REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMORIAL General Israel Potnam, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 1887. MAJORITY AND MINORITY REPORTS, |^rii)Icd cy (jrclcr o[ l]-)c Oci-)cra! (/Isscn^bly. HARTFORD, CONN. Press ok Tns Casr, Lockwood & Buainard Company, issr. ■REPORTS OF COMMISSION MEMORIAL General Israel Putnam, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 1887. MAJORITY AND MINORITY REPORTS. ^piijfed W yrdep 0J flje (grerjereu ^ssertjJalv. HARTFORD, CONN. Pkess of Ths Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company. 1887. \^^- \909 b. ot 0* MAJORITY EEPOET. To the General Assembly, State of Connecticut, January Session, A.D. 1887: The undersigned, having been appointed, by the General Assembly at its January Session, A.D. 1886, a commission to procure a monument to the memory of Major-General Israel Putnam, and to erect the same over his remains, in the town of Brooklyn, in this State, as will more fully appear by a copy of said act hereto annexed, would respectfully report : That immediately upon their said appointment, they met at Hartford on the 19tli day of February, and having duly organized, unanimously adopted the following : Voted, To invite designs for a monument, to he erected in Brooklyn, Connecticut, to the memory of General Israel Putnam, said design to be submitted to the Secretary of the com- mission, on or before the 15th of May, A.D. 1886. No restriction is made upon the nature, style, or character of the monument, ex- cept that its cost must not exceed the sum of ten thousand dollars. The commission will allow the sum of two hundred and fifty dol- lars, for any design they may choose to accept. A large number of artists accepted this invitation, and submitted designs according to the terms of said vote. Some of them were exceedingly appropriate and meritorious. As will be seen, no restrictions were made upon the nature or style of the monument, and among the number submitted was a design for an equestrian statue, which was so appropriate that the commission were of the oj^inion that if it were pos- sible to procure a monument of that character within the sura appropriated, they ought so to do. They therefore rejected all designs, as was their privilege, and advertised for a further competition, limiting tlie same to equestrian statues. At their second competition, fonr designs of exceptional merit were submitted, one by Mr. E. S. Woods of Hartford, one by Mr. Geo. E. Bissell of Poughkeepsie, N. Y., one by tlie Bridge- port Monumental Bronze Company, and a fourth by Mr, Karl Gerliardt of Hartford. After several days of very care- ful study and consideration the committee made selection of the design presented by Mr. Gerhardt, and voted him the two hundred and lifty dollars award. They subsequently on the 2d day of October, A.D. 1886, entered into a contract with him to erect a monument modeled on that design, on the site selected by the commission, for the sum of nine thousand seven hundred and fifty dollars. The names of the artists who so kindly submitted their designs to the commission are hereto annexed, as also a copy of the contract entered into with Mr, Gerhardt. The act of the General Assembly requires that the monu- ment should be erected, in the town of Brooklyn in this State, and " over the grave " of the General, A literal compliance with this direction, if the act was to be interpreted to mean over the grave M'here the General was originally buried, was found to be impossible, as even the simplest monument in that place would have interfered with the right of others in a manner in which the commission had neither the power nor the inclination to do. Upon this fact being brought to the attention of the descendants of General Putnam, they acting through and by the Hon. Wm. H. Putnam, a lineal descend- ant of the General, immediately signified their willingness to remove his remains to such place as the commission might select, so that tiie monument when erected should in fact stand over his grave ; and this too without any expense to the State. As they had the legal right to make such removal, the commission could see no objection to such course. In the matter of selecting the site, the commission here had a great deal of trouble, and have been com])elled to hold a large number of meetings. The public s■ ss. Brooklyn, Jan. 25, A.D. 1887. State of Connecticut, County of Windham, Personally appeared Thomas S. Marlor, the signer and sealer of the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the same to be his free act and deed. Before me, JOHN P. WOOD, Notary Public. 