
One Hundred, to be held to-morrow, I address you this note. 
The friends of my late father, in Boston and its vicinity, irrespective of 
party, soon after his decease, subscribed for a large sum of money, one of 
the uses of which was to provide a statue of him to be erected in Boston. 
A committee of which you are the head have procured such a statue, 
made by one of the most eminent American artists, who had previously 
made a bust of Mr. Webster satisfactory to him and his friends; and the 
legislature of Massachusetts, at the request of your committee, by an 
.unanimous vote, have granted permission to erect this statue in a most 
conspicuous and honorable place, on grounds belonging to the State. 
As my father’s representative, deeply grateful to his friends for all they 
,have done in his honor, to you and the committee for the labor of love 
which you have performed in carrying their purposes into execution, and 
to the State for the respect which it has shown to his memory, if any 
wishes of my own could prevail, I should hope that nothing might occur 
to prevent the completion of the work by the erection of the statue in 
the place designed for it. 
I am, my Dear Sir, yours always truly and gratefully, 
Fletcher Webster. 
But it has been suggested that before the statue of Mr. Powers is per- 
manently set up in the State House grounds it should be temporarily 
exhibited for criticism, a course if possible more objectionable and offen- 
sive than its immediate condemnation. Had you, when giving the order 
to the artist, told him that his work would be subjected to this ordeal, 
(unheard of before in any other case,) all the money in State Street would 
not have tempted him to accept the offer. To set it up in this way, after 
denouncing it and ridiculing it, for weeks and months, is simply to elevate 
it as a target for invidious criticism. Every one who has already pro- 
nounced a judgment against it, would from pride of opinion, and to show 
that he had not been unjust, scrutinize the statue for the purpose of con- 
firming his first impression; and what men desire to find in such a case 
they do find. Besides it would be a step altogether barren of any prac- 
tical result, for who are to be the judges in this examination by the 
million ? how is their opinion to be collected ? 
It is said the artist has been paid for his work, and has no longer any 
rights in it. What! has an artist of eminent reputation, of exemplary 
life, the most generous disposition, the most childlike simplicity of char- 
acter, no right to the common decencies of his art ? When, since the 
world began, was such a course ever thought of before, as to procure a MR. EVERETT’S SPEECH. 
19 
statue, and after contemplating it for three weeks, petition the govern- 
ment under which you live to allow it to be placed in the inclosure of 
their Capitol, receive that permission, by a formal act of legislation, and 
then turn round and tell your government you have altered your mind, 
and tell the artist his work is not worthy the place assigned to it! Be- 
cause you have paid him his dollars you think he has nothing to complain 
of in a course like this ? Sir, the course you are pursuing will inflict 
upon him a stigma, for which all the gold in California would yield no 
compensation. 
Besides, even on the score of pecuniary interest,—the lowest con- 
sideration with an artist who works for immortal fame,—a trial exhibition 
of the kind suggested, (supposing it to result in confirming the unfavorable 
estimate of the statue which has caused it to be thought of,) would do 
Mr. Powers a very serious injury. If set up in this way, the statue should, 
as you anticipate, sink under the unrelenting warfare so long waged 
against it, do you think he would retain the dollars he has received from 
us ? Sir, he would throw them back, though he begged his bread to the 
end of his life. 
I am grieved that this movement against Mr. Powers’ statue,—against 
his reputation,—should be made by his own countrymen,—should be made 
in Boston. Better had it been the work of foreigners, grudging to this 
country the praise of artistic culture. But no, Sir, he has been appreciated 
and admired abroad. His busts, early rising in reputation far above those 
of any contemporary artist in Florence, led the superintendent of the 
Tuscan Gallery to compare the youthful American sculptor to Lysippus, 
who alone of Grecian artists was permitted to model Alexander the Great. 
When the Greek Slave was exhibited in London, it caused a sensation 
unexampled in a case of this kind. I was a guest, on five successive days, 
at that time, at as many entertainments, in the most intelligent and culti- 
vated circles in London, where this statue was the universal theme of 
admiring comment. On one of these occasions, the late Earl of Elles- 
mere, who sat next me, the possessor of the Bridgewater Gallery, a man 
of taste and refinement, pointing to Canova’s Venus, which stood by the 
side of the room, said he would rather have Power’s Slave than any work 
of Canova. I have here at hand, though I will not consume your time by 
reading them, letters from the present highly intelligent Speaker of the 
House of Commons, and from the Earl of Stanhope, both gentlemen of 
taste, and conversant with art, speaking of Mr. Powers’ works, which they 
had seen at Florence, in the most exalted terms, and the latter particularly 
commending the bust of Mr. Webster, as doing justice to the great 
original. Is it not mournful to reflect that a great work of an artist, so 
honored and appreciated abroad, should be the butt of denunciation and 
ridicule at home, on the part of his own countrymen, and subjected to the 
treatment which it is now proposed at this meeting to consummate ? 