14 COPY FROM THE RECORDS OF THE TOWN OF BROOKLYN. "Resoh)ed, That a committee of fifty (50) be appointed for the town to act in harmony with the wishes of the Putnam Monument Commission in the dedicatory services of the proposed Putnam Monument, consisting of the following gentlemen: Benjamin A. Bailey, William H. Putnam, Thomas S. Marlor, William Clapp, Stephen H. Tripp, Enos L. Preston, Theodore D. Pond, Rev. Thomas Fogg, Charles B. Wheatley, William H. Cutler, Rev. E. S. Beard, Charles Phillips, Rev. G. W. Brewster, Henry H. Green, Haschael F. Cox, Charles G. Williams, JohnG. Potter, Samuel Bradford, Vine R. Franklin, Amos Kendall, Charles Searls, Albert Day, L. S. Atwood, Rev. S. F. Jarvis, Frank E. Baker, A true copy. John M. Brown, Rev. William Gussman, John Hyde, Darius Day, Henry S. Marlor, Jr., Rev. A. J. Culp, John N. Burdick, George Brown, Elias H. Main, James C. Palmer, Simon Shepard, Albert D. Putnam, Edwin Scarborough, Joseph B. Stetson, Thomas R. Baxter, Willard Day, Frank Day, Charles H. Cornwall, Ephraim Prentice, Russell W. Bailey, Willis A. Kenyon, Daniel B. Hatch, J. Sprague Bard, Wellington E. James, John A. Sharpe. Attest, THEO. D. POND, Chairviav. MINORITY REPORT. To the Honorable the General Assembly : As a member of the Putnam Monument Commission, I beg leave to make to your Honorable body this Minority Report. In the fall of 1885, the town of Brooklyn, by a unanimous vote, appropriated five hundred dollars to aid in the erection of a monument over General Putnam's grave. The General Assembly of 1886 appropriated ten thousand dollars to aid in the erection of said monument over the said grave, and appointed a commission to attend to its purchase and erection. The following is the resolution by which the commission was appointed and authorized to act : Resolved hy this AssemhJy : Section 1. That Henry M. Cleveland of Brooklyn, Heman A. Tyler of Hartford, George F. Holcombe of New Haven, George P. McLean of Simsbury, Morris W. Seymour of Bridgeport, and Henry C. Robinson and George G. Sumner of Hartford, are hereby appointed a commission to procure a monument to the memory of General Israel Putnam, and cause the same to be placed over his grave in the town of Brooklyn. Sec. 2. Said commission is hereby authorized to make a con- tract, in the name and on behalf of the Slate, with some competent person to be by them selected for constructing said monument, and placing it in position over said grave; provided, that the expense to the State of said work shall be limited in said contract to a sum not exceeding ten thousand dollars. It was found, upon examination, that it would be imjjracti- cable to place the monument over the grave, and it was decided to select a site, either in the cemetery or in the vil- lage. The commission voted to contract for an equestrian 16 statue; but as tlie cemetery would be an inappropriate place for such a statute, they decided to select a site in the vilhige. The town offered no site, for reasons well understood in "Windham County. The Unitarian Society, claiming the common on which there is a very desirable location, declined to tender it for the use of the State. Several sites were ten- dered the commission by a citizen of Brooklyn, one of which is known as the post-office site, and this was accepted by the commission, four of the members voting for it, two declining to vote for its acceptance, one member being absent when the vote was taken. There was no division in the commission as to the necessity of violating the resolution by which we were appointed, as it seems to me we have done, as the resolution provides that the monument shall be "placed over his grave." I am quite sure that every member of the General Assembly who voted for the appropriation believed that the location of the monument was Settled by the resolution, and that the "grave" named in the resolution meant the place where Putnam had lain during the century. But this is not now the most important question. Being obliged to abandon the grave, the question now arises. Has the commission made a selection that will reflect credit upon the State and upon the memory of Putnam ? I think it has not, for the following reasons, namely : The site selected is a part of the yard attached to the IVfortlake Hotel, which stands on the south side of the site, and between the site and the hotel is the driveway to the hotel barn, and the distance from the coping around the monument on that side to the hotel is some sixteen or seventeen feet, and the coping on the south side is about on the line dividing the State land from the hotel land ; so that the drive around the monument on that side must be ujxin land belonging to the hotel property. I understand that the donor of the site offers to guarantee right of way, but I am sure that the State ought not to depend u[)on a permit to get around its ten-thousand-dollar monument. The site is in dangerous ])roximity to the hotel, the Congregational church, and the post-office building, which stands close to the 17 west line of the State land. These buildings are all of wood, and the destruction of either of them by fire would inevitably damage, if not destroy, the monument. The donor of this site owned two others, one being the best in the village, and the other far superior in every respect to the one accepted. This second site mentioned was tendered to the commission, but afterward the offer was withdrawn. I believe that a large majority of unprejudiced citizens in Windham County condemn the site selected, and Ivarl Gerhardt, who has the contract for the statue, disapproves of the site after a careful examination. The State has made a liberal appropriation, and is entitled to the best site in the village, and ought not to be satisfied w^ith a very undesirable one. In view of the facts and reasons above stated, I am compelled to dissent from the report of the majority of the commission. Here my responsibility ends. Your Honorable Body will wisely deter- mine whether it is your duty to examine this matter before the monument is erected, and before you make an additional appropriation. All of which is respectfully submitted, H. M. CLEYELAND. LIBRARY OF CONroiror iilii •^ wil 699 158 5