There are many other lights in which the subject might be treated ; but 
the hour is late, and I have trespassed too long on your patience. 20 
POWERS’ STATUE OF WEBSTER. 
TIIE WEBSTER STATUE. 
[The gentlemen whose names are subscribed to the following paper, fifty- 
eight in number, are members of the Committee of One Hundred. Addi- 
tional signatures, it is known in one ease, and believed in other cases, can 
be obtained of members of the Committee temporarily absent from Bos- 
ton. About ten members of the original Committee of One Hundred are 
absent in Europe, or otherwise out of reach, so that it may be stated that 
at least about two-thirds of the Committee of One Hundred, as far as can 
be ascertained, are in favor of erecting the statue forthwith in the State 
House grounds, in pursuance of the Resolution of the 17th of February 
last. It is not known nor believed, that all of the remaining third are 
opposed to that course.] 
On the 17th of February last, at a meeting of the Committee of One 
Hundred, a resolution was passed, with a single dissenting voice, directing 
the Executive Committee to ask leave of the legislature to erect the 
statue in the State House grounds, and if leave was granted, to take meas- 
ures accordingly. This permission was granted by the legislature, but at 
the meeting of the Committee of One Hundred yesterday, a resolution 
was adopted, by a vote of fourteen to nine, rescinding so much of the 
resolution of February 17th, as directed the Executive Committee to set 
up the statue. It is known that some members, and believed that many 
members, of the Committee of One Hundred, and in favor of setting up 
the statue, were absent. As the rescinding resolution was carried by the 
small vote of fourteen, which cannot be regarded as an adequate expres- 
sion of the sense of the Committee of One Hundred, We, the under- 
signed, have thought it our duty, in this way, to express our opinion, that 
the statue ought to be forthwith set up in the State House grounds, in 
pursuance of the Resolution of the 17th February last, and the permission 
granted by the legislature. 
Boston, June 9, 1859. 
EDWARD EVERETT. 
NATHAN APPLETON. 
GEO. W CROCKETT. 
WILLIAM APPLETON. 
WILLIAM STURGIS. 
WILLIAM AMORY. 
F. SKINNER. 
II K HORTON. 
JAMES LAWRENCE. 
AMOS A LAWRENCE. 
P. W. CHANDLER. 
OZIAS GOODWIN 
SAML. G. WARD. 
FRANKLIN HAVEN. 
PETER DUNBAR. 
C R. RANSOM. 
H II. HUNNEWELL. 
PETER HARVEY. 
CHARLES G. GREENE. 
MOSES WILLIAMS. 
ALBERT FEARING. 
T. B. LAWRENCE. 
J. MASON WARREN. 
J. W. TRULL. 
S. HOOPER. 
T. E. CIIICKERING. 
NATHAN HALE. 
FRANCIS C. LOWELL. 
JACOB SLEEPER. 
JULIUS A PALMER. 
WILLIAM It. LAWRENCE, 
[By A A. Lawrence, at his 
request,] 
IIENRY J. GARDNER. 
ANDREW CARNEY. 
ELIPIIALET JONES. 
C. C. FELTON. 
JOHN JEFFRIES. 
CHAS. LEVI WOODBURY. 
WM. H LEARNED. 
W. C. BARSTOW. 
ARTHUR PICKERING. 
SILAS PEIRCE. 
A. IIEMEN WAY. 
JOHN J. OBBR. 
JOHN H. PEARSON. 
SAME. 1IENSHAW. 
J. C. TUCKER. 
N. A THOMPSON. 
CHARLES H. MILLS. 
JAMES K. MILLS, 
[By F. Haven, by written 
request.] 
JAMES CHEEVER. 
J. A. LOWELL. 
THOMAS J. WIIITTEMORE. 
SAML. C. ALLEN. 
S D. BRADFORD. 
JOHN T HEARD. 
THOMAS B. WALES. 
GEORGE T. LYMAN, 
[By P. Harvey, by written 
request.] 
J. W. JAMES